Programs and Structures in Bilingual and Multilingual Education by Nelson Flores and Hugo Baetens Beardsmore Bilingual education programs serve many functions in the societies where they exist. Perhaps the simplest way of differentiating their nature is to examine the basic function that they serve for language majority students versus the basic function that they serve for language minoritized populations. For language majority populations they are most often seen as a vehicle for increasing their privileged position in society through the development of marketable skills (de Mejía, 2002). At the same time, they may also help stimulate greater openness and tolerance for other cultures, greater opportunities for creative thinking and increase mutual understanding (Beacco, 2007). For language minoritized populations they are often the outcome of political struggles for autonomy and self-determination and serve as a tool of community empowerment. However, they can also be used by schools to segregate language minoritized students and exclude them from the mainstream curriculum (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). Therefore, bilingual education programs can be tools for reinforcing privilege, tools for emancipatory efforts, or tools for celebrating and appreciating cultural diversity. Often, they serve all of these functions simultaneously. A frequently overlooked aspect of how these programs both reinforce and challenge relations of power is through how they are structured. These program structures include the student population that is being served, the allocation of the languages in instruction, the ways that students are grouped, and the ways that cultural knowledge is addressed in the classroom. These program-level decisions are both informed by and inform larger societal understandings of language and language learning. In this chapter, we seek to situate these programmatic decisions within the socio-historical context that have made them possible. The purpose of this is to expose the power relations and possibilities for social change embedded within current bilingual education program models, with the hope of theorizing program models that resist rather than reinforce social inequality. This chapter will begin by examining traditional ways of organizing bilingual education programs informed by monoglossic understandings of bilingualism. It will then provide examples of bilingual education programs that are informed by this traditional understanding of bilingualism and demonstrate both the counter-hegemonic possibilities of these programs as well as examine the ways that these programmatic structures may inadvertently marginalize the language practices of language minoritized students. The second half of this chapter will examine recent shifts in the field, informed by heteroglossic understandings of bilingualism that have begun to push scholars and policy makers to rethink the way that bilingual education programs are structured. It will then provide examples of programs and practices informed by this heteroglossic perspective and examine the potential of these programs to create societal change. We will argue that in order to challenge social inequalities a heteroglossic perspective must explicitly engage with the epistemological dimensions of language and culture and consciously work to incorporate the perspectives of language minoritized populations into the curriculum. Only by doing this, will heteroglossic language ideologies live up to their potential in developing empowering bilingual education programs for all students. Monoglossic Language Ideologies Many bilingual education programs are informed by monoglossic language ideologies (García, 2009). Monoglossic language ideologies begin with the assumption that monolingualism is the norm. This assumption leads to two different schools of thought. Subtractive bilingual education, which makes an explicit case in support of monolingualism, advocates a temporary use of students’ home languages with the ultimate goal of creating monolingual speakers of the dominant language of society. Additive bilingual education, though explicitly rejecting monolingualism, advocates the creation of balanced bilinguals—bilinguals who develop equal competencies in both languages of instruction. Though programs that fit this model may not actually be successful in creating these idealized balanced bilinguals (Lyster, 2007), this remains the stated goal of most of these programs. Therefore, though this perspective ostensibly advocates bilingualism it nevertheless tends to assume monolingualism as the norm and is based on an ideal conceptualization of bilingualism as “double monolingualism” (García, 2009). Monoglossic language ideologies are often taken for granted as simply the way that language works. In actuality, these ideologies emerged within a specific socio-historical context alongside the rise of nation-states in Europe. Specifically, the origin of monoglossic language ideologies lies with the invention of the printing press. Anderson (1991) argues that the printing press allowed for a movement away from religious communities and their use of Latin toward ethnic communities and their use of vernacular languages. Framing it in terms of the capitalist economic system that was also beginning to emerge at this time, Anderson (1991) argues: “the logic of capitalism thus meant that once the elite Latin market was saturated, the potentially huge markets represented by the monoglot masses would beckon” (p. 38). In short, the Latin elite were a very small market for printing companies and new markets had to be discovered for the printing press to be profitable. The solution was to produce markets through the codifications of vernaculars that would then be used to mold linguistic heterogeneous speakers of various language varieties into a homogenous linguistic group. The creation of homogenous linguistic communities would eventually lead political elites to favor their vernacular to Latin. The process of standardization that resulted from the invention of the printing press happened over several centuries and occurred alongside other social changes including religious, political, and social revolutions. By the 19th century, national leaders began to systematically codify standardized languages to represent their “imagined communities” of ethnic homogeneity (Anderson, 1991). Gal (2006) describes the process that political elites utilized in the codification of a national language. As she describes it, European nationalist grammarians began to see heterogeneity in language practices as an impediment toward the creation of nationalist subjects and the move toward purified nation-states. It was, therefore, necessary to create a codified standardized language to cleanse the language of perceived impurities. Once nationalist grammarians codified standardized varieties they were named “a language” that represented “a people,” with rights to “a land,” with other varieties now deemed improper dialects or completely erased. This was certainly not the first time in European history that certain ways of speaking were privileged over others. However, these nationalist language ideologies differed from previous European language ideologies in that they positioned monolingualism in the standardized variety as the expectation for full citizenship and connected this monolingualism to a homogenous ethnic identity. This monolingual language ideology and monolingual ethnic identity was certainly a shift from previous language ideologies. This monolingual language ideology was also an integral component of European interaction with its colonies. For example, Mühlhäusler (1996) looks at the imposition of a modernist conception of homogeneous and enumerable languages on the Pacific Rim as part of a larger process of colonization. Colonial grammarians, many of whom were missionaries whose main goal was to convert colonial subjects to Christianity and spread the Gospel, sought to codify and name the languages of the Pacific Rim, thus ignoring the fluid language practices that made communication possible in this linguistically heterogeneous setting. To Mühlhäusler, the categorization of language practices into enumerable and autonomous “languages” was a form of epistemic violence that did not represent the actual language practices of people. In short, monoglossic language ideologies are not natural but have instead been produced within a specific socio-historical context of nationalist and capitalist expansion. Pointing out this fact is not meant to discredit all programs that have been informed by monoglossic language ideologies. On the contrary, many of the program models that will be described below have served important functions in many different contexts. The intended purpose of this history is simply to contextualize the emergence of the different program models that will be discussed below as well as offer a caution to readers about the power dynamics that have informed the structure of the various program models. Monoglossic Language Ideologies in Action As mentioned above the two overarching schools of thought that emerge from monoglossic language ideologies are subtractive bilingual education and additive bilingual education. Each of these different schools of thought will be examined below. Subtractive Bilingual Education Subtractive bilingual education is a form of bilingual education that targeted language minoritized populations living in societies where their home languages are either completely excluded from or minimally included in public spaces. The goal for these programs is to develop student proficiency in the dominant language of society, with little or no interest in the development of the home language. The most extreme form of subtractive education is not bilingual at all. Known as submersion, this type of education is not a program model per se but simply entails a complete prohibition of the use of the home language in school. Unfortunately, this is the educational approach that describes the experiences of the majority of language minoritized students across the world (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). Yet, there are subtractive bilingual education programs that use the home language for limited purposes in the early years. These programs fall under the broad umbrella of transitional bilingual education. Transitional bilingual education programs come in a variety of forms depending on the context and resources available. Some programs have no clear structure and may simply leave it to the teacher’s discretion if and how they will use the minoritized language as a bridge to the majority language (García, 2009). Other programs may have a percentage of time that they use the minoritized language for instruction that gradually declines as students progress in their schooling. This is the case in Mexico where indigenous languages are used for 80% of instruction in the early grades and gradually replaced with Spanish (García and Velasco, 2012). And yet, other programs may use the minoritized language exclusively for a few years before an abrupt shift to the majority language. For example, in Niger, students are taught in the first three grades in one of the five national languages. French becomes the language of instruction in third grade with the national language continuing as a subject of study but no longer used to teach content (Hovens, 2002). Though the structures may differ the underlying goal of all of these programs is the same: the minoritized language is simply a tool for the development of the dominant language. That is, the assumption is that in order for language minoritized students to become full members of society they must give up their home language and replace it with the dominant language of society. This is not meant to be a dismissal of such programs and the important work that many of them are doing to improve the education of language minoritized students. In fact, Hovens (2002) demonstrates that students in Niger who participated in the transitional bilingual education programs outperformed students who were taught in French from the beginning of schooling. In addition, García and Velasco (2012) note the symbolic importance that the utilization of indigenous languages had for the Mayan indigenous communities of Mexico. In short, acknowledging the limited goals of these programs in terms of home language development do not negate the many ways that these programs have improved and continue to improve the education of language minoritized students worldwide. That being said, it is important not to mistake the goals of these programs as anything other than the transition of students from their home language to the dominant language. Additive Bilingual Education The second school of thought that has emerged from monoglossic language ideologies is additive bilingual education. Unlike subtractive bilingual education programs, which are focused exclusively on serving language minoritized populations, additive bilingual education programs can serve language majority students, language minoritized students, or both student populations simultaneously. In addition, in contrast to subtractive bilingual education programs, additive bilingual education seeks to promote the development of both languages of instruction with the ultimate stated goal being the development of balanced bilinguals with equal competency in both languages. The primary additive bilingual education program model that serves language majority students is immersion. Immersion, also referred to as elite bilingual education, is a stark contrast to submersion in that it seeks to teach language majority students either a minority language of their society or a language not spoken in their society. In addition, unlike submersion, these programs are designed with the specific linguistic needs of second language learners in mind. There are three different models for immersion programs. The early immersion model immerses students in the new language from the beginning of their school career, the mid immersion model begins immersion in 4th or 5th grade, and the late immersion model begins immersion in the 6th or 7th grade. Immersion can be full, with the new language used for 100% of instruction for at least a year, or partial, with the new language used for 50% or less of instruction (Johnson and Swain, 1997) This model has been most popular among the Canadian Anglophone population interested in having their children learn French, though other language majority populations across the globe have also sought similar immersion programs for their children (de Mejía, 2002). Based on the success of additive bilingualism for language majority students, advocates for language minoritized students have argued for similar programs for marginalized populations. These programs go by various names though most recently they have fallen under the umbrella term dual language programs. As with transitional bilingual education programs, these programs vary in their structure and implementation as well as the student populations that they serve. However, unlike transitional bilingual education programs, the stated goal of these programs is to develop competency in both languages with the ultimate goal being for students to be balanced bilinguals. Though sharing the same underlying stated goal of balanced bilingualism, dual language programs differ as to the student population that they serve as well as how they allocate the two languages for instruction. In terms of the student population served there are two different types of programs. One-way programs (also known as maintenance or developmental bilingual education programs) exclusively serve language minoritized students from one ethnolinguistic community. The goal of these programs is for students to maintain their home language and master the dominant language. Two-way programs serve language minoritized students from one ethnolinguistic community as well as language majority students with little or no background in the minoritized language. The goal of these programs is for both groups of students to become balanced bilinguals and develop cultural knowledge of the other culture. Some programs work to maintain a 50/50 balance between language majority and language minoritized students while others may not have a balanced population. According to Collier and Thomas (2004) a program can only be considered two-way if at least 30% of the students come from a language majority background. In terms of language allocation two major models for dual language programs are the 90/10 model and the 50/50 model. In the 90/10 model the minoritized language is used for 90% of initial instruction with the use of the majority language gradually increased until both languages are used equally. Typically, all students are taught initial literacy skills in the minoritized language and do not start to read in the majority language until third grade. By fourth and fifth grade both languages are used equally and continue to be used equally throughout elementary school. In contrast, the 50/50 model uses both languages equally from kindergarten with initial literacy typically either taught through each student’s home language or through both languages simultaneously (Gomez, Freeman, and Freeman, 2005). In both models the languages are strictly separated though how this separation is allocated may vary. Some ways that both 90/10 and 50/50 dual language programs separate the languages is by using each language at different points in the day or by assigning languages to specific content areas. For example, in a 50/50 program implemented in Texas the languages were divided by content-area with language arts taught separately in English and Spanish, social studies and science in Spanish and math in English (Gomez, Freeman, and Freeman, 2005). In addition, 50/50 models as well as 90/10 models at the upper grades also may use alternate days or alternate weeks for each language as well as different teachers for each language. For example, in a 50/50 model in Macedonia that serves ethnic Macedonians and ethnic Albanians each classroom has four teachers—two who use Macedonian with the students and two who use Albanian with the students (Tankersley, 2001). Though there are different ways that dual language programs accomplish this goal, what unites these dual language programs is the fact that the language allocation policies of these programs languages are strictly separated. The rationale for this is that only by separating the languages can dual language programs aspire to develop balanced bilingualism among their student population (Collier and Thomas, 2004). The question remains as to how the monoglossic language ideologies that they are informed by may continue to marginalize the language practices of bilingual populations who don’t fit neatly into monolingual norms. One way that this marginalization may occur is through the conceptualization of language and culture that informs their structure. In the case of one-way dual language programs, the focus on maintenance of the home language may result in the marginalization of the fluid language practices of language minoritized students growing up in the context of bilingualism. For example, Otheguy and Stern (2009) point out that the Spanish language practices of US Latinos are qualitatively different from the language practices of monolingual Spanish speakers in Latin America. Therefore, a nationalist desire for maintaining the language practices of the “old country” may unintentionally position language practices of US Latinos as deficient and reproduce rather than challenge their marginalization in US schools. These same monoglossic conceptualizations of language and culture are also reproduced in two-way dual language programs. This is most stark in the simplified division of students into native speakers of the majority language and native speakers of the minoritized language. This simplified dichotomy may serve to unintentionally erase the bilingualism of language minoritized students and position them as “non-native” perpetual outsiders to the dominant language (Fitts, 2009). Like with the focus on maintenance in one-way dual language programs, this dichotomous way of sorting students in these programs may be complicit in perpetuating monoglossic language ideologies that erase the fluid ethnolinguistic identities of language minoritized students who are growing up in a context of bilingualism. Their lived experience is a stark contrast to the strict separation of languages that their language majority counterparts may experience as well as with the strict separation of languages that lie at the core of dual language programmatic structures. In addition to a possible erasure of the bilingualism of language minoritized students, dual language programs must also confront other societal hierarchies. Specifically, one-way dual language programs face the added challenge of advocating for a disenfranchised student population. Because these students and their communities have little political power, these programs often lack the necessary resources to support students’ bilingual development and are constantly threatened by nationalist discourses that see these programs as threats to the imposed monolingualism of the nation-state (García, 2009). Two-way dual language programs are often positioned as the solution to the challenges faced by one-way dual language programs since they also serve language majority students. For example, after the state of California outlawed bilingual education for language minoritized students, many bilingual education advocates found a loophole through the development of two-way dual language programs that serve both language majority and language minority populations (Linton, 2007). Yet two-way dual language programs cannot be accepted uncritically as the solution to improving educational outcomes for language minoritized populations. Valdes (1997) argues that in a society with hierarchies between language majority and language minoritized communities, two-way dual language programs will likely benefit the language majority community more than the language minoritized community. She specifically notes two ways that these programs may benefit language majority students more. One way is through the simplification of the language minoritized language in classroom instruction in order to make it accessible to language majority students whose parents may have more of an influence on the curriculum of the school. A second way is through providing language majority students with linguistic tools that they can then use to seek jobs that were once reserved for bilingual language minoritized people. In short, though the presence of language majority students may provide political cover for these programs, if done uncritically they may serve to reinforce rather than undermine the marginalization of language minoritized populations. In summary, additive bilingual education programs currently serve a contradictory role in many societies. These programs challenge imposed monolingualism through advocacy of bilingual development for students in these programs. Yet, at the same time their conceptualization of bilingualism as “double monolingualism” erases the fluid language practices of language minoritized students who are growing up in a context of bilingualism. These students do not compartmentalize their language practices into neat and discrete languages (García, 2009). They also do not have identical language practices to monolingual populations from their home countries or their current countries (Otheguy and Stern, 2009). In short, their language practices do not fit neatly into the ideals currently espoused by dual language programs. This lack of fit, along with larger societal hierarchies, has the potential to turn dual language programs into tools of continued marginalization. As was the case with our comments related to transitional bilingual education above, this critique is not intended to undermine the important role that both one-way and two-way dual language programs have played and continue to play in many societies. In the US context these programs have been shown to be the most successful in terms of academic achievement for language minoritized students (Collier and Thomas, 2004). These programs have also been used in many contexts to alleviate tensions between different ethnic groups (Bekerman, 2005). Yet, this critique may be used to inform ways of reconceptualizing these programs in ways that challenge, rather than reinforce, monoglossic language ideologies. It is to this reconceptualization of bilingual education that we now turn. Heteroglossic Language Ideologies A critique of monoglossic language ideologies has recently emerged in bilingual education scholarship. García (2009) is demonstrative of this shift away from monoglossic language ideologies. As illustrated above, monoglossic language ideologies continue to treat bilingualism as the mastery over two separate and distinct languages and treat bilingualism as “double monolingualism.” To replace this type of thinking, García argues for adopting a heteroglossic perspective, with languages not seen as separable and countable, or associated with nation states. Instead, a heteroglossic perspective makes bilingualism the norm and acknowledges multilingual speakers’ fluid language practices in their full complexity. García refers to the dynamic meaning-making discursive processes of bilingual and multilingual populations as translanguaging. In bilingual education, translanguaging offers an important alternative to current monoglossic language ideologies, monolingual practices, and traditional pedagogies. Yet, the emergence of heteroglossic language ideologies is not occurring in isolation. Just as monoglossic language ideologies emerged alongside the printing press (see above), capitalism, and the European bourgeois rise to power alongside the rise of nation-states, heteroglossic language ideologies have emerged alongside changes to our society associated with globalization. Mignolo (2000) argues that one aspect of globalization that is of great concern is the commodification of difference. In other words, the more differences there are, the better the profits for transnational corporations. This is in stark contrast to nationalist language ideologies in that fluidity is no longer seen as a threat to society, but is instead a desirable attribute in a consumer and citizen. In short, heteroglossic language ideologies emerging as a critique of monoglossic language ideologies are occurring alongside a larger epistemological shift away from nation-states toward globalization. This indicates that just as monoglossic language ideologies developed within a particular socio-historical context embedded in specific relations of power, heteroglossic language ideologies are emerging within new relations of power. This is not meant to be a dismissal of heteroglossic language ideologies but is rather meant to be a note of caution for its their uncritical acceptance. This note of caution will be used as a lens for analyzing the emergence of heteroglossic language ideologies below in the hopes of theorizing heteroglossic language ideologies in ways that empower rather than marginalize language minoritized communities. Heteroglossic Language Ideologies in Action Formal heteroglossic bilingual education programs have primarily emerged in the European Union. Specifically, in contrast to balanced bilingualism, the concept of plurilingualism has emerged as the ideal for all citizens of the European Union. Beacco (2007) defines plurilingual competence as follows: Plurilingual and pluricultural competence is the ability to use languages for the purposes of communication and to take part in intercultural action, where a person, viewed as a social agent, has proficiency, of varying degrees, in several languages and experience of several cultures. It is not seen as a juxtaposition of distinct competences, but as a single competence, even though it is complex. (p. 10) Therefore, in opposition to monoglossic language ideologies that treat bilingualism as double monolingualism, plurilingualism utilizes heteroglossic language ideologies to conceptualize bilingualism and multilingualism as a single complex competence in contrast to mastery over distinct languages. Within this context of support for plurilingualism, The European Commission, the executive branch of the European Union, regularly produces language policy guidelines and studies that underline the significance of multilingual skills in the economy, promotes the learning of “the mother tongue + 2 other languages” for all citizens, and ensures that citizens have access to European Union legislation and information in their own (officially recognized) language. Unlike with additive bilingualism, the stated goal of “the mother tongue + 2 other languages” is not for students to develop equal competencies in all 3 languages. Instead, the goal is for students to develop plurilingual competence that they can continue to develop throughout their lives as the need arises (Beacco, 2007). The promotion of “mother tongue + 2 other languages” in education encourages member states to use a variety of permutations in programs, depending on regional needs and desires. In Spain, for example, the Autonomous regional governments may implement programs where the regional language, e.g. Catalan, Basque, Andalucian, etc., may be used as medium of instruction, together with varied doses of Castilian, and often English as third target language. In the Val d’Aoste region of Italy the combination will be Italian, French and English, while in Ireland it could be Irish, English and another language like Italian, French or Japanese. In the case of Luxembourg the national language, Luxemburgish, is only used for content matter until the 3rd grade but continues as a subject of study. This is based on a conscious decision to promote “trilingualism for all” and because the national language is not sufficiently codified for engaging in advanced academic literacy practices. In fact, Luxembourgers claim that “plurilingualism is the mother tongue” (Tozzi and Étienne, 2008). Though each nation has their its differences, in most European countries the choice tends to be to prioritize the national language, provide English instruction as an L2 and encourage the take-up of a third language. One element of language promotion undertaken by European Union member states is the encouragement of Content and Language Integrated Learning, CLIL, a form of bilingual education often conducted within mainstream education systems under different formats. There are important differences between CLIL and immersion programs. One major difference is that in CLIL programs teachers often work in pairs, and the subject specialist (e.g. science, geography) coordinates with the language specialist in building up both the linguistic and the cognitive skills for the subject in hand. In addition, CLIL is primarily content-driven, not language-driven. This is not to say that language is not taught. However, in CLIL programs language is taught within the context of social interaction between learners and teachers that operate on three dimensions: language of learning, language for learning, and language through learning (Coyle, Hood and Marsh, 2010). Teachers working in CLIL programs must analyze the “language of learning” since they must be explicitly aware of the linguistic demands of the subject being taught through an L2. They must then concentrate on the “language for learning” by developing a repertoire of speech acts which relate to the content matter subject. This involves developing skills required for co-operative group work, pair work, asking questions, which relate to the content. The third element in CLIL concerns “language through learning”, where interaction and dialogic activity around the assimilation of content matter lead to a deeper level of learning that is not possible in traditional language lessons (Coyle, Hood and Marsh, 2010, 37). Coyle (2007) refers to 216 different types of CLIL programs within Europe based on such variables as compulsory status, intensity, age of onset, starting linguistic level, or duration. Mehisto and Asser (2007) illustrate programs in Estonia designed for Russian minority speakers who are learning the majority Estonian language from the perspective of stakeholders, e.g. parents, teachers, directors, students and where the CLIL program for Russian speakers reveals high levels of satisfaction, commitment and engagement, resulting in plurilingual competence. In Germany there are CLIL programs where the target language may be English, French, Dutch, Russian, Italian, among others, and where certain studies (Wode 1999) show how the bilingual outcomes on history or geography are as good as, if not better, than comparable monolingual groups. In the Basque Autonomous Region of Spain, where different trilingual programs are the norm, many studies reflect very good outcomes on general language competence in the three languages involved, though with differences depending on the amount of contact with each language. Overall results in the Basque Country show positive results on vehicular language learning at no cost to subject discipline mastery, and favorable attitudes towards trilingualism (Ruiz de Zarobe, 2008). In short, CLIL has been demonstrated to both develop plurilingual competence among students while also providing them content knowledge. Because CLIL is informed by heteroglossic language ideologies, CLIL programs do not subscribe to the strict separation of language that has informed the monoglossic perspective of dual language programs. Serra (2004) gives an example of a history lesson in the Val d’Aosta region of Italy where Italian and French both come into play in a highly structured fashion, and where translanguaging is prevalent. In one unit of study, 11 year olds find historical sources for the topic of “witches” in the castles of the region, with the Italian history teacher works in collaboration with the French language teacher to support students content knowledge and language development. Other lessons in the same region of Italy encourage learners to produce written reports which reflect the three languages used as source materials for a given task, Italian, French and English, and where different interconnected passages may be presented in written form as a single trilingual text. In short, these programs break out of the strict separation of languages of dual language programs and seek to create spaces where students can demonstrate their understanding through the use of their entire linguistic repertoire. In summary, there is sufficient research based evidence in many languages, with many potential combinations, that CLIL-type programs, with their great variety and flexibility, their adaptability to different contextually determined groups, and their general learning advantages, can be adapted to suit a wide variety of populations. Not only do these programs improve academic achievement for students participating in them but they also challenge monoglossic language ideologies that have been complicit in the marginalization of the fluid language practices of bilingual communities. In this way, they offer insight into how to structure bilingual education programs in ways that build on, rather than erase, the language practices students bring with them to school. Yet, while CLIL and other heteroglossic programs emerging in Europe have done a great deal to challenge monoglossic language ideologies they also reproduce societal hierarchies. One area where heteroglossic programs have not been adequately developed is the case of immigrant minority home languages, or the languages of highly mobile groups such as the Rom. Hélot (2005) talks of the “ignored bilingualism” of such groups in general education systems in France, but her comments are equally valid for most parts of Europe. Many countries propagate some form of bilingual education in prestigious languages but fail to show much interest in promoting bilingual recognition of immigrant languages in education. In other words, these programs break out of monoglossic language ideologies for speakers of prestigious European languages (whether they be the language of the dominant society or a language of another European nation-state) but they continue to ignore and in many ways erase the language practices of immigrants and other marginalized populations living in the European Union. The ignoring of immigrant and minority languages points to larger societal inequalities that also need to be addressed in order for heteroglossic language ideologies to be used in ways that challenge the marginalization of language minoritized population. As was the case with two-way dual language programs described above, these programs are likely to benefit language majority students and speakers of prestigious languages than they will benefit language minoritized students and speakers of less prestigious languages. A failure to examine these society inequalities poses the risk that CLIL and other heteroglossic programs reinforce rather than challenge current relations of power. That is, CLIL and similar programs could become complicit in the production of a new elite class of plurilinguals who have mastered multiple linguistic codes and participate in fluid linguistic practices solely at the service of corporate global expansion. In short, these programs could become tools to reinforce rather than counteract the continued marginalization of language minoritized populations who do not speak prestigious languages while reifying the privileges of Europeans who speak prestigious languages. In the next section, we examine ways that heteroglossic language ideologies could be used in ways that inform bilingual education programming for marginalized populations that do not speak prestigious languages. We will argue that incorporating their languages into instruction is only the first step in developing bilingual education programs informed by heteroglossic language ideologies that are empowering to these students. In addition to this, these programs must engage with epistemological concerns that incorporate subaltern perspectives in ways that challenge dominant ways of understanding the world. Heteroglossia for Marginalized Populations An important first step in theorizing heteroglossic language ideologies in ways that resist the marginalization of language minoritized populations is to acknowledge that the phenomenon that is currently being described as heteroglossia is not a new phenomenon that European society is currently developing. On the contrary, fluid language practices have existed throughout the world and continue to exist today (Mühlhäusler, 1996). Acknowledging this history can allow advocates of heteroglossic language ideologies to begin bring language minoritized perspectives into the discourse. Postcolonial scholars have begun to bring language minoritized perspectives into formulations of heteroglossia. Anzaldúa (1987) offers an example of the epistemological issues that it raises. In this book, Anzaldúa, a Chicana lesbian feminist, theorizes her life and the life of others in the borderlands through the concept of mestizaje. While mestizaje literally refers to Latin Americans who are of mixed European, Indian, and African blood, Anzaldúa uses the term more broadly in an attempt at challenging monoglossic Euro-American understandings of the world. Anzaldúa’s argument parallels heteroglossic language ideologies by critiquing idealized monolingualism, which she argues are designed to marginalize borderland populations. Yet, Anzaldúa explicitly brings in indigenous knowledge and non-dominant perspectives to her understanding of the borderlands. That is, the fluidity of the borderlands is positioned within epistemological concerns that challenge the universalizing discourse of Euro-American colonial and neo-colonial projects. Lu (1992) builds on Anzaldúa work to argue that epistemological concerns must be addressed head-on in classrooms that serve language minoritized populations. Specifically, she argues that conflict and struggle between the competing discourses that language minoritized students must engage with on a daily basis must be placed at the center of any pedagogy. She adds that this conflict and struggle should be part of a process of developing in students a mestiza consciousness that allows them to blend different discourses in their writing and reposition themselves in relation to these conflicting discourses. Lu and other scholars have built on this idea through the development of a translingual approach which: Argues for (1) honoring the power of all language users to shape language to specific ends; (2) recognizing the linguistic heterogeneity of all users of language both within the United States and globally; and (3) directly confronting English monolingualist expectations by researching and teaching how writers can work with and against, not simply within, those expectations (Horner, Lu, Royster, and Trimbur, 2011, p. 305). Developing translingualism in students differs from the balanced bilingualism of dual language programs in that it challenges monoglossic ideas of discrete languages that students must master separately. Yet, at the same time it challenges the plurilingualism of CLIL in that it also seeks to bring in epistemological concerns related to conflicting discourses that students must confront in their daily lives. This framework offers an alternative to plurilingualism that directly confronts issues of inequality and attempts to bring subaltern perspectives into the conversation. Unfortunately, a translingual approach has not been systematically attempted and it remains unclear what kind of program structures would be needed to facilitate such an approach. Yet, there are elements of this approach in the educational practices of many educators who work with language minoritized populations. For example Fitts (2009) describes a fifth grade dual language teacher who engages students in a discussion of “code-switching” which allowed students to reflect on the ways that they use their entire linguistic repertoire and for what purposes. She noted that this activity was especially engaging for the minoritized Spanish speaking students whose bilingual skills were acknowledged as an asset and affirmed. Similarly, Cummins et al (2005) describe how some teachers of language minoritized students use of “dual language identity texts” which allowed students to use their entire linguistic repertoires to describe issues related to their identity and their sense of self. These activities that affirm the bilingualism of language minoritized students is an important step in developing a translingual approach. Yet affirmation of students’ bilingualism is only the first step toward the development of a translingual approach to bilingual education. Some educators have gone further in breaking down the binaries produced by monoglossic language ideologies while bringing issues of power into the classroom. Flores and García (in press) describe how one bilingual teacher in New York City created linguistic third spaces that allowed for heteroglossic language practices to occur through a weekly ritual that she referred to as Hip-Hop Monday. Each lesson centered on a social justice theme relevant to students’ lives and followed the same format. Students would listen to a song related to the theme in Spanish and juxtapose it with a song related to the theme in English. The authors argued that constant going back and forth that this format developed between seemingly static languages and ethnolinguistic identities allowed for the emergence of ethnolinguistic identities that transcend national borders and challenge homogeneous language constructs. Some bilingual educators have also sought to tackle epistemological concerns head-on. Harrison and Papa (2005) describe a Maori immersion program that seeks to develop the Maori language among the next generation of Maori children through a combination of traditional Maori and Western cultural knowledge. The intended goal of these conflicting discourses was to provide students with the necessary knowledge needed for self-determination while also providing them access to tools that would allow them to exert this self-determination in their interactions with the larger New Zealand and global society. It is this type of epistemological engagement that offers the possibility of empowering language minoritized populations. In summary a translingual approach to bilingual education must provide spaces for students to (1) use their entire linguistic repertoire, (2) engage in experiences that allow them to shuttle back and forth between various aspects of their linguistic repertoire, and (3) have opportunities to engage with conflicting epistemological tensions that emerge between the various discourse communities that they engage with throughout their education. As can be seen these principles do not fit neatly within the language allocation percentages of transitional bilingual education or dual language education programs or the a-historical conceptualization of language and language use utilized by CLIL. And yet, as we saw with the teachers described above, utilizing these principles or aspects of these principles is not mutually exclusive with working within larger programmatic structures that may not explicitly support them. In short, it is possible to adhere to these principals while also working within either monoglossic program structures or a-historical heteroglossic program structures. Conclusion This chapter has attempted to examine the contradictory role that bilingual education program play in societies where they exist. These programs often serve to both reinforce and challenge existing societal hierarchies. One way that this contradiction is manifested is through how these programs are structured. Monoglossic language ideologies, developed as part of the rise of nation-states in Europe, create structures and goals that normalize monolingualism and erase the bilingual language practices of language minoritized students. Yet, at the same time these programs have increased the academic achievement of these students and allowed many of them access to the larger society. Similarly, heteroglossic language ideologies, developed as part of the spread of globalization, take an a-historical view of heteroglossia that threatens to reinforce social inequality. However, programs informed by such an approach have also improved academic outcomes for students and have served as a bridge between different ethnolinguistic communities. Of course pointing out these contradictions is not intended to in any way argue for an abandonment of bilingual education programs. On the contrary, as has been demonstrated all of the different program models have and continued to have counter-hegemonic effects in the societies in which they are situated. Yet, at the same time these contradictions push us to offer a more nuanced analysis of bilingual education programs and the role that they may or may not be able to play in improving the lives of language minoritized students. There are no easy answers to the issues we raised. That being said, we must continue to ask these questions in the hopes of continuing the endless process of reworking bilingual education programs so that they affirm and empower all of the students that they serve. References Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. New York: Verso. Anzaldúa, Gloria. 1987. Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San Francisco: Ann Lute Books. Beacco, Jean-Claude. 2007. From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education: Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Collier, Virginia and Wayne Thomas. 2004. The Astounding Effectiveness of Dual Language Education for All. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2: 1-20. Coyle, Do, Philip Hood, and David Marsh. 2010. CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Cummins, Jim, Vicki Bismilla, Patricia Chow, Sarah Cohen, Frances Giampapa, Lisa Leoni, Perminder Sandhu, and Padma Sastri. 2005. Affirming Identity in Multilingual Classrooms. The Whole Child, 63: 38-43. de Mejía, Anne-Marie. (2002). Power, Prestige, and Bilingualism: International Perspectives on Elite Bilingual Education. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters. Fitts, Shanan. (2009). Reconstructing the Status Quo: Linguistic Interaction in a Dual Language School. Bilingual Research Journal, 30: 337-365. Flores, Nelson and Ofelia García. in press. Linguistic third spaces: Translanguaging across the continuum of bilingualism. In Managing Diversity in Education: Key Issues and Some Responses, edited by Piet Van Avermaet, David Little, and Constance Leung. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Gal, Susan. 2006. Contradictions of Standard Language in Europe: Implications for the Study of Practices and Publics. Social Anthropology, 14: 163-81. García, Ofelia. 2009. Bilingual Education in the 21st century: A Global Perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. García, Ofelia and Patricia Velasco. 2012. Insufficient Language Education Policy: Intercultural Bilingual Education in Chiapas. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 6: 1-18. Gomez, Leo, David, Freeman, and Yvonne Freeman. 2005. Dual Language Education: A Promising 50-50 Model. Bilingual Research Journal, 29: 145-164. Harrison, Barbara and Rahui Papa. 2005. The Development of an Indigenous Knowledge Program in a New Zealand Maori-Language Immersion School. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 36: 57-72. Hélot, Christine. 2005. Bridging the Gap between Prestigious Bilingualism and the Bilingualism of Minorities: Towards an Integrated Perspective of Multilingualism in the French Education Context. In Multilingualism in Educational Settings. Edited by Muiris Ó Laoire M., 15-32. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag. Horner, Bruce, Min-Zhan Lu, Jacqueline Royster, and John Trimbur. 2011. Language Difference in Writing: Toward a Translingual Approach. College English, 73: 303-321. Hovens, Mart. 2002. Bilingual Education in West Africa: Does It Work? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 5: 249-266. Johnson, Robert and Merrill Swain. 1997. Immersion Education: International Perspectives. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Linton, April. 2007. Spanish-English immersion in the wake of California proposition 227: Five cases, Intercultural Education, 18: 111-128. Lu, Min-Zhan. 1992. Conflict and Struggle: The Enemies or Preconditions of Basic Writing? College English, 54: 889-913. Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mehisto, Peeter. and Hiie Asser. 2007. Stakeholder Perspectives: CLIL Programme Management in Estonia. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10: 683-701. Mignolo, Walter. 2000. Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mülhäusler, Peter. 1996. Linguistic Ecology: Language Change and Linguistic Imperialism in the Pacific Rim. New York: Routledge. Ruiz de Zarobe, Yolanda. 2008. CLIL and Foreign Language Learning: A Longitudinal Study in the Basque Country. International CLIL Research Journal 1: 60-73. Serra, Cecilia. 2004. Construire des savoirs disciplinaires et linguistiques dans l'enseignement bilingue» In Plurilinguisme, Mehrsprachigkeit, Plurilingualism. Festschrift pour Georges Lüdi, edited by Lorenza Mondada and Simona Pekarek Doehler, 147-156. Tübingen: Francke. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove. 2000. Linguistic genocide in education, or worldwide diversity and human rights? New York: Routledge. Tankersley, Dawn. 2001. Bombs or Bilingual Programmes?: Dual-Language Immersion, Transformative Education, and Community Building in Macedonia. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4: 107-124. Tozzi, P. and Étienne, R. (2008). Educational Policies that Address Social Inequality. Country Report: Luxembourg. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Valdes, Guadalupe. 1997. Dual Language Immersion Programs: A Cautionary Note Concerning the Education of Language-Minority Students. Harvard Educational Review, 67: 391-429. Wode, Henning. 1999. Immersion Teaching: European Perspectives. I'immersione linguistica: Una nuova prospettiva, edited by In Federica Ricci Garotti, 78-94. Mailand: FrancoAngeli. 25