English Learners in Texas: A District Leader’s Guide to Emergent Bilinguals

Last updated: September 16, 2026

Estimated reading time: 13 minutes

English Learners in Texas are officially called Emergent Bilinguals (EBs), and Texas runs one of the largest and most distinctive English learner systems in the country, built on its own standards (the ELPS) and its own assessment (TELPAS) rather than the WIDA system most states use. For district leaders, that means Texas-specific rules for identification, instruction, assessment, and funding. This guide is the program-level view for the people who run those systems: what makes Texas structurally different from a WIDA state, what the bilingual mandate commits a district to, how the state and federal funding streams fit together, and how to plan around the standards change arriving in 2026-2027. The mechanics of each component are covered on their own pages, linked throughout.

Executive Summary

Texas serves more than one million Emergent Bilingual students, roughly one in five of its public school enrollment, the largest EB population of any state. Texas is not a WIDA state: it uses the English Language Proficiency Standards (ELPS) and the Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS), overseen by the Texas Education Agency (TEA).

Three things define how English Learners in Texas are served. First, the terminology and framework are Texas-specific (Emergent Bilingual, ELPS, TELPAS). Second, Texas mandates bilingual education in many elementary settings, not just ESL. Third, a major change is coming: the State Board of Education adopted new ELPS in 2024, moving from four to five proficiency levels, with a phased rollout that treats instruction and assessment on different timelines. The dates and the new level names are in ELPS explained. Districts that plan for this shift now will be ahead.

Key Takeaways

• English Learners in Texas are officially called “Emergent Bilinguals” (EBs).
• Texas uses ELPS and TELPAS, not WIDA.
• More than one million EBs attend Texas schools, about one in five students.
• Bilingual education is required in many elementary settings (not only ESL).
• A five-level ELPS revision is rolling out, on separate instruction and assessment timelines.
• Speaking is the hardest domain to scale, the same structural gap as everywhere.

What This Guide Covers, and Where to Go Next

Texas runs its own English learner system end to end: its own terminology, its own standards, its own assessment, and its own program mandates. This page is the strategic layer, covering how the pieces fit together, what they cost, and how to manage the program. Each component has its own page with the operational detail.

Three Things That Make Texas Structurally Different

Most guidance written for English learner programs assumes a WIDA state. Texas breaks that assumption in three ways that change what a district actually has to do.

The terminology is legislated, not stylistic. Texas replaced “English Language Learner” with Emergent Bilingual in state law, and the term carries through the ELPS, TELPAS, LPAC procedures, and funding formulas. It is not a rebranding exercise: state reporting, program eligibility, and the Bilingual Education Allotment all key off it. The concept is covered in full in Emergent Bilingual students.

The standards and the assessment are Texas-built. The English Language Proficiency Standards and the Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System replace what WIDA supplies elsewhere, and they are not interchangeable. The proficiency scale is different, the descriptors are different, and a five-level revision is on its way. Anything a vendor or a consultant tells you about WIDA alignment has to be translated before it means anything here. See ELPS explained and TELPAS vs WIDA.

Bilingual education is mandated, not optional. Most states let districts choose a program model. Texas requires a bilingual program in elementary grades once enrollment thresholds are met, which turns staffing into a compliance question rather than a preference. That single rule shapes hiring, scheduling, and budget in a way no WIDA state has to contend with.

Funding for English Learners in Texas

Texas EB programs draw on both federal and state funding.

For the federal side, see Title III funding in Texas.

District Benchmark: What the Bilingual Mandate Actually Commits You To

Texas district planning runs on a rule no WIDA state has. Once a district enrolls 20 or more Emergent Bilinguals in the same grade level who share a language other than English, a bilingual education program becomes mandatory in elementary grades. Work through what that means at scale.

Take a 10,000-student district at the state EB rate, serving roughly 2,000 Emergent Bilinguals. Spread across thirteen grade levels that is about 154 per grade, and in most Texas districts the overwhelming majority share Spanish as a home language. The 20-student threshold is therefore not a threshold at all: it is cleared several times over at every single elementary grade. The district is legally committed to a bilingual program, staffed by bilingually certified teachers, in every elementary grade, every year, regardless of whether it can hire them.

That is why the bilingual education exception and the ESL waiver exist, and why so many districts file them. But an exception is time-limited and requires a documented plan to build capacity, so it converts a staffing shortage into a recurring compliance obligation rather than resolving it. The practical consequence for a superintendent is that EB program capacity in Texas is a hiring problem before it is an instructional one, and anything that extends the reach of the certified teachers a district does have is worth more here than in a state where the program model is discretionary.

Why the Gap Is Structurally Wider in a Dual Language Classroom

Texas meets the Speaking Time Gap like everyone else: the shortfall between the responsive spoken practice an Emergent Bilingual needs and what one teacher can supply across a full class. But the state’s program models add a second constraint that WIDA states do not have to reconcile, and it works in the opposite direction from the first.

The math, run against the program mandate. In the two Dual Language Immersion models, TEA rule requires that instruction in the partner language never falls below 50 percent of total instructional time. That is pedagogically sound and it is the point of a biliteracy program. It also means the English half of the day is, by design, half a day. Now apply the ordinary classroom constraint on top: within that English half, spoken production still happens one student at a time while reading and writing happen simultaneously for everyone. An Emergent Bilingual in a DLI program therefore has roughly half the English instructional time of a student in an ESL program, subject to the same division by class size within it.

The resolution is not to weaken the biliteracy commitment, which is one of the better things about the Texas system and is exactly what the Seal of Biliteracy rewards. It is to recognise that a DLI program needs more individual speaking capacity than a monolingual one, in both languages, because both are being built to academic proficiency at once. Districts running dual language at scale are the ones for whom practice that does not queue for a certified teacher’s attention is worth the most, and they need it in Spanish as much as in English.

Common Mistakes District Leaders Make

1. Applying WIDA assumptions. Texas uses ELPS and TELPAS, with different levels and rules.
2. Ignoring the ELPS revision. Not preparing for five levels and new descriptors.
3. Underusing the Bilingual Education Allotment. Leaving state EB funding on the table.
4. Reading only TELPAS composites. Missing the speaking domain that lags.
5. Treating EBs as a deficit. The “Emergent Bilingual” framing centers bilingualism as an asset.

Recommended Actions

Immediate (this month): Review your TELPAS data by domain and confirm your bilingual/ESL programs meet the enrollment thresholds.

Medium-term (this year): Plan for the ELPS transition and target the speaking domain with added individual practice.

Long-term (strategy): Use Title III and the Bilingual Education Allotment to fund scalable practice, and manage EB programs on growth and reclassification rates.

Questions District Leaders Should Ask

• What does our TELPAS data show by domain, especially speaking?
• Are we ready for the new five-level ELPS, and do we know which year TELPAS follows?
• Do our programs meet Texas bilingual/ESL requirements?
• Are we fully using the Bilingual Education Allotment and Title III?
• How much individual speaking practice does each EB get per day?

Bilingual and ESL Program Models in Detail

Texas approves six state program models under 19 TAC Chapter 89, Subchapter BB: four bilingual models and two English as a Second Language (ESL) models. Which model a district must offer depends on enrollment. When a district enrolls 20 or more Emergent Bilinguals in the same grade level who share a language other than English, it must provide a bilingual education program in prekindergarten through grade 5 (grade 6 when grouped with elementary). Below that threshold, and at secondary levels, the district provides an ESL program. See the full picture in our guide to Texas English Learner requirements.

The four bilingual models differ mainly in how long students stay in the program and how much of the partner language is used. In the two Dual Language Immersion (DLI) models, instruction in the partner language never falls below 50 percent of total instructional time, according to TEA rule. Districts choose based on their EB population, staffing, and biliteracy goals.

Districts that cannot staff a required bilingual program may file a bilingual education exception, and those that cannot staff a required ESL program may file an ESL waiver, both through TEA. These are time-limited and require a plan to build capacity, not a permanent exemption from serving Emergent Bilinguals. For dual-language programs specifically, TEA rules protect EB access: students may not be denied a one-way or two-way DLI placement based on their achievement in either the partner language or English.

How Reclassification Works in Texas

Reclassification, often called exiting, is the point at which a student is no longer served as an Emergent Bilingual. In Texas the decision is made by the campus Language Proficiency Assessment Committee (LPAC), not by a single test score. The LPAC reviews multiple state-set measures together, which typically include the student’s TELPAS composite rating (generally reaching Advanced High), performance on the reading portion of the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) or an approved alternate, and additional evidence such as teacher input on the student’s ability to access grade-level instruction in English.

After a student exits, Texas requires the LPAC to monitor academic progress for two years to confirm the student remains successful without language program support. If a monitored student struggles, the LPAC can re-enter the student into services. This two-year monitoring window is a common compliance gap for districts, and it is worth auditing alongside your exit data. For how districts track progress toward these criteria, see measuring language growth in Texas.

Planning Around the Standards Transition

A revised ELPS is arriving, and it changes both the number of proficiency levels and their labels. The new level names, the classroom effective date, the TELPAS transition years, and the school year in which TELPAS becomes fully aligned are all set out in ELPS explained. Do not plan from memory on this one: the classroom date and the assessment date are different years, and most district timelines get that wrong. What belongs at the program level is the budget and governance question the transition creates.

A scale change breaks year-over-year comparability, and that has consequences a curriculum team cannot solve on its own. Growth targets set under the current scale do not translate cleanly onto the revised one, so any multi-year improvement goal in a district improvement plan needs rewriting before the transition, not after. Reclassification workflows need the same treatment, because the LPAC criteria reference rating labels that are about to change meaning.

The funding piece is the part most districts overlook, and it is favourable. The Bilingual Education Allotment already requires that at least 10 percent be spent on professional development supporting EB instruction, which means the training this transition demands is fundable from money the district is obligated to spend on training anyway. Districts that map that requirement onto the ELPS transition get the professional development paid for without a new budget request.

The Bilingual Education Allotment and Title III Together

Texas Emergent Bilingual programs draw on two distinct funding streams, and district leaders get the most value by understanding what each is designed to do. State funding flows through the Bilingual Education Allotment (BEA) under Texas Education Code §48.105, a weighted per-student allotment that districts receive for each eligible EB served in an approved bilingual or ESL program. Federal funding flows through Title III, Part A, a formula grant administered by TEA to supplement, not supplant, EB and immigrant student services.

The BEA carries specific spending rules. TEA requires that at least 55 percent of BEA funds be spent on the direct costs of bilingual and special language programs, and at least 10 percent be used for professional development that supports EB instruction. These requirements make the BEA a natural source for the training that the ELPS transition will demand. Because Title III is supplemental, it should fund services beyond what state and local dollars already cover, rather than replacing them.

For the federal side in more depth, see Title III funding in Texas. Districts that map spending intentionally, using the BEA for core program and required training and reserving Title III for genuinely supplemental support, are the ones that avoid leaving state EB dollars unspent.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Texas use WIDA?

No. Texas uses its own English Language Proficiency Standards (ELPS) and the TELPAS assessment, overseen by the Texas Education Agency, rather than the WIDA system used by most states.

How many Emergent Bilinguals are in Texas?

More than one million, roughly one in five public school students, the largest Emergent Bilingual population of any state.

What bilingual program models does Texas offer?

Texas approves four bilingual models (Transitional Bilingual Early-Exit, Transitional Bilingual Late-Exit, Dual Language Immersion One-Way, and Dual Language Immersion Two-Way) and two ESL models (content-based and pull-out). A bilingual program is required in elementary grades when 20 or more Emergent Bilinguals in the same grade share a language other than English.

How do students exit EB services in Texas?

A campus Language Proficiency Assessment Committee (LPAC) reclassifies a student using multiple state criteria together, typically a TELPAS rating of Advanced High, a qualifying reading score on STAAR or an approved alternate, and additional evidence. After exit, the LPAC monitors the student’s progress for two years.

What is the Bilingual Education Allotment?

The Bilingual Education Allotment (BEA) is Texas state funding under Texas Education Code §48.105, provided as a weighted amount for each eligible Emergent Bilingual served in an approved program. TEA requires at least 55 percent of BEA funds to be spent on direct program costs and at least 10 percent on professional development.

Can districts use the BEA and Title III together?

Yes. The BEA is state funding for core bilingual and ESL programs and required professional development, while Title III is federal funding that must supplement, not supplant, existing services. Used together, they let districts fund core instruction with state dollars and add supplemental support with federal dollars.

Related Resources

• What Is TELPAS?
• ELPS Explained
• TELPAS vs WIDA
• Title III Funding in Texas
• Complete Guide to English Learners in U.S. Schools
• Complete Guide to WIDA

Conclusion

Texas serves more Emergent Bilinguals than any other state, through its own standards and assessment: the ELPS and TELPAS. District leaders who understand how English Learners in Texas are served, prepare for the move to five proficiency levels, use both federal and state EB funding, and act on the speaking gap TELPAS reveals are the ones whose Emergent Bilinguals reach proficiency and reclassify on time.

Sources: Texas Education Agency, TELPAS Proficiency Standards; TEA, English Learner / Emergent Bilingual Support; Texas Education Agency, txel.org.

Reaching Every Emergent Bilingual at Texas Scale

In many Texas districts, Emergent Bilinguals are not a small subgroup but roughly a fifth of enrollment, and TELPAS data across that population almost always shows the same pattern: speaking trailing listening, reading, and writing. Teachers in bilingual and ESL classrooms are already stretched across large numbers of students at very different proficiency levels.

The reason speaking lags is structural, not a matter of effort: it has to be produced one student at a time, while the other domains can be practiced by a whole class at once. With so many Emergent Bilinguals per teacher and a bilingual-education mandate to honor, no staffing plan leaves each student enough responsive practice in a day, and the move to five ELPS levels only sharpens the need to differentiate.

This is why a growing number of Texas districts are looking to extend their teachers’ reach with tools that add individual practice aligned to the ELPS, and, because bilingual programs are central here, practice that supports students in Spanish as well as English. Telo AI is one example of that approach.

See how Texas districts give every Emergent Bilingual individual practice aligned to the ELPS: https://mytelo.ai/how-telo-works/

Directed at the domain TELPAS keeps flagging, that practice is what lets a very large EB population keep moving toward Advanced High. In a state that serves more Emergent Bilinguals than any other, the districts that reclassify students on time are the ones that find a way to reach each learner individually, at scale.