A Critical Examination of Language Ideologies and Policies in an International School in Colombia

Abstract

Background:

In recent years, scholars and educators have criticized exclusionary language ideologies and policies within international schools. International schools often emphasize proficiency in English as a language of power instead of valuing students’ and teachers’ dynamic multilingual practices.

Focus of Study:

Although oppressive language ideologies and policies in international schools are a central concern for critical education scholars, relatively little is known about international schools that are negotiating a shift toward more inclusive and equitable approaches. To understand the role of language ideologies and policies within an international school context, I examined the following research question: What language ideologies influence language policy creation and appropriation at Colegio Colombiano (CC)?

Research Design:

To answer this question and further understand the complex and shifting roles of language ideologies and policies within international schools, I conducted a case study at CC, an international school in Colombia.

Data Collection:

Through collaborative research with nine teachers, I examined how teachers engaged with more equitable approaches to multilingual education. I collected and analyzed various types of data, including school language policies, lesson and unit plans, classroom observations, teacher and student interviews, and a teacher questionnaire.

Findings:

Through analyzing the collected data, I found a spectrum of language ideologies and language policies, as many faculty demonstrated a significant shift away from oppressive and exclusionary language ideologies and language policies through an increasing recognition of Spanish. On the other hand, although explicit messages about English as superior were no longer officially promoted, colonialistic ideologies and policies persisted that valorized English, denigrated Spanish, and ignored other societal and home languages. To analyze these findings further, I critically examined the described spectrum of language ideologies and policies through Pennycook’s (2000) framework of language ideologies.

Conclusions:

I conclude with key considerations for educators and researchers across diverse contexts as they critically reconsider and decolonize current approaches to multilingual education.

Keywords

multilingual education international education decolonizing

In recent years, scholars and educators have criticized exclusionary language ideologies and policies within international schools. Although international schools are often linguistically and culturally diverse, faculty commonly create and enact colonialistic language policies that position English as a superior language (Spiro & Crisfield, 2018). International schools often emphasize proficiency in English instead of valuing students’ and teachers’ dynamic multilingual practices (de Mejía, 2006). “English-only” language policies reflect oppressive language ideologies that uphold monolingualism. These policies limit teachers’ and students’ freedom to draw on their diverse linguistic repertoires and cultural backgrounds (Spiro & Crisfield, 2018). As noted by Cummins et al. (2005), “It is hard to argue that we are teaching the whole child when school policy dictates that students leave their language and culture at the schoolhouse door” (p. 39).

Currently, English is the most common language of instruction in international schools and is often valued over other home and societal languages, as demonstrated through an English-based curriculum and primarily Anglophone teachers (Tanu, 2018). Bettney and Nordmeyer (2021) applied Ruiz’s (1984) model of language orientations to the international school context to illustrate three potential understandings of multilingualism:

as “a problem” which must be eliminated through English immersion and, ultimately, subtractive bilingualism with English replacing home languages;

as “a right” for which students can be given special, but separate classes to acquire English through additive forms of bilingualism which maintain home languages but still privilege English;

as “a resource” where the school recognizes multilingualism as the goal for all students, and staff. (pp. 123–124)

Shifting from seeing multilingualism as a problem to seeing it as a resource requires language policies that allow students and teachers to leverage their communicative repertoires across a variety of languages (Blackledge & Creese, 2014; Prasad, 2014). More flexible language policies allow learners to “utilize the totality of their linguistic repertoires as learning resources” (Beeman & Urow, 2013, p. ix) instead of attempting to suppress one or more of their languages to match a language policy.

Additionally, a shift toward inclusive ideologies and policies allows space for students to navigate their own linguistic identities. Linguistic identities refers to “an individual’s skills and social practices associated with language and linguistic communities in which they identify and participate” (Bettney, 2021, p. 272). In a study I conducted at an international school in Honduras, Grade 11 students indicated that their school experiences played a significant role in the development of their linguistic identities (Bettney, 2021). Participants described an ongoing negotiation of dynamic and identities. While some students struggled to come to terms with seemingly competing aspects of their identities as bilingual Hondurans, other students confidently described the role of languages in defining themselves. My findings echoed Carder’s (2013) research with international schools in which students at times experienced tension as they navigated the various linguistic influences within their school context. While students within international school contexts may feel conflicted as they develop their own linguistic identities, schools should serve “as a third space in which [students] engage in cultural encounters and navigate their own views on their individual national identities” (Bettney, 2021, p. 283). However, to function as a third space, international schools must intentionally embrace ideologies and policies that allow and encourage students the opportunity to engage with all aspects of their linguistic identities, and not oppress students’ identities through restrictive English-only spaces.

Beyond the individual impact on multilingual students and teachers, an exclusionary emphasis on English instruction has been “detrimental to the development and/or use of local languages in education in many regions. English becomes the priority status language and the delivery of international curricula in English only reinforces this paradigm” (Spiro & Crisfield, 2018, p. 57). Oppressive language ideologies and policies enacted within international schools often both reflect the presence of these ideologies within their local contexts, and frequently have a trickle-down effect on educational policies outside their individual schools. For example, Usma Wilches (2015) noted how problematic language ideologies and policies within international schools in Colombia informed the creation of the National Bilingual Program (NBP) implemented in public schools across the country.

Some international schools demonstrate an increasing recognition of students’ languages as a resource and are shifting away from positions that exclude students’ home languages and the host country’s local languages (Bettney & Nordmeyer, 2021). However, scarce research exists that documents more equitable approaches within this quickly expanding educational context. In this article, I use decoloniality as a theoretical framework to examine how school actors at Colegio Colombiano (CC), an international school in Colombia, critically reflected on and reimagined language ideologies and language policies within their context.

Decoloniality

Decoloniality provides a theoretical framework to consider how international schools can shift toward more equitable approaches to language that value linguistic and cultural diversity. Whereas decolonization refers to the historical process in which former colonies became independent nation-states, decoloniality is “a communal project of critique toward the European Modernity born in Latin America that exposes the colonial effects on the Latin American cultures” (Castañeda-Londoño, 2019, p. 225). Decolonial scholars interrogate the “dominant European and North American lines of thought that have set agendas, discourses and practices for millions of people and communities [by] imposing their world views, knowledge and ways of doing, feeling and being in the world as the only valid choices” (Usma Wilches et al., 2018, p. 233). Within this dynamic, European and North American cultures, languages, and scholars are seen as legitimate and superior. Decoloniality calls for liberation by recognizing how “coloniality normalizes” (Asher, 2013, p. 834) the view of outside knowledge and expertise as more valuable. Decoloniality calls for the deconstruction and reinvention of both history and the current global economic order, which are based on Western hegemony and have not “resulted in benefits for the underprivileged sectors of society and income gaps” (López, 2017, p. 299). Decoloniality seeks to liberate and redeem while dismantling foreign ways of thinking and being.

Decoloniality and Language Education

Language teaching operates at the intersection of coloniality and globalization. Since colonization, foreign languages have been promoted as superior and at times enforced as the language of formal education. Phipps (2019) contended that individuals across the globe experience the teaching and learning of languages as a colonial practice; Western democracies benefit from the exclusive teaching of certain colonial languages and language policies and pedagogies that exclude local and Indigenous languages. This erasure of languages reflects the colonial project’s push for “coherence, transparency, efficiency and control” (p. 15), yet languages should not be seen as the property of a particular group, such as in the preference for “native”¹ speakers. Phipps called for inclusive language policies and pedagogies that include languages outside colonial languages of power; “decolonizing, then, is fundamentally about changing the human relationships of power around speech and language” (p. 26).

Currently, English as a foreign language, and its associated native speakers, is associated with domination in various forms (e.g., economic, political, linguistic, and educational; Phillipson, 1992). While globalization had led to the Americanization of the world, it has also led to the Englishization through “linguistic capital dispossession as English takes over space that earlier was occupied by the national language or the mother tongue” (Phillipson, 2009, p. 338). Frequently, foreign organizations and some national governments see English proficiency as an essential skill to access the global market. Situated as a universal skill, English is promoted as a social equalizer, but often, increased emphasis on English teaching further perpetuates social inequity.

Decolonizing Language Education in International Schools

There is a growing interest among scholars and practitioners in decolonizing language education within international schools. However, this work must begin with the explicit recognition of the colonial histories of international schools and the ongoing coloniality inherent within their structures (Molnar, 2020). The Association of International Educators and Leaders of Colour (AIELOC) founder, Kevin Simpson (2022), noted, “International schools place western culture, whiteness, and the English language at the top of the hierarchy,” and called for a recognition of international schools as “as a colonizer’s tool to systematically elevate and render superior the culture of the dominant minority.”

The role of language within international schools is key in their enactment of coloniality. According to Bokhorst-Heng (2007), international schools frequently choose English as a medium for instruction and often fail to support students’ home languages. Focusing on English further exacerbates the advantages and prestige of students and teachers from English-speaking countries over local students. Tanu (2018) stated that students within international schools are not being colonized, but I posit that students are being colonized—through schools’ failure to support the development of students’ complex cultural and linguistic identities through an exclusionary focus on foreign culture(s) and language(s). For example, in their case study of an international school in Argentina, Gottlieb and Noel (2019) described the inextricable connection between students’ educational experiences and the development of their linguistic identities. They outlined seven beliefs about language development articulated in the school’s language policy, including the importance of validating students’ home languages, promoting the transfer of learning across languages, and supporting language learning in all subject areas. The authors noted how the school sees the 25 languages present within the school community as a strength. They argued that international schools must shift to value the cultural and linguistic resources of students and families so that “multilingual learners’ voices are heard, respected, and incorporated into the fabric of schooling” (p. 371).

While research about decolonizing international schools is scarce, there is a growing awareness of how students are negatively impacted by an exclusive focus on foreign languages and cultures, particularly considering that approximately 80% of students in international schools are now local students (ISC Research, 2022, Tanu, 2018). Recognizing the role of international schools as “corridors of power” (Phipps, 2019), and their expansive influence on public and private education, further strengthens this call for the decolonization of these spaces.

Decoloniality and Language Education in Colombia

Over the past 60 years, there has been great interest in the decolonization of education in Latin America. Starting in the 1960s, interculturalism and intercultural bilingual education programs were developed to address the ongoing colonialistic positioning of European knowledge and languages in schools (López, 2017). Additionally, in Colombia and throughout various countries in Latin America, Indigenous groups called for the right to school instruction in their own languages. While there has been a scholarly commitment to decolonization, most of the practical application has been limited to bilingual education projects within Indigenous communities (López & Sichra, 2016). However, the rapid growth of English language teaching throughout Latin America, in both public and private education, necessitates an engagement in decolonizing practices.

Colombia is linguistically and culturally diverse, while experiencing ongoing patterns of linguistic and cultural genocide. While Spanish has been the official language of Colombia since colonization in 1492, there are 65 Indigenous languages, in addition to varieties of Creole, Romani, and sign languages (Usma Wilches et al., 2018). In 1991, Colombia passed a new national constitution, which recognized the country as multiethnic and plurilingual. While Spanish was deemed the official language, minority languages were recognized as co-official in the regions where they were traditionally spoken (Guerrero-Nieto & Quintero-Polo, 2021).

After independence from Spain in 1810, Colombian elites began sending their children to Europe for educational purposes; this led to the introduction of other foreign languages in Colombia, including French, German, and English. These foreign languages were further entrenched with the establishment of elite international schools in Colombia in the early 20th century. Since World War II, English has been the preferred foreign language in Colombia (de Mejía, 2020). In 1994, the General Law of Education mandated that the teaching of foreign languages begin in elementary school, with foreign language “conceived as synonymous with the English language because . . . the conception of bilingualism for [them] was equivalent to speaking English, not another foreign language” (Guerrero-Nieto & Quintero-Polo, 2021, p. 121). English is considered essential for international commerce, and this trend is reflected across Latin America, with increased teaching of English at all grade levels (Howard et al., 2016).

Within Colombian society, English is playing an increasingly powerful role while Indigenous languages fight for their place (Guerrero, 2009). Spanish-English bilingualism is celebrated in Colombia while other types of bilingualism are invisible (de Mejía, 2020), perpetuated by “the problematic hegemony of the English language in Colombian educational policy and society [that] marginalizes Spanish and Indigenous languages” (Ortega, 2019, p. 1).

International schools have furthered the problematic emphasis on English in Colombia. Usma Wilches (2015) noted that international schools often prioritize English over other instructional languages and hire foreign English teachers. De Mejía (2020) argued that although international schools often describe themselves as following a bilingual model, many teach all subjects in English, except for Spanish language and Colombian social studies, which are taught in Spanish. Although other schools may include additional classes in Spanish, typically the more valued academic subjects, such as math and science, are taught in English; this positions English as more suitable than Spanish for scientific and abstract concepts (Gómez Sará, 2017). Ordóñez (2011) argued that bilingual education in Colombia is often “mostly education for the learning of a foreign language without sufficient regard for the development that Spanish has to undergo in school” (p. 158). Within this established linguistic hierarchy, so-called native English teachers are paid more and given fewer responsibilities than their Colombian colleagues (Guerrero, 2018). International schools in Colombia “continue to propagate the idea that English is best” (Ortega, 2020, p. 41). In sum, the teaching of English at the expense of local and Indigenous languages reflects problematic ideologies traced back to colonial times and further perpetuated through international schools in Colombia.

Nevertheless, the question remains: Can international schools be decolonized? I contend that it is possible to decolonize these spaces through unveiling logics of coloniality and creating new ways to critically engage. First, many critical scholars agree that decolonizing begins with the unveiling of structures of coloniality. Mignolo (2012) argued, “Thinking and doing decoloniality means unveiling the logic of coloniality” (p. xviii). For example, Fandiño-Parra (2021) exposed the view that English is an essential skill required to access the global market and inevitable for the development of the country. Fandiño-Parra called for an unveiling and deconstructing of this colonial way of thinking to construct alternative discourses and practices. Decolonizing requires new ways of engaging through “moments which ‘interrupt’ existing dominant framings of education. Such moments have the potential to open ‘spaces’ for doing education otherwise” (Pirbhai-Illich et al., 2017, p. 8).

Critical language scholars propose the intentional creation or adaption of practices for the local context to “mobilize the knowledge and the culture of teachers, students, and institutions of the global south” (Fandiño-Parra, 2021, p. 168). Le Gal (2019) argued that “Colombian educational institutions should not just adopt foreign methodologies but adapt, contextualize them or, better, develop their own methodology based on local research and context analysis” (p. 162). Many Colombian scholars have criticized the foreign importation of English teachers, teaching materials, and teaching approaches, and called for contextualized practices as key to decolonize the field.

Further, decolonizing language education must include the promotion and teaching of other languages, especially Indigenous languages. While the Colombian constitution protects the linguistic rights of Indigenous communities, it is often undermined by other national language policies that emphasize English proficiency (Murillo, 2009). Branschat Florez (2019) argued that the emphasis on English as a high-market-value language fails to consider the impact on the linguistic capital and the linguistic human rights of Colombians.

Currently, there is a great deal of discussion about the need to decolonize language education, yet a theoretical understanding of decolonizing is not sufficient, as Mignolo (2012) noted: “What kind of knowledge do decolonial thinkers want? We want knowledge that contributes to eliminating coloniality and improves living conditions on the planet” (p. xvii). Decolonizing must prioritize practical application to classrooms through examining problematic language ideologies and creating and enacting liberating and just language policies. As López (2017) noted, “Conceptually there are numerous contributions regarding decolonization and its emancipatory potential in multicultural and multilingual contexts. Notwithstanding, the field is practically virgin regarding recommendations for action and particularly concerning the school and the classroom” (p. 302).

However, some might ask whether international schools, one of the most elite educational contexts in Latin America, are legitimate places to engage in critical work. Swalwell (2013) provided three compelling reasons for the importance of social justice work in privileged educational spaces: “to better understand how inequalities persist, to be strategic about harnessing the power they inherit, and to demonstrate concern for them as sufferers of dehumanization” (p. xx). I argue that it is possible, and necessary, to decolonize international schools by unveiling logics of coloniality and creating new ways to critically engage.

Although oppressive language ideologies and policies in international schools are a central concern for critical education scholars, relatively little is known about international schools that are negotiating a shift toward more inclusive and equitable approaches. In this article, I address this gap by focusing specifically on the role of language ideologies and language policies in an international school in Colombia. Drawing on Pennycook’s (2000) critical framework of ideologies underpinning the global spread of English to frame my study, I ask: What language ideologies influence language policy creation and appropriation at CC?

Literature Review

In this article, I critically examine language ideologies and policies at CC. Examining language ideologies and policies concurrently illuminates potential ideological and implementational spaces. Hornberger (2005) described a symbiotic relationship between these spaces, stating,

It is essential for language educators and language users to fill up implementational spaces with multilingual educational practices, whether with intent to occupy ideological spaces opened up by policies or to prod actively toward more favorable ideological spaces in the face of restrictive policies. Ideological spaces created by language and education policies can be seen as carving out implementational spaces at classroom and community levels, but implementational spaces can also serve as wedges to pry open ideological ones. (p. 606)

This article considers how school actors can push open both ideological and implementational spaces to allow teachers and students to critically develop their linguistic practices and embrace their plurilingual identities.

Language Ideologies

Language ideologies draw into focus (1) how individuals view languages; (2) how and why hierarchies of languages are constructed and enacted in social spaces; and (3) why certain languaging practices are considered more valuable than others, such as the assumed superiority of English as an instructional language in many school systems. Ives (2013) noted that “whether or not individuals, institutions or states ‘choose’ (seemingly freely) to learn, teach or facilitate English, the spread of English is part and parcel of unequal power relationships” (p. 662). The ongoing rapid spread of teaching English worldwide is not neutral, as it cannot be removed from the power relations that both propel and govern its spread. Indeed, there are serious consequences for this spread in terms of linguistic diversity; the overemphasis on English language teaching leads to linguistic capital dispossession in which English replaces either the national language or the students’ home languages (Phillipson, 2009).

I draw on Pennycook’s (2000) description of six different ideological frameworks to further understand the spread and teaching of English globally:

Colonial-celebration views the spread of English as inherently good and “trumpets the benefits of English over other languages, suggesting that English has . . . qualities superior to other languages” (p. 108).

Laissez-faire liberalism posits that English should coexist with and complement other languages, but the spread of English is beneficial and natural or, at the very least, neutral.

Language ecology recognizes the potential harm of introducing English into multilingual contexts.

Linguistic imperialism sees a clear relationship between the spread of English and global capitalism and brings attention to the presence of global homogenizing trends facilitated by the teaching of English.

Language rights pushes further than recognizing the relationship and argues that there is a moral imperative to protect languages from the imposition of English.

Post-colonial performativity centers questions on local contexts and particular configurations of language, culture, knowledge, and power. This ideology both recognizes the cultural baggage associated with teaching English in postcolonial contexts and considers how to change and resist the negative impacts.

Language Policies

The field of language policies explores how actors use language within various contexts. Critical approaches to language policy recognize the role of actors in creating and appropriating policies, and the importance of considering the local and global context surrounding these policies and the interaction between the policy and the actors who enact it (Gallo & Hornberger, 2017). Menken and García (2010) argued that a language policy is a process by which a text is “interpreted and appropriated in unpredictable ways by agents who appropriate, resist, and/or change dominant and alternative policy discourses” (p. 15). Levinson et al. (2009) described this relationship as policy appropriation, in which actors influence the policy itself through its enactment. Levinson et al. noted that policies should be recognized, whether they are official or authorized or not, because “policy may also develop in more spontaneous and informal fashion, outside the agencies or offices that are constitutionally charged with making policy” (p. 770). They noted that policy appropriation still occurs as local actors interpret and adapt both official and unofficial policies to their local contexts.

In the case of school and classroom language policies, a critical approach highlights the role of teachers as empowered professionals who can engage in critical reflection and challenge oppressive policies. This space for policy negotiation within classrooms is important because classroom teachers are often the final arbiters of language policy implementation. Just as language policies can either open or restrict ideological and implementational spaces in schools for multilingualism (Hornberger, 2005), so too can educators either carve out or close off these spaces through their appropriation of the policies.

Within multilingual schools, language policies typically fall into two categories: language allocation and language use policies. Language allocation policies typically refer to how schools allocate languages by grade and by subject. They are often determined by the educational authorities in the country that may require certain subjects, such as social studies, to be taught in the majority or official language(s) of the country (Sánchez et al., 2018). In other cases, educational authorities may set guidelines for the percentage of time permitted for each instructional language. However, within these guidelines, there may be implementational spaces in which schools can soften the boundaries between languages through their language use policies.

Language use policies typically outline appropriate purposes and times for teachers and students to use different named languages within classroom and out-of-classroom spaces. In recognition of plurilingual teachers’ and students’ diverse languaging practices, schools can create language policies that open up implementational spaces, allowing students to engage in plurilingual meaning-making as they discover their own voices (Busch, 2014). Menken and García (2010) noted that most language use policies prohibit language mixing, yet, in a variety of global contexts, teachers and students engage in translanguaging as they make meaning in multilingual classrooms. Menken and García, therefore, highlighted how teachers and students appropriate restrictive language policies to reflect their own flexible and dynamic languaging practices. Language allocation and use policies are important opportunities for school actors to consider the amount of time and space given to home and societal languages and how these decisions are influenced by language ideologies.

Methodology

This article is part of a larger case study I conducted at CC to explore critical approaches to language education. CC is a K–12 international school located in a large city in Colombia. In Latin America, international schools were initially created by European immigrant communities and reserved for immigrant community members of the social and political elite (Hamel, 2008). Later, there was significant growth in Spanish-speaking Colombian students attending international schools, as families wanted their children to study at foreign universities and strengthen future employment opportunities (de Mejía, 2020). Most students at CC come from Spanish-speaking Colombian families with high socioeconomic status, though other languages, nationalities, and economic backgrounds are represented. CC integrates the Colombian and U.S. curriculum, and students receive high school diplomas from both countries.

I first introduced teachers to critical language pedagogies through a graduate course I taught at CC before this project. Then, I collaborated with nine teachers as they designed, implemented, reflected on, and redesigned translanguaging pedagogies for their classrooms. I generated various types of data, including school language policies, lesson and unit plans, classroom observations, teacher and student interviews, and a teacher questionnaire.

Data analysis was ongoing and iterative, drawing on Creswell’s (2013) Data Analysis Spiral. I organized all data sources through NVivo, read the data on multiple occasions, wrote memos in response to my reading, and coded using methods outlined in detail by Saldaña (2016). I visualized the data through various matrices and networks, which allowed me to see patterns that informed my findings.

Findings

Based on a qualitative thematic analysis, I found that faculty endorsed a spectrum of language ideologies and policies during my study, of which I highlight three categories: (1) English excellence, (2) English-Spanish bilingualism, and (3) developing critical awareness.

While the categories represent a progression of ideologies and policies, they were neither mutually exclusive nor discrete. Instead, individuals shifted between the categories at different times and in different contexts, and they expressed and enacted language ideologies and policies in nonlinear, and at times contradictory, ways. Clear patterns did not exist based on participants’ nationality, language proficiency, or years of teaching experience. The spectrum reflects promising shifts and the lingering presence of oppressive ideologies and policies, often more hidden than before.

English Excellence

“English excellence” refers to a committee, campaign, and slogan established at CC with the intention to strengthen students’ English proficiency. Here, I employ the term to describe three interconnected language ideologies held by several faculty, and at times espoused as, the school’s official position. First, teachers described an ideology that upheld English as the primary language of the school. One teacher identified a belief held by some that all valuable instruction and activities should take place in English, described this way: “If you’re not doing it in English, you’re not doing anything worthwhile.” Another teacher noted how a teacher had recently put up an English-only sign on his classroom door. The sign gave the history of English, noted how English is now the most dominant language in the world, and said, “It is the language of this classroom.” Although there had been a significant shift away from this thinking, especially in elementary school, these beliefs were still present at the school.

Second, language ideologies that valorized English were also reflected in implicit and explicit language policies that prohibited, and at times punished, speakers for using Spanish within perceived English-only spaces. One bilingual administrator noted parents asked her why she spoke in Spanish at times at school events. She believed part of the reason she had been hired was to be a native English language model for students and she was therefore expected to speak in English in her role. While there was not a written language policy that prohibited English teachers from speaking Spanish, teachers believed that it was the school’s unofficial policy for foreign teachers to speak in English.

While teachers described an implicit policy governing teacher language use, they also described explicit and punitive student language policies. One elementary teacher described the student language policy that had been designed by administrators and teachers and implemented across upper elementary grades in the previous few years:

[Students] were given a certain number of sticks, and [they] lose them if [they] speak in Spanish. And that still could be happening here. It could have happened last year. I’m going to give you 5 Spanish sticks, and if you lose them all, you’re not going to get to go out for Friday fun.

Another student described how her teacher from the previous year emphasized “English, English, English, English, English.” In early elementary, students were asked if they spoke English at recess, and there was a “sad face to mark if we didn’t, and a happy face if we did.” Students received consequences for speaking Spanish, such as losing out on classroom activities, a note home to parents, or a lower grade. Although English-only policies were no longer explicitly enforced in most classrooms, teachers noted the persistent influence of English-only ideologies.

Third, native English speakers were upheld as ideal language models and the preferred option for hiring; this was demonstrated through foreign teachers’ significantly different wages, benefits, and positioning at the school as compared with those of national teachers. In a staff meeting about promoting bilingualism, conversation primarily occurred in English. One Colombian teacher commented on the irony that she felt isolated and limited in her ability to participate in a meeting about bilingualism. Although there was a growing awareness of disparities between international and national teachers, the school still demonstrated a preference for foreign teachers.

The valorization of English and native English speakers reflected an association with the foreign—in particular, the United States—as the linguistic and cultural ideal. One administrator recognized this tendency to ignore the Colombian context as simply this: “We sometimes forget we are a Colombian school teaching Colombian students.” The upholding of the United States was enacted in various ways, such as the definition of the school as an “American” school, the flying of the U.S. flag, the singing of the U.S. anthem, and the use of U.S. curriculum, textbook, and classroom resources. These ideologies were taken up through language policies that prohibited students’ use of Spanish within the English classroom and encouraged teachers to speak English as the primary language of instruction.

English-Spanish Bilingualism

The majority of faculty in my study demonstrated an ideology of English-Spanish bilingualism. These teachers recognized the importance of Spanish as the home language of most students at CC, while still placing a heavy emphasis on academic English proficiency. Many teachers moved from viewing Spanish as a problem in the English classroom to seeing it as an asset. One teacher described this shift: “My mindset has changed [to an] asset-based mindset. . . . Multilingual learners have so many gifts that we aren’t leveraging.” One high school teacher expressed how dramatically his ideologies had changed:

[I have] changed . . . radically. I was a pretty hard-core, English-only, monolingual classroom kind of teacher. Now, I have been reborn. I am Señor Spanglish. Twelve years teaching second language learners as if they were first-language English seems counterproductive for both teachers and students. . . . It’s tough to claim that you value the home language or the language assets of your students when you have signs reading “English Only Zone” hanging prominently in your classroom. Was that really me?

Both teachers described a significant shift toward a recognition of their students’ bilingualism as an asset for learning, not a barrier to overcome.

Many teachers valued English-Spanish bilingualism through more equitable and flexible language policies. One teacher explained how she had been very strict about speaking only in Spanish with her students. Based on her shifting understanding of bilingualism, she began to use Spanish to explain difficult concepts to students, to provide a direct translation of a new English word, and to help students with personal issues. Teachers began to draw on their bilingual knowledge to support cross-linguistic transfer and metalinguistic awareness.

While the school did not yet have an official updated language policy, English teachers were encouraged to establish classroom language norms that encouraged the use of Spanish and English for specific purposes. For example, in one classroom, the teacher summarized their goal for using Spanish in math class: “Use Spanish when sharing thoughts to support our verbal and written explanations in English.” They listed potential uses for Spanish in independent thinking time and when communicating with a partner who needed additional support. English was encouraged during whole-group discussions and reading activities. To ensure that students saw the rules as flexible, the teacher asked rhetorical questions like, “If you feel like your brain is automatically going to English, is that ok?” to which the class responded, “Yes.” She asked, “When you’re working with a partner, are you using English or Spanish”? and the students responded, “Both.” She then reiterated that if a classmate did not understand something, they were welcome to explain it in Spanish. Students were no longer punished for speaking Spanish; instead, teachers collaborated with students to identify intentional purposes for using Spanish as a learning tool.

While many faculty were beginning to support English-Spanish bilingualism, this shift was limited in significant ways. First, while participants were creating change within their classrooms, these shifts were not occurring schoolwide. One participant said, “We are our own little pockets of change, but we are not changing anything.” Another teacher kindly told me that I had a “skewed sample” in my study because I was interacting with teachers who chose to participate in a research project around language, not the general teacher population. Many teachers indicated a sense of ineffectuality of the scale of changes.

Second, teachers felt restricted because they were unsure about the stance of the administrators. For example, a first-year teacher was unsure of the school’s expectations because she had not been given any guidance about language policies. While veteran teachers noted that explicit policies existed in the past, they were unsure about the current policy. One administrator noted, “No one is saying that it’s English-only, but no one is saying that it’s not either.” While many administrators supported a shift to more flexible language policies, they had not yet taken a strong stance, nor communicated a new policy to teachers.

Third, many teachers positioned Spanish primarily as a temporary scaffold needed by students as they acquired English. For example, a few weeks after creating flexible classroom language norms that allowed for the use of English and Spanish, an elementary teacher told students that they should work toward communicating their thinking only in English. This contradictory message reflected a concern by many teachers that looser regulations around the use of Spanish would limit students’ English development. Yet, this view undermined Spanish both as the home language of most students and as a valuable language to learn in and of itself.

Finally, while many faculty indicated a clear shift in support of English-Spanish bilingualism, there was a lack of awareness or recognition of other home or societal languages. In every classroom, some students spoke or were exposed to languages outside of Spanish and English, yet these languages were mostly invisible. For example, one teacher mentioned that one of her students was trilingual, but she did not remember the other language he spoke. The student was originally from another country, but she felt that he had assimilated very well and “felt Colombian.” The teacher was aware of the student’s home language, but she ascribed less importance to the student’s home language because of his perceived cultural assimilation. Administrators noted how teachers often saw all CC students as a homogenous group of Spanish-speaking Colombians without recognition of individual diversity.

Additionally, there was very little awareness of linguistic diversity within the greater context of Colombia or Latin America. Other languages did exist on the periphery, but they were primarily other languages of power. For example, there were language-based extracurricular activities at the school, and some students took additional language classes outside of school, such as Mandarin, French, and Italian. One administrator told me he felt there should be a focus on Portuguese, another major language within South America, yet there was no awareness of or displayed interest in considering Indigenous languages, regardless of their constitutional protection in Colombia. While most participants in my study professed ideologies and enacted policies reflective of English-Spanish bilingualism, awareness of or demonstrated interest in other home or societal languages was much more limited.

Developing Critical Awareness

A small number of faculty exhibited a growing critical awareness of oppressive ideologies and policies, and they positioned themselves as change agents within their classrooms and within the larger school context. These teachers began to identify colonialist ideologies that positioned English as superior to Spanish, both within the school context and within Colombia. In the final questionnaire, one teacher indicated that there was still a negative mindset about the use of Spanish: “We are following a pattern of traditional learning where only one language prevails. We are still having a negative mindset about being bilingual.” These teachers identified a significant need to examine and reflect on the perceived value of both Spanish and English at the school.

A couple of teachers noted how the hierarchical positioning of English at CC reflected the larger Colombian context. One teacher stated,

I think it’s cultural. And I don’t mean just Colombia culture. I mean, yes, we know all the things here that try to promote that English is a better language, but I mean school culture. I mean that we punish when students speak in Spanish.

Another teacher problematized issues of linguistic injustice within Colombian schools, noting, “Indigenous languages get cast aside in order to fulfill the British Council’s definition of bilingualism, meaning only English and Spanish.” While I found sparse evidence of these types of broader critiques, a few teachers were identifying how policies enacted at the school connected to national ideologies and policies of linguistic injustice.

Several teachers indicated a growing awareness of “systemic inequity” that positioned foreign native English-speaking teachers as ideal and discriminated against Colombian teachers. They described financial discrepancies that existed between national and international teachers. Some international teachers challenged these policies because they believed that their Colombian counterparts should receive similar pay and benefits. They noted that Colombian teachers within the English program were often seen by parents as less valuable than foreign teachers. One administrator noted that she regularly met with parents who objected to their child being placed in an English class taught by a Colombian teacher, regardless of the teacher’s educational background or teaching experience. Teachers also indicated an increasing awareness of how Colombian staff, particularly those who taught within the Spanish program, were marginalized and excluded, their classes seen as less important than the “academic” classes taught in English. Some faculty demonstrated a growing push to address ongoing systemic inequity.

Teachers also expressed an emerging critical awareness of the U.S. cultural references present throughout the school. For example, one teacher shared with me that their math curriculum drew almost exclusively on U.S. examples, which were not relevant to students. The teacher, who felt that students should see themselves reflected in the curriculum, rewrote one math narrative to focus on a famous Colombian cyclist who recently won the Tour de France while following the same content standards.

Another teacher questioned the school’s definition of success tied to English proficiency and to leaving Colombia to study in the United States. She stated,

If the school’s original intention was English, we’re going to do English, then great, we’re probably doing it . . . but when a child goes to college [in Colombia] and they can’t do math in their original language, it’s like, “What have we done?” That terrifies me to my core.

This teacher’s comment is particularly impactful because most CC students pursue initial university studies within Colombia and are at times underprepared for their academic classes in Spanish.

A few teachers who expressed this critical consciousness began to position themselves as change agents and showed a desire to share these new understandings with others at the school. One teacher stated, “If [other staff] drank the Kool Aid that it should be all English, that submersion is best, we’ll have to educate them.” Some teachers grew in confidence as shifts around language began happening at the school level. However, some teachers questioned the school’s commitment to deep, lasting change. In a discussion around proposed changes, one teacher noted, “I think it’s an interesting question of, how far does the school value it? If the parents push back and threaten to withdraw their students, is it going to happen?”

In sum, faculty espoused language ideologies and enacted language policies along a spectrum from English excellence to developing critical awareness. While many faculty were probing their own beliefs toward language and reexamining their enactment of oppressive language policies, few were yet arguing for a critical stance that addressed systemic inequities. However, there was a growing commitment from some faculty to engage in a transformational process to more critically examine language ideologies and policies, summarized by one optimistic teacher: “We’re taking steps, we’re taking steps. . . . It’s an exciting time to be here at CC. It’s exciting. You’re here at the right time.”

Discussion

In this section, I draw on Pennycook’s (2000) framework of language ideologies to critically examine the described spectrum of language ideologies and policies prevalent at CC. First, English excellence can be seen as an example of colonial celebration, in which the spread of English is seen as inherently good and “trumpets the benefits of English over other languages, suggesting that English has . . . qualities superior to other languages” (Pennycook, 2000, p. 108). The question of colonizing languages within the Colombian context is complex; the argument for valuing Spanish at CC is in support of both the home language of most students and the primary language of colonization in Colombia. However, within the context of international schools, the language of colonization primarily refers to English and the push for students to speak and be like native English speakers. Phillipson (1992) argued, “Whereas once Britannia ruled the waves, now it is English which rules them” (p. 2). Tanu (2018) directly linked the role of English in international schools to the larger forces of colonization, from both previous imperial powers and the postwar dominant United States.

The ongoing positioning of English, native English speakers, and the United States as superior at CC situated foreign faculty as colonizers. In this case, “speaking the colonizer’s language and being educated in their ways [comes] to signify a sense of social distinction that colonial subjects continually desired and pursued, thus consolidating the colonizer’s dominant position” (Tanu, 2018, p. 62). Within this dynamic, the colonizers and their language are presented as superior, and therefore, the colonized can never reach them. Colombian students are positioned as the colonized; no matter how much they may mimic the accent, vocabulary, and discourse of their U.S. teachers, they can never, by definition, reach the status of being native English speakers. The ideal is simply unattainable, and therefore, the colonized’s position as inferior remains (Tanu, 2018). While international teachers at CC may not recognize themselves as colonizers, “applying a post-colonial analysis to people who live transnationally as adults show[s] that colonial discourses continue to influence the ways in which Western expatriates perceive and interact with host-country nationals” (Tanu, 2018, p. 19).

Some critical Colombian scholars have noted that colonizing practices are enacted not only by foreign institutions and educators, but also as Colombians themselves prioritize foreign languages, educators, and institutions. Guerrero (2009) noted how internal colonization refers not to practices that are imposed by foreigners or native speakers, but those that Colombians impose on themselves, such as how universities and private schools penalize the use of Spanish by instructors and students, prefer native English speakers as teachers over more qualified Colombian counterparts, and institutional language requirements for graduation that exclude Indigenous languages. Similar patterns of internal colonization were present at CC, such as the strong opposition of Colombian parents to Colombian English teachers. While I question whether an emphasis on self-colonization unjustly places responsibility on the colonized, Colombian scholars put forth a convincing critique of how Colombians further the colonial project through colonialismo interno.

Next, the position of English-Spanish bilingualism is an example of laissez-faire liberalism (Pennycook, 2000). Within this ideology, English should coexist with and complement other languages, but the spread of English is seen as beneficial and natural, or, at the very least, neutral. Within this position, the faculty at CC acknowledged that Spanish and English should coexist, but they did not question the ongoing superior positioning of English at the school, nor take a critical stance on larger issues of linguistic inequity. At CC, an increasing emphasis on English-Spanish bilingualism at times further entrenched the invisibility of other societal and home languages. While the growing importance placed on Spanish at CC indicated a developing value of bilingualism, it also gave a false impression of openness to linguistic diversity, when it was primarily an openness to English-Spanish bilingualism. This issue reflects an important trend recognized on a national scale by critical language scholars in Colombia. For example, in his description of the NBP in Colombia, Usma Wilches (2015) argued that a movement toward recognizing English-Spanish bilingualism actually

diverted the public’s attention from the fact that instead of opening the door to a diversity of languages, including Indigenous languages already spoken in the country, the new programs actually enhanced the role of English as the only language to be used in a global society. (p. 74)

While both Pennycook and Usma Wilches highlighted the insidious nature of these supposedly neutral ideologies, their description of the concealed nature of these beliefs does not match my findings. As opposed to Pennycook’s description of laissez-faire liberalism as the “most silent” of the six ideological categories, in my study, participants within this position were the most outspoken. As dogmatic stances of colonial celebration were increasingly discouraged at CC, and few participants were yet calling for more critical stances, the proponents of laissez-faire liberalism were most often in line with the school’s movement to embrace English-Spanish bilingualism and therefore likely felt the most open in sharing their beliefs, at least within the context of my study. While Pennycook’s description of laissez-faire liberalism can be seen as a positive step toward recognizing the existence of other languages, the lack of attention to critical issues further entrenches linguistic inequities.

Developing critical awareness reflects Pennycook’s (2000) description of language ecology, which recognizes the potential harm of introducing English into multilingual contexts. At CC, I found that some teachers demonstrated an increasing awareness of the potential negative impact of promoting English and, by association, U.S. culture within the school context. These teachers indicated the problematic positioning of the foreign over the local, from discrepancies in pay and benefits to the positioning of Spanish primarily as a tool to learn English. These teachers began to indicate how an emphasis on English-Spanish bilingualism was still detrimental. Interestingly, Pennycook explained how language ecology can be a useful entry point into a critical understanding of languages because it connects to many individuals’ concerns for environmental ecologies. At CC, there was an intentional focus on environmental issues—from student groups to recycling campaigns—yet, during my time there, I did not hear of any connections being made between environmental and linguistic diversity. Although I believe that Pennycook’s point is valid—that a commitment to environmental justice could lead to concerns for other types of justice—I did not see evidence of a close alignment of these issues at CC and question whether this ideological bridge frequently occurs in practice.

While teachers in this category were developing awareness of larger issues of linguistic injustice within Colombia, the three increasingly critical aspects of Pennycook’s (2000) framework—linguistic imperialism, language rights, and post-colonial performativity—were generally not present within my findings. For example, while teachers recognized the problematic positioning of English and the United States as superior, they did not generally situate the prioritization of English at CC within the larger context of globalization, as key component of linguistic imperialism. While a couple of teachers mentioned concerns regarding the loss of Indigenous languages in Colombia, which would be evidence of a language rights ideology, these comments were rare and not tied to any associated classroom practices or discussions. Finally, I did not find evidence of post-colonial performativity, the most critical, nuanced, and holistic language ideology. Although individual teachers made isolated comments about issues around language, culture, knowledge, and power, they were generally not addressed in a holistic manner tied to the local context, as outlined in post-colonial performativity.

Implications and Conclusion

The comparison of Pennycook’s (2000) framework of language ideologies with the CC spectrum illuminates important ideological and implementational spaces (Hornberger, 2005) for international and independent schools as they decolonize their multilingual programs. In the following section, I provide three key considerations for schools to consider as they engage in this work.

First, school communities must identify the driving purpose of their school and how it connects to engagement in decolonizing work. Matthews’s (1988) early work on defining international schools according to a dichotomy of market-driven versus ideology-driven schools may provide a helpful starting point. Whereas market-driven schools are developed to serve the needs of a specific group of students, ideology-driven schools are typically focused on their mission to promote international understanding or global citizenship. As noted by Hayden and Thompson (1995), these two categories are at times incorrectly interpreted as mutually exclusive; instead, schools can be driven by both market forces and underlying ideologies. An understanding of a school’s driving ethos informs its engagement in decolonizing work. At CC, a market-driven ideology was commonly exhibited that positioned English as a commodity to be sold. Students needed English as an instrumental tool to access the global market, and a high level of English proficiency was an essential product to assure parents, the paying customers, of the school’s ongoing competitiveness. In contrast, some teachers hoped for a shift toward a more ideologically driven school, which valued multilingualism as part of an overall commitment to diversity. My study pushes against the boundaries of Matthews’s dichotomy, showing how diverse opinions and stances exist within each school community based on the individual ideologies held by different school actors. When considering engagement in decolonizing work, school actors must first identify whether such engagement lines up with the overall ethos or purpose of the school. While individual administrators, teachers, and students can engage in decolonizing work within their own spaces, as evidenced by the developing critical awareness stance, the work of individuals will have a greater impact when aligned with a schoolwide commitment to addressing the fundamental purpose and guiding ideologies of the community.

Second, all schools operate within a particular context. Public schools are often depicted in the center of expanding concentric circles, indicating district, provincial/state, and national factors that influence each school context. International and independent schools also operate within certain contexts, yet the concentric circles are often not as clear. Unlike national public schools, which are impacted by various levels of governance, international and independent schools often operate with a certain level of autonomy and independence from local educational authorities. This autonomy often leads to policy compression as individual schools determine their programs and policies (Bettney & Nordmeyer, 2021). Yet, this policy compression interacts with policy borrowing; private schools often rely heavily on external international organizations, such as the International Baccalaureate (IB). Usma Wilches (2015) argued that in contexts in which educational policy is borrowed from other contexts, there are “three simultaneous and interactive processes that take place at the macro and micro level, namely, processes of transnational reform and policy transfer; processes of formulation and reformulation of policy texts; and processes of local policy appropriation” (p. 36). Within the process of policy compression in international and independent schools, these three processes are happening within one individual school. To provide an example, imagine a school director deciding which policy to borrow from an external organization, such as following an IB or Common Core curriculum. The curriculum would then be imported from the external organizations, reformulated for the school context and then appropriated by individual teachers within their classrooms. Although policy compression can be problematic, given that private schools are often isolated and disconnected from their local educational context, on the other hand, this high level of autonomy allows private school teachers to engage in different types of school- and classroom-level policy borrowing and remaking. Private schools may consider shifting away from heavy reliance on policy borrowing from foreign bodies to reciprocal relationships with their local educational, cultural, and linguistic communities, which allow spaces for bottom-up and top-down reflection and change within the context of policy compression.

Third, for school communities to engage with decolonizing work, school leaders must ensure a hospitable context. One initial step can be leaders explicitly and publicly acknowledging the historical role of their school in colonization, and establishing a clear commitment to change. At CC, some actors were limited in their critical engagement by a lack of certainty regarding the position of their administrators. While individual teachers and students found space to push toward more inclusive approaches that supported diverse plurilingual identities and languaging practices, they would have been more effective if they had felt explicitly supported by the school leadership in this new direction. Additionally, a hospitable context allows for decolonizing work to occur collectively and individually. Many CC faculty were shifting away from oppressive stances, but these shifts were not happening unilaterally as individuals negotiated between traditions that valorized English and ideologies that emphasized English-Spanish bilingualism. These negotiations reflect Camargo Cely’s (2018) study conducted at a private bilingual school in Colombia. There, participants’ ideas and practices about language were still rooted in “hegemonic, colonial” ideas while they “resisted these discourses by being involved in a community, where they had the opportunity of firstly, reshaping, contradicting, confirming, and constructing pedagogical beliefs and practices by means of dialoguing and sharing” (p. 129). When seen in their role as change agents and operating within a supportive critical community, teachers can open up and recreate ideological and implementational spaces (Hornberger, 2005) to shift schools toward post-colonial performativity (Pennycook, 2000).

In conclusion, in this article, I critically examined language ideologies and policies within an international school in Colombia. I found a spectrum of ideologies and policies that, when compared with Pennycook’s (2000) framework of language ideologies, lacked evidence of the most critical stances. While CC continues its journey, all schools should recognize the role of language ideologies and policies in supporting or undermining linguistic diversity. International and independent schools in diverse contexts should consider how their continual emphasis on English or limited constructions of bilingualism negatively impact linguistic diversity and the positioning of plurilingual students and teachers within their classrooms.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This article draws on research supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

Notes

Author Biography

Esther Bettney Heidt is a school network researcher at the Multilingual Learning Research Center (MLRC) at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. A Canadian-trained teacher, Esther has worked in the field of international education since 2005. She holds a PhD from the Department of Curriculum & Instruction at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Her research focuses on equitable approaches to multilingual teaching and learning within the context of international schools.

References

Asher

(2013). Latin American decolonial thought, or making the subaltern speak. Geography Compass, 7(12), 832–842.

Beeman

Urow

(2013). Teaching for biliteracy: Strengthening bridges between languages. Caslon.

Bettney

(2021). The negotiation of students’ national identities in a bilingual school in Honduras. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 20(4), 271–284.

Bettney

Nordmeyer

(2021). Glocal network shifts: Exploring language policies and practices in international schools. Global Education Review, 8, 116–137.

Blackledge

Creese

(Eds.). (2014). Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy. Springer.

Bokhorst-Heng

W. D.

(2007). Multiculturalism’s narratives in Singapore and Canada: Exploring a model for comparative multiculturalism and multicultural education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(6), 629–658.

Branschat Florez

. (2019). Maximizing Colombia’s linguistic capital with the knowledge of linguistic imperialism and linguistic human rights [Master’s thesis]. Icesi University, Colombia.

Busch

(2014). Building on heteroglossia and heterogeneity: The experience of a multilingual classroom. In Blackledge

Creese

(Eds.), Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy (pp. 21–40). Springer.

Camargo Cely

J. P

. (2018). Unveiling EFL and self-contained teachers discourses on bilingualism within the context of professional development. HOW, 25(1), 115–133.

10.

Carder

(2013). International school students: Developing their bilingual potential. In Abello Contesse

Chandler

P. M.

López-Jiménez

M. D.

Chacón-Beltrán

(Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education in the 21st century: Building on experience (pp. 275–298). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783090716

11.

Castañeda-Londoño

(2019). Revisiting the issue of knowledge in English language teaching, a revision of literature. GIST Education and Learning Research Journal, 18, 220–245.

12.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE.

13.

Cummins

Bismilla

Chow

Cohen

Giampapa

Leoni

Sandhu

Sastri

(2005). Affirming identity in multilingual classrooms. Educational Leadership, 63(1), 38–43.

14.

de Mejía

A. M

. (2006). Bilingual education in Colombia: Towards a recognition of languages, cultures and identities. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 8, 152–168.

15.

de Mejía

A. M

. (2020). Are you a real bilingual? Elite/prestigious bilingual education in Colombia. ReVista Harvard Review of Latin America, 19(2).

16.

Fandiño-Parra

Y. J.

(2021). Decolonizing English language teaching in Colombia: Epistemological perspectives and discursive alternatives. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 23(2), 166–181.

17.

Gallo

Hornberger

N. H.

(2017). Immigration policy as family language policy: Mexican immigrant children and families in search of biliteracy. International Journal of Bilingualism, 23(3), 757–770. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916684908

18.

Gómez Sará

. (2017). Review and analysis of the Colombian foreign language bilingualism policies and plans. HOW, 24(1), 139-156.

19.

Gottlieb

Noel

(2019). Character development in a multilingual international school and its use of self-assessment tools. Sino-US English Teaching, 16(9), 369–375.

20.

Guerrero

(2009). Language policies in Colombia: The inherited disdain for our native languages. HOW, 16(1), 11–24.

21.

Guerrero

(2018). Problematizing ELT education in Colombia: Contradictions and possibilities. In ELT local research agendas I (pp. 121–132). Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas.

22.

Guerrero-Nieto

C. H.

Quintero-Polo

Á. H.

(2021). Emergence and development of a research area in language education policies: Our contribution to setting the grounds for a local perspective on policymaking. HOW, 28(3), 119–133.

23.

Hamel

R. E.

(2008). Plurilingual Latin America: Indigenous languages, immigrant languages, foreign languages—Towards an integrated policy of language and education. In Hélot

De Mejía

A. M.

(Eds.), Forging multilingual spaces: Integrated perspectives on majority and minority bilingual education (pp. 58–108). Multilingual Matters.

24.

Hayden

Thompson

(1995). International schools and international education: A relationship reviewed. Oxford Review of Education, 21(3), 327–345.

25.

Hornberger

N. H.

(2005). Opening and filling up implementational and ideological spaces in heritage language education. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 605–609.

26.

Howard

Basurto-Santos

N. M.

Gimenez

Moncada

A. M. G.

McMurray

Traish

(2016). A comparative study of English language teacher recruitment, in-service education and retention in Latin America and the Middle East. ELT Research Papers (Issue 16.02). British Council.

27.

ISC Research. (2022). Data on international schools. Retrieved March 12, 2022, from https://iscresearch.com/data/

28.

Ives

(2013). Global English, hegemony and education: Lessons from Gramsci. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 41(6), 661–683.

29.

Le Gal

. (2019, July 15). English language teaching in Colombia: A necessary paradigm shift. Matices en Lenguas Extranjeras. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3420094

30.

Levinson

Sutton

Winstead

(2009). Education policy as a practice of power: Theoretical tools, ethnographic methods, democratic options. Educational Policy, 23(6), 767–795.

31.

López

L. E.

(2017). Decolonization and bilingual/intercultural education. In McCarty

May

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 297–313). Springer.

32.

López

Sichra

(2016). Indigenous bilingual education in Latin America. In Garcia

Lin

May

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 381–394). Springer.

33.

Matthews

(1988). The ethos of international schools [Master’s thesis]. University of Oxford.

34.

Menken

García

(2010). Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers. Routledge.

35.

Mignolo

W. D.

(2012). Local histories/global designs: Coloniality, subaltern knowledges, and border thinking. Princeton University Press.

36.

Molnar

(2020). Bravery, accountability, and praxis: decolonizing international education [Master’s thesis]. Lakehead University, Orillia, Canada.

37.

Murillo

L. A.

(2009). “This great emptiness we are feeling”: Toward a decolonization of schooling in Simunurwa, Colombia. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 40(4), 421–437.

38.

Ordóñez

C. L.

(2011). Education for bilingualism: Connecting Spanish and English from the curriculum, into the classroom, and beyond. Profile Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 13(2), 147–161.

39.

Ortega

(2019). “How do you spell ‘capital’?”: Examining Colombia’s English language policy through critical lens. In Finardi

(Ed.), English in the South (pp. 1–30). EDUEL.

40.

Ortega

(2020). Using collaborative action research to address bullying and violence in a Colombian high school EFL classroom. Íkala, 25(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v25n01a04

41.

Pennycook

(2000). English, politics, ideology: From colonial celebration to postcolonial performativity. In Ricento

(Ed.), Ideology, politics and language policies: Focus on English (pp. 107–119). John Benjamins.

42.

Phillipson

(1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press.

43.

Phillipson

(2009). English in globalisation, a lingua franca or a lingua frankensteinia? TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 335–339.

44.

Phipps

(2019). Decolonising multilingualism: Struggles to decreate. Multilingual Matters.

45.

Pirbhai-Illich

Osber

Martin

Chave

Sabbah

Griffiths

(2017). Decolonizing teacher education: Re-thinking the educational relationship research seminar report. Canada-UK Foundation.

46.

Ruiz

(1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8(2), 15–34.

47.

Saldaña

(2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE.

48.

Sánchez

García

Solorza

(2018). Reframing language allocation policy in dual language bilingual education. Bilingual Research Journal, 41(1), 37–51.

49.

Simpson

(2022, February 1). Open letter to historically marginalized educators and co-conspirators: Be the revolutionary educators your community needs [Blog post]. Association of International Educators and Leaders of Color. http://aieloc.org/blog-2/open-letter-to-historically-marginalized-educators-and-co-conspirators-be-the-revolutionary-educators-your-community-needs/

50.

Spiro

Crisfield

(2018). Linguistic and cultural innovation in schools: The languages challenge. Palgrave Macmillan.

51.

Swalwell

(2013). Educating activist allies: Social justice pedagogy with the suburban and urban elite. Routledge.

52.

Tanu

(2018). Growing up in transit: The politics of belonging at an international school. Berghahn Books.

53.

Usma Wilches

. (2009). Education and language policy in Colombia: Exploring processes of inclusion, exclusion, and stratification in times of global reform. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 11, 123–142.

54.

Usma Wilches

J. A

. (2015). From transnational language policy transfer to local appropriation: The case of the National Bilingual Program in Medellín, Colombia. Deep University Press.

55.

Usma Wilches

J. A.

Ortiz Medina

J. M.

Gutiérrez

. (2018). Indigenous students learning English in higher education: Challenges and hopes. Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 23(2), 229–254.