“…Following an interpretive approach to research synthesis that incorporated elements of metaethnography (Noblit & Hare, 1988), we first searched for relevant papers using terms such as “two-way immersion,” “dual language,” “dual immersion,” and “bilingual immersion.” From this literature, which was not limited by any date range and informed by Valdés’s (1997) seminal cautionary note, we selected studies that revealed that students or communities from minoritized groups were experiencing marginalization or were not benefiting equally from programs as much as White English speakers/communities. While prior reviews on TWI education are widely cited and offer important insights (e.g., Howard, Sugarman, & Christian, 2003; Lindholm-Leary, 2005a; Parkes & Ruth, 2009), our selection of scholarship purposefully sought to identify empirical studies and conceptual papers that captured inequalities in TWI contexts that may go unrecognized when concentrating on conventional measures of success. This approach was necessary given that scholarly accounts of TWI’s benefits—rather than research that critically analyzes limitations—have been the cornerstone of TWI program proliferation.…”