Power,dependency,and negotiation: Community language schools in mainstream educational spaces

Abstract

Community language schools play a vital role in preserving the linguistic and cultural heritage of migrant communities around the world. Established and run by volunteers, these schools operate with limited resources and function outside the formal education system. Many rely on borrowing or renting classroom space from mainstream schools, yet little is known about the nature of the relationships between the two systems. Drawing on power-dependency theory, this study examines the dynamics between community language schools and their mainstream hosts, focusing on the case of New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Based on fifteen interviews with community language educators and leaders, the study explores how power, dependency, and perceived status shape their relationship with mainstream schools. Some community language schools described supportive mainstream principals who fostered inclusion, open communication, and autonomy. Others recounted experiences of surveillance, hostility, or abrupt changes following leadership turnover. Lacking alternative venues, many schools reported feeling vulnerable, marginalised, and dependent on the goodwill of individual principals. In response, they adopted strategies such as rigorous cleaning routines, gift-giving, and efforts to demonstrate their value to the host school and to balance power. The findings reveal a pattern of unstable and unequal relationships. To move toward more equitable partnerships, systemic changes are needed. These include clearer policy frameworks, consistent standards for access, and greater institutional recognition of the contributions community language schools make to the broader educational and cultural landscape. Reimagining these schools as valued partners rather than peripheral users is key to addressing long-standing imbalances and building more inclusive education systems.

Keywords

community language schools heritage language schools complementary schools power dynamics status educational equity

Introduction

Community language schools are grassroot initiatives that teach language and culture to children and descendants of immigrants. Existing worldwide, they play a crucial role in preserving linguistic and cultural heritage for immigrant communities. Despite their value, they remain under-recognised in policy and under-supported in practice. Their marginalisation is compounded by practical dependencies on mainstream schools for access to facilities, resources, and visibility.

Globally, many community language schools borrow or rent spaces at mainstream schools, a key factor shaping how community languages are delivered (Cruickshank et al., 2020; Ferre-Pérez et al., 2022; Nordstrom and Jung, 2022; Otcu, 2010; Souza and Arthur, 2020). Yet this topic remains overlooked in the scholarly literature. Some emerging research indicates that the relationships between community language schools and their mainstream hosts are frail and haphazard (Cruickshank et al., 2018; Cruickshank et al., 2020; Nordstrom and Jung, 2022). For example, a recent survey (Nordstrom and Jung, 2022) found highly inconsistent access to educational tools across schools, with some community language schools having access to classroom resources such as whiteboards, smartboards, and computers, and others none. Some community language schools also had access to internet, copy machines, storage, and so on, while others did not. Many community language teachers describe feeling like “unwelcome guest” or “intruders” at the mainstream school (Cruickshank et al., 2018; Norst, 1982a).

Using the case of New South Wales (NSW), Australia, this paper explores the relationships between community language and mainstream schools, including the material and symbolic conditions under which community language schools operate. It explores the nature of leadership, power, and agency within shared schooling spaces. By focussing on the micro-politics of hosting, the paper contributes to international discussions on the educational infrastructure of these schools.

Community language schools

Community language schools, globally known as heritage language schools (North America), complementary schools (UK), or Saturday schools, have a long history, dating back to the mid-1800s in the UK, US, and Australia (Fishman, 2014; Norst, 1982b; Simon, 2018). Typically operating a few hours weekly, these grassroots initiatives are established and maintained by community members (Fishman, 1980). Despite their importance, they often operate with minimal support and limited resources. Sometimes referred to as marginalised or “ghettoised” (Baldauf, 2005: 142), they have developed in “parallel” with mainstream schools around the world (Cruickshank et al., 2020), frequently positioned as subsidiary to it (Cardona et al., 2008). Teachers are often seen as “invisible adjuncts” (Cruickshank et al., 2018: 7) or not “real teachers” (Baldauf, 2005: 142), reinforcing their marginalisation.

Despite being major language education providers, few countries seem to gather systematic data on community language schools. In some countries (such as Australia), schools receive modest government funding. However, in Australia and elsewhere, these schools largely exist “beyond the control of the dominant social structure” (Lo Bianco, 2008: 344). They rely primarily on student contributions, small grants, and volunteer teachers (Hall et al., 2002; Martin et al., 2004; Mirza and Reay, 2000) and operate outside formal curriculum structures with autonomy over syllabi, recruitment, and methods.

The NSW context

According to NSW Department of Education (NSW Department of Education, n.d.), there are around 320 mainstream host schools in NSW, with roughly 80% borrowing a space at a mainstream school. Most host schools (72%) are primary schools, 24% high schools, and 4% K-12 or specialised. Nearly all school hosts (95%) are public schools with others being either catholic or independent. Across the state, roughly 14% of all public schools host a community language school. Most are concentrated in major cities, where one in four mainstream schools host a community language school. Although most schools only host one community language school, some schools are “super hosts”, hosting up to 6 schools each.

Although the NSW Department of Education encourages mainstream principals to host, the final decision rests with each principal. As mentioned earlier, this decentralisation creates variability in host arrangements. This study draws on the NSW case to highlight broader patterns and issues playing out globally, but that remain unexamined. By focussing on NSW, it examines how leadership, power, and agency are negotiated in shared schooling spaces. While much is known about the pedagogical and sociocultural contributions of community language schools, less attention has been paid to the spatial politics and administrative relationships that underpin their access to infrastructure.

Theoretical framework

This study focusses on the relationship between mainstream and community language schools with attention to equity and distribution of resources, power, and perceptions around status. Taking a social relations perspective and drawing on Emerson's (2019) power-dependence theory, it assumes that in relationships between community language and mainstream schools, actors are interdependent and their perceptions mutually influence each other (Hegtvedt, 1988). Sociological approach acknowledges that power is not just about physical force, but the ability to shape social action. It also has a relational aspect, meaning it only becomes evident when individuals or groups interact.

The power-dependence theory focusses on the distribution of power and dependency among actors (groups or individuals). Power in itself is here defined as the ability to influence (direct or indirect) the behaviour of others in accordance with their own intentions (Goldhamer and Shils, 1939; Weber, 2019). This power is furthermore intrinsically linked to people's (individual or groups) perceived value and dependence on the social exchange. Emerson argues that power and dependency are intertwined, and that “power resides implicitly in the other's dependency” (Emerson, 2019, p.49, italics in original). While power and dependency can be bilateral where both parties have power and dependency over each other, a unilateral power relation emerge when one actor (B) is more dependent than the other (A) (Hegtvedt, 1988; Goldhamer and Shils, 1939). If a community language school (actor B) is dependent on a mainstream school (actor A) for space and resources, but the mainstream school have little dependency on the community language school, then an unequal power dynamic emerges.

Power in social relationships is determined by perceived value and access to alternatives (Emerson, 2019). As alternatives diminish, dependency (and thus the power of the host) increases. Emerson (2019, p.52f) outlines four ways to balance this:

Reducing reliance on goals mediated by the more powerful actor (e.g., reducing the motivational interests).

Finding alternative sources for meeting those goals.

Increasing the more powerful actor's reliance.

Limiting their alternatives for those reliances.

Thus, if community language schools value the space highly but lack other options, dependency increases. Conversely, when mainstream schools have little to gain from the relationship, their willingness to support may decline.

While power in these relationships is shaped by dependency, status dynamics also play a crucial role in how community language schools are perceived and treated. Status is an important concept in understanding equity and inequalities in social relations (Ridgeway and Markus, 2022; Sell et al., 2004). While often poorly understood (Ridgeway and Markus, 2022), it entails perceptions around positions in social networks (Sell et al., 2004) as well as esteem, respect, and honour that impact on social relationships. As argued by Ridgeway and Markus (2022), “we will never understand the motives involved in the struggle for precedence that lies behind inequality if we do not take into account how much people care about being seen as worthy and valued in the eyes of their group and society” (p.3). Drawing on Ridgeway and Markus (2022) sociocultural schema model of status, this study posits that status is a way for people to manage situations where they are interdependent on other actors to achieve outcomes and goals. This is important, because being seen through a lens of stereotypes, or as having low status, influence people's behaviour and undermines performances.

Method

This study adopts a qualitative, interpretive research design aimed at understanding how relationships between community language schools and mainstream principals are experienced and interpreted by community language educators. Forming part of a larger study, the results presented in this paper focus particularly on how those relationships are constructed and maintained from the perspective of community language schools.

Non-probability sampling was used. All community language schools in NSW were contacted via email and invited to participate. The final sample consisted of fifteen participants from fourteen different language communities who voluntarily responded. Interview lasted 60 and 90 min and focussed on participants’ experiences with mainstream schools: how they secured space and resources, approached schools, and navigated positive and negative interactions. Interviews were transcribed and thematically coded using NVivo. A mix of deductive and inductive coding produced key themes around “good principals”, empowerment, conflict, and conflict avoidance.

This paper centres on the voices of community language school representatives. It presents their interpretations of their interactions with mainstream schools, not verified accounts from principals. Some quotes from mainstream staff are included, but retold through the lens of the community language school. These findings are therefore shaped by community schools’ perceptions of power, status, and leadership. Other parts of the broader study will incorporate principals’ perspectives.

Results

Supportive principals

This study was particularly interested in anecdotes and experience that related to examples where community language schools felt supported and valued by their mainstream host. Eleven of the fifteen interviewees spoke of positive relationships with principals they described as “good” or “amazing”. A dominant theme that emerged from these accounts was empowerment, which interviewees associated with autonomy, open communication, and the creation of a sense of belonging.

Empowerment, as described by participants, was enacted when mainstream principals gave community language schools operational autonomy. These host principals included community language schools in decision-making processes that supported them to operate independently. In the quote below, for example, the principal offered the community language school to “take what you want”, giving power to the community language school that afforded them to take control over their needs:

[The principal said] just come in, the school is yours… take what you want, I will give you the keys… if there is anything you need let us know … how many classrooms do you need? You can have whatever, how many do you need? No problem (Interview 4)

Various examples were provided of how “good principals” handed over power and control. At a different location, the community language school teacher recalled how their “amazing” principal had provided them with the alarm code for the school, enabling them to “stay back” as they deemed fit:

The principal gave us the alarm code, and if we need to stay back, we can stay back (Interview 9)

These principals maintained regular contact with the community language schools, which participants perceived as fostering respect and autonomy. The principals also navigated tensions and de-escalated conflict between the community language school and other mainstream staff, often the classroom teacher. At one school, the mainstream teachers had allegedly hidden the remote control to the air conditioning. The community language school raised this with the principal, who reportedly then told the mainstream teachers to stop hiding it:

…the teachers [were] hiding the remote control. But [the principal] told them, don’t hide it. Just put it in. (Interview 13)

The work of community language school teachers was thus validated through a sense of feeling heard and being in control. This was not always directly through the mainstream school principal, but could also be the deputy or school manager. These staff members addressed issues promptly and demonstrated a solution-based approach. Importantly, the host principals or their staff provided easy channels for communication, ranging from giving out their private numbers (“we can ring him any time”, Interview 11) to setting up WhatsApp groups as a means of keeping regular contact with the community language school (Interview 7 and 9). These open channels of communication facilitated cooperation, collaboration, autonomy, and created a sense of connection and belonging.

Community language schools also reported how supportive host principals took steps to include them in the mainstream school community. These principals “invited us to festivals and were sharing all the information with us” (Interview 7), making them “[feel] as if we were just part of that school” (Interview 11). Others asked the community language school to “go to the office [to take] a picture with all of us” (Interview 12). In addition to demonstrating respect and recognition where the community language school “felt comfortable and very proud of our work” (Interview 7), these actions signalled that the community language school made valuable contribution to the mainstream school community, rather than just the other way around. Participants thus perceived that when community language schools were recognised as valuable contributors, power imbalances diminished because both parties appeared to benefit from the relationship (Hegtvedt, 1988).

Contesting power and status

Despite community language schools’ attempts to build positive relationships with mainstream hosts, all of them, bar one, recalled stories of conflict and detrimental relationships with hosts. In these conflicts, claims to power and status both contested and negotiated in various ways.

Several of the community language schools raised the issues of receiving complaints from their mainstream school host. Many of these complaints were about leaving the premises “messy” or that there's “rubbish” left behind, while others were serious accusations suggesting that the community language school had been stealing, vandalising, trespassing, or used unauthorised spaces. Although there were times when the community language school found the complaints warranted, they mostly found the complaints unjustified and even “humiliating” (Interview 2 and Interview 8). They sometimes felt attacked, arguing that “the teacher was constantly complaining about us and we kept ensuring and making sure that things were not touched, and we didn’t take anything, but she just was not happy with it” (Interview 6). At a different school (Interview 7), the community language school explained that they are not getting warnings anymore, but instead have been told that they will be immediately terminated should a complaint against them emerge.

Participants described these complaints and conflicts as offensive, often linking them to a perceived lack of recognition, respect, and esteem. Some of them felt “watched”, with anecdotes of how the host principal “asked some men to observe us … trying to find reasons to get rid of us” (Interview 2), or that the principal “was coming and watching every single corner” (Interview 13). To protect themselves against unwarranted accusations and complaints, many of the community language schools had turned to taking photographs of their teaching space, both before and after teaching. Several schools argued that there is “no respect” from the mainstream school. In the quote below, the teacher reported on how this perceived mistrust and inferiority impacted on their pride and esteem:

We feel like we are doing something bad, [that] we are sneaky, we are doing something people try to supress. It just takes our pride away. We should be proud of what we are doing. Instead of that, we feel like we are begging them for our existence and for what we are doing. (Interview 12)

Some community language schools attempted to challenge these unequal power distributions by asserting their own professional status as equals with the mainstream principal. In these instances, the community language school principal would make an argument with the mainstream principal that “I’m a principal too” (Interview 2 and 7). However, this position was rarely recognised and left the community language schools feeling despair and inferiority:

They don’t believe that we are principals and these are teachers and these are students. They think we are animals, monkeys, and that the teachers are [just] mothers. [They believe] we are coming just to waste time and the principal is doing nothing. That's what they think. That we are doing nothing. We teach 4 h, but we work 20 h behind the scenes (Interview 7)

Other strategies involved questioning the perceived ownership and authority of the mainstream school over shared spaces. This was particularly evident by the community language schools arguing the point that the mainstream school premises were not the property of the mainstream principal, but of the Department of Education. By making these statements, the community language school sought to reduce the mainstream school's ownership of the valuable resources:

And the mainstream school always feel the school is their own one. Like, this teacher uses this classroom [and therefore] it is hers. But that's not yours, that is the governments. We are like, half children, you know. Yeah, half children. You [the mainstream school] can’t have everything (Interview 5)

Others attempted to raise their own perceived value to the mainstream school through symbolic or material gestures. This included leaving classrooms cleaner than what they found them, organising resources for the mainstream school, sponsoring school events, providing gifts (e.g., hampers, chocolates, or Christmas presents), or inviting principals and staff to morning teas and dinners. These attempts, reflecting broader strategies of status repair and relationship-building, were rarely successful:

We invited all teachers to morning tea. But no one showed up, not even the principal. (Interview 7)

To overcome these unequal power distributions, some schools decided to leave their host school and seek alternative venues for their operation. At one school, the situation was so dire at the mainstream school after numerous complaints, that they left the mainstream premises to teach at a community centre instead. In cases such as this, the community language school reduced the value they placed on the goals mediated by the mainstream school to seek a state of balance elsewhere.

Leadership change and instability

Several community language schools reported that a change in principal or school manager often led to deteriorated relationships. In some cases, a new principal's first interaction with the community language school was not a welcome or introduction, but a complaint. This sudden shift from cooperation to scrutiny was particularly frustrating for community language schools, who had often built positive relationships with previous principals. One community language school principal described how, after years of no issues, the new host principal “all of a sudden” called them regarding a complaint, suggesting that “our teachers have been suffering for a very long time”, and threats of termination (Interview 7).

Several participants reported that changes in school leadership had an immediate impact on their relationships with host schools, disrupting established communication channels and routines. In one case, a school arrived to find their building under renovation without notice, forcing them to teach outside (Interview 11). Requests for emergency contacts were denied, and security staff sometimes appeared without explanation, highlighting the lack of coordination. Unlike mainstream users, community language schools had no guaranteed access to resources like air conditioning or school newsletters, and leadership shifts often meant they had to re-negotiate their status and access. Their reliance on host schools, coupled with few alternative venues, made them especially vulnerable to changes in leadership and policy.

Strategic invisibility

To avoid conflict, many community language schools practiced a form of strategic invisibility. Rigid cleaning processes were common, often including “checklists”, leaving things “spotless” (Interview 4), or “in perfect order” (Interview 6). Children were repeatedly told not to touch anything, even if they attended the same school during daytime. Some community language schools spent significant money on cleaning products or brought in plastic to cover tables and resources their students were not to touch. If furniture needed to be removed, then photographs were taken beforehand so that they could be put back in place just as they were. At some locations, community language schools removed their own rubbish each week.

While participants took pride in maintaining high standards of cleanliness, these practices underscored the marginal status of community language schools. Their efforts to remain “out of sight” were not out of preference but necessity, a reflection of the precariousness of their position and the lack of formal recognitions within the school community.

Discussion

The findings of this study highlight the unequal power dynamics between mainstream schools and community language schools. As providers of essential resources, mainstream schools hold considerable power over community language schools, who often lack alternative venues. This dependency, as described by participants, positioned principals as gatekeepers with authority over facilities, resources, and perceived legitimacy. In line with Emerson's (2019) assertion that power resides in dependency, community language schools are highly vulnerable in these relationships. The fewer alternatives they have and the less valuable they are perceived, the greater the power principals hold.

While these power imbalances place community language schools in a precarious position, some principals foster equitable relationships and reduce power differentials through respect, communication, and inclusion. These principals support autonomy and recognise the contribution of community language schools to the broader school community. This shift in perception helps alter their status, mitigating dependency-based imbalances. As Hegtvede (1988) suggests, equity emerges when both parties perceive the relationship as fair.

However, in the absence of such relationship or following leadership change, conflicts often emerge. Most participants in this study reported instances where they felt like “unwelcome guests” (Cruickshank et al., 2018) rather than partners in a shared educational space. Complaints, ranging from minor issues like cleanliness to serious allegations of misconduct, reflect a broader pattern of low-status positioning, where community language schools must continuously prove their legitimacy. As Ridgeway and Markus (2022) argue, status is deeply tied to social esteem and recognition, and when community language schools feel mistrusted or scrutinised, their work is devalued. Attempts to claim higher status, such as asserting their own leadership roles (e.g., “I’m a principal too”), are often dismissed by mainstream principals, reinforcing power imbalances. The lack of status recognition contributes to the struggle for precedence and further entrenches inequalities.

One of the most precarious aspects of the relationship between community language schools and mainstream schools is its instability in the face of leadership changes. As demonstrated in this study, a new principal or school manager can swiftly undo years of positive collaboration. The arrival of a new principal sometimes leads to heightened scrutiny, sudden restrictions, and (in some cases) completes termination of agreements. When new leadership arrives, community language schools may find themselves reassessed and reprioritised, often to their detriment. The need to continually renegotiate legitimacy reflects the precarious nature of their position and the broader structural inequalities at play.

Given that power resides in dependency (Emerson, 2019), community language schools have limited means to balance power. Dependency can be reduced by seeking alternative spaces, and some community language schools attempt to mitigate their dependency by securing venues outside of the mainstream school. This strategy, while effective in reducing reliance on mainstream schools, is rarely feasible due to resource constraints. Another approach is increasing the perceived value of hosting a community language school. However, this approach only succeeds if the mainstream school has motivational investment in the relationship, which requires systemic support to provide meaningful power symmetry.

Many participants described engaging in behaviours that minimise the perceived burden their schools placed on mainstream hosts, such as rigorous cleaning protocols and making themselves “invisible”. This aligns with Emerson's (2019) argument that actors in power-dependent relationships often engage in cost-reduction strategies to lessen the strain of subordination. While this can preserve access to resources, it simultaneously reinforces their marginal status rather than challenging inequalities. These findings underscore how power, dependency, and status interact in the relationship between community language schools and their mainstream hosts. Achieving more equitable relationships will require structural changes, including clearer policies on the responsibilities of host schools and professional development to foster mutual recognition and respect.

Conclusion

The findings of this study highlight the persistent power imbalances between mainstream schools and community language schools. In line with Emerson's (2019) assertion that power resides in dependency, participants’ accounts revealed that community language schools remain highly reliant on mainstream schools for access to space and resources. This dependency leaves them vulnerable to leadership changes, shifting school policies, and variable attitudes from principals, as also noted in previous research (Cruickshank et al., 2020; Nordstrom and Jung, 2022).

Based on these findings, several areas for systemic improvement emerge. First, the discretionary power of individual principals is a key source of instability, suggesting the need for clearer and more consistent policy frameworks. However, as argued by Ridgeway and Markus (2022), structural inequalities in status also shape these relationships. Policies alone will not suffice without parallel efforts to address status-based barriers.

Leadership was repeatedly identified by participants as key factors in relationship quality, underscoring the need for targeted professional development for principals. Such training should promote recognition of the educational, cultural, and social value that community language schools contribute to school communities, thereby addressing both dependency and status dynamics.

While some participants described successful collaborations with supportive principals, these examples were the exception rather than the norm. Creating conditions for more equitable and mutually beneficial partnerships will require not only stronger institutional support but also ongoing efforts to shift perceptions of community language schools to valued partners. Future research should continue to explore how structural and relational factors interact to shape these partnerships, with the goal of informing more sustainable and equitable practices across educational systems.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Janica Nordstrom

Ethical considerations

Ethics approval for the study was gained by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (Project number: 2024/HE000034).

Consent to participate

Written consent was received by all participants in this study. The written consent include informed consent to publish.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Author biography

Dr Janica Nordstrom is a Senior Lecturer at the School of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney. Her main research area is in the field of community language schools with a particular focus on social justice and educational equity. She is a member of the Sydney Institute for Community Languages Education (SICLE) and works closely with key stakeholders including community language schools, mainstream schools, tertiary institutions, and state departments. Janica is also the co-convenor for the international AILA Research Network “HOLM” (Social and Affective Factors in Home Language Maintenance).

References

Baldauf

(2005) Coordinating government and community support for community language teaching in Australia: Overview with special attention to New South Wales. International Journal of Bilingual Education & Bilingualism 8(2–3): 132–144.

Cardona

Noble

Di Biase

(2008) Community languages matter: Challenges and opportunities facing the community language program in New South Wales. Report Number|, Date. Place Published|: Institution|.

Cruickshank

Ellsmore

Brownlee

(2018) The skills in question: Report on the professional learning strengths and needs of teachers in the NSW Community Language Schools. Report Number|, Date. Place Published|: Institution|.

Cruickshank

Jung

(2020) Parallel lines: Community language schools and their role in growing languages and building communities. Report Number|, Date. Place Published|: Institution|.

Emerson

(2019) Power-dependence Relations. Power in Modern Societies. New York: Routledge, pp.48–58.

Ferre-Pérez

Ramos Méndez

Salaberri Ramiro

(2022) Analysis of the fostering and constraining factors for learners’ participation in the Spanish heritage education program ALCE in Germany: Proposals for improvement. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 25(9): 3274–3288.

Fishman

(1980) Ethnic community mother tongue schools in the U.S.A.: Dynamics and distributions. International Migration Review 14(2): 235.

Fishman

(2014) Three hundred-plus years of heritage language education in the United States. In: Wiley

Peyton

Christian

(eds) Handbook of Heritage, Community, and Native American Languages in the United States. Research, Policy, and Educational Practice. New York: Routledge, pp.81–97.

Goldhamer

Shils

(1939) Types of power and status. American Journal of Sociology 45(2): 171–182.

10.

Hall

Özerk

Zulfiqar

, et al. (2002) This is our school': Provision, purpose and pedagogy of supplementary schooling in Leeds and Oslo. British Educational Research Journal 28(3): 399–418.

11.

Hegtvedt

(1988) Social determinants of perception: Power, equity, and status effects in an exchange situation. Social Psychology Quarterly 51: 141–153.

12.

Lo Bianco

(2008) Language Policy and Education in Australia. In: May

Hornberger

(eds) Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Springer.com: Springer, 343–354.

13.

Martin

Creese

Bhatt

, et al. (2004) Final Report on Complementary schools and their communities in Leicester. Report Number|, Date. Place Published|: Institution|.

14.

Mirza

Reay

(2000) Spaces and places of black educational desire: Rethinking black supplementary schools as a new social movement. Sociology 34(3): 521–544.

15.

Nordstrom

Jung

(2022) Teaching in borrowed spaces: Community language schools and educational equity in New South Wales, Australia. Current Issues in Language Planning 23(1): 21–36.

16.

Norst

(1982a) Australian National Survey of Ethnic Schools. Report Number|, Date. Place Published|: Institution|.

17.

Norst

(1982b) Ethnic schools: What they are and what they would like to be. Journal of Intercultural Studies 3(1): 6–16.

18.

NSW Department of Education (n.d.) Find a language school. Available at: https://education.nsw.gov.au/schooling/parents-and-carers/choosing-a-school-setting/community-languages-schools/find-a-language-school (accessed 25/2/2025).

19.

Otcu

(2010) Heritage language maintenance and cultural identity formation: The case of a Turkish Saturday school in New York City. Heritage Language Journal 7(2): 112–137.

20.

Ridgeway

Markus

(2022) The significance of Status: What it is and how it shapes inequality. RSF : Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 8(7): 1–26.

21.

Sell

Lovaglia

Mannix

, et al. (2004) Investigating conflict, power, and status within and among groups. Small Group Research 35(1): 44–72.

22.

Simon

(2018) Supplementary Schools and Ethnic Minority Communitieis: A Social Positioning Perspective. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

23.

Souza

Arthur

(2020) The impact of leadership on the professional development of teachers in complementary schools. Management in Education 34(4): 141–148.

24.

Weber

(2019) Power, Domination, and Legitimacy. Power in Modern Societies. New York: Routledge, pp.37–47.