Abstract
As the Latinx Spanish-speaking and emergent bilingual population grows, there is an urgent need for more inclusive language and literacy programs in schools. It's essential to recognize Latinx parents’ educational aspirations for their children and the crucial role of Spanish within families. This article explores the language and literacy practices adopted by Latinx parents to sustain Spanish, contrasting English literacy practices in schools with the home environment through bilingual education typology and family language policy. Thirty parents participated in interviews. I employed a data analysis spiral and a phenomenological approach to examine the data. This study documents Latinx parents’ reflections on (1) their interactions and children's language choices, (2) children's language choices across various domains, and (3) the home impact of school's English literacy practices. Findings align with recent research indicating that families’ language choices and literacy practices help maintain Spanish and strengthen connections. Spanish is integral to family life, regardless of whether school language programs align with family biliteracy goals. Ultimately, it shows that parents want their children to be bilingual and biliterate to prevent linguistic barriers.
Keywords
The bilingual school population in the U.S. continues to grow, with English Learners (ELs) totaling 5.3 million nationwide in fall 2021 (National Center for Education Statistics, n.d.). Recent research on parents’ beliefs and language choices (Ronderos et al., 2021; Surrain, 2021; Velázquez, 2019) shows how bilingual families create spaces that foster identity and agency through layered literacies (García et al., 2021). Such research emphasizes the importance of gaining a better understanding of language choices, use, beliefs, ideologies, and literacy strategies within families, as described by King (2016) and King et al. (2008) in their concept of Family Language Policy (FLP). It also underscores the family's role and internal choices (Schwartz & Verschik, 2013). Family language policy is influenced by beliefs, ideology, practices, and planning, affecting language choices (King & Fogle, 2013). Beliefs and ideologies assign values to language aspects, often competing. Language practice involves daily linguistic use, while language planning and management manage these practices (Spolsky, 2004).
In this study, I aim to gain a deeper understanding of FLP within the Chicagoland area, specifically among Latinx families. In Illinois, 294,234 students are identified as ELs, with 75.52% being Spanish speakers (Illinois Report Card, n.d.; English Learners in Illinois SY 2022–23 Statistical Report). Therefore, policymakers must promote inclusive language policies for this growing student population. I support language and literacy programs in Illinois schools, emphasizing the importance of recognizing Latinx families’ Spanish and reflecting their family language policies in school.
Indeed, a new interest has emerged in FLP due to the research's findings, which focus on including diverse ethnic backgrounds, particularly from marginalized communities, languages, and families in transnational contexts (e.g., Canagarajah, 2008, as cited in King, 2016; Pérez Báez, 2013, as cited in King, 2016). Research on Latinx families has specifically expanded, offering a more holistic view of FLP (Bayley & Schecter, 2005; King & Fogle, 2006; Lee et al., 2015), providing valuable insights into a Latinx family's language policies, focusing on language practices and management. This study examines some missing elements from recent studies, including parents’ beliefs, ideologies, and language practices. It also invites schools to adopt language policies to meet the wishes of Latinx parents for bilingualism and recognize the importance of Spanish in Latinx families (Bayley & Schecter, 2005; García et al., 2021).
To expand on the FLP framework, I studied language beliefs, choices, and literacy practices across listening, speaking, reading, and writing among Latinx families in Illinois. I examined how the school's English literacy practices impact family life, the importance of Spanish in daily routines, and parents’ efforts to overcome linguistic barriers, regardless of their alignment with school literacy and biliteracy goals.
Theoretical Framework
The lens of bilingual education typology and the theoretical framework guiding this study are Spolsky's (2004) Family Language Policy (FLP). In this section, I describe the language education policy (LEP) in Illinois and expand on the FLP framework. Blending these frameworks shows the importance of immigrant parents maintaining their home language to avoid language barriers and exclusion from their children's lives, regardless of alignment with school language programs. I hope the field advocates for more inclusive language and literacy programs, recognizing the vital role of home languages in immigrant families. I prefer the term emergent bilingual for students, “whose bilingualism is still emerging” (García & Kleifgen, 2018, p. 4). I only use ELs when they appear in original articles or state education policies.
Language Education Policy in Illinois
Language policy examines issues such as bilingualism, language rights, and preservation. Spolsky (2004) developed a theory on national language policy in speech communities, highlighting distinctions among beliefs, practices, dialects, policies, and entities such as workplaces and schools. Shohamy (2006) expanded this to include LEP, focusing on language practices in educational settings. Schools decide which languages to teach, regulate methods, and materials, following a top-down approach where authorities enforce LEPs through curricula and testing, making them agents in policy implementation.
In the U.S., landmark rulings such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the 1964 Civil Rights Act Title VI, and Lau v. Nichols (1974) protect marginalized students’ educational rights—desegregating schools, preventing discrimination, and supporting non-English speakers. They influence federal funding for bilingual students, affecting LEP (Crawford, 2004; García & Kleifgen, 2018). States vary in interpreting these laws, and school districts enact policies aligned with regulations but often create inconsistent language programs (Shohamy, 2006). Illinois’ laws reflect the Lau Remedies’ influence.
As of 1973, Illinois’ educational language policy is governed by Article 14C of the Illinois School Code, 23 Illinois Administrative Code 228. “EL students must be placed into a Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE) program or Transitional Programs of Instruction (TPI) per Article 14C of the School Code.” (Illinois State Board of Education [ISBE], n.d. a). A TBE program requires at least 20 students of the same language, providing instruction in their home language only up to third grade. In contrast, a TPI program is for 19 or fewer students of any language, with instruction primarily in English and some support in the home language. It follows a pull-in or pull-out model, exclusive to Illinois and similar to an ESL program. Both programs aim for English proficiency. Additionally, school districts offer Dual Language (DL) and World Language for Heritage Speakers programs as enrichment or extracurricular activities, primarily at the secondary level. The Administrative Code 228 mandates a Bilingual Parent Advisory Committee (BPAC) in school districts with a TBE program. Bilingual Parent Advisory Committee members meet to discuss issues related to ELs, including services, programs, and resources for students and families (Illinois State Board of Education [ISBE], n.d. b).
Despite Illinois's progressive stance and large Spanish-speaking population, its educational policies follow a subtractive model. In these models, emergent bilinguals learn English but may lose their home language to assimilation pressure (Baker & Wright, 2017). Such policies are similar nationwide, and DL programs are not mandated by law, so public schools are not required to offer them. Among Latinx communities, TBE and TPI are most common in elementary schools (Morales & Rao, 2015).
The legislation overlooks studies validating DL programs as the most effective model for emergent bilinguals, with students showing comparable or higher standardized test outcomes (Fitts, 2006, as cited in Dworin, 2011; Howard & Sugarman, 2007, as cited in Dworin, 2011; Lindholm-Leary, 2001, as cited in Dworin, 2011). Latinx families prefer DL programs to preserve language and culture (López, 2013) and strengthen intergenerational bonds (Block, 2012). Policies contradict Latinx parents’ goals for biliteracy (Chaparro, 2020). Domínguez-Fret and Oberto (2022) found DL mostly in suburban, White, middle-class areas of Chicago, leaving high Latinx and Spanish-speaking communities with fewer DL schools.
Family Language Policy
Beyond FLP tripartite classification influencing families’ language choices and practices, external pressures such as school, community, or national language policies alongside internal family choices, must be considered because they will impact a family's language policy (Wright, 2024). Schools shape the family domain through LEPs; a school takes on the family's role in socialization, determining the language used for instruction (Spolsky, 2004). As a result, family and school members hold their own beliefs about language choices, striving “to manage or influence the language practices of the others” (Spolsky, 2012, p. 5).
I expand on recent findings regarding language's critical role in families (Hua & Wei, 2016; Mirvahedi, 2021; Palviainen & Kędra, 2020) and how school literacies interact with home literacies. By incorporating an underrepresented geographical setting within the U.S. and addressing the cultural and emotional needs of families (Curdt-Christiansen & Iwaniec, 2023; Sevinç & Mirvahedi, 2023), I aim to capture the truths and complexities of a family's language policies in Latinx families in Illinois. In this paper, I primarily focus on a family's language practices, recognizing FLP's tripartite classification is not mutually exclusive, and its intersectionality is distinct.
To center Latinx families’ language practices, I frame this study through the following questions:
What family language policies do Latinx parents employ, given their educational and family aspirations? What are parents’ expectations about the literacy and language instructional program in which their children are enrolled? How are the goals of the school's language education program reflected in the language choices for their children?
Methods
This article is part of a larger sequential mixed-method study exploring Latinx parents’ perceptions and experiences of bilingual and biliteracy education. The larger study used a survey and interview design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). A total of 101 parents from the Chicagoland region completed the survey, and thirty participated in an interview. I focus primarily on the interview results, specifically on the language and literacy practices families partake in at home to maintain Spanish.
Setting and Participants
Sixty parents (59%) provided their contact information in the survey, the first phase of the study, to participate in the second phase, an interview. Participants met the following selection criteria: (1) identify as Latino, Hispanic, Mexican, etc., (2) have or had children attending a K-12 Chicago public school, and (3) children enrolled or had been enrolled in a language program (TBE, TPI, DL) receiving language services for at least three years. The demographic participant data revealed a broad age range among participants. Most were females, with only two males. Table 1 provides additional details about the participants’ demographics.
Parent Demographic Data.
The study occurred in the Chicago metropolitan area (North Side, West Side, and South Side), covering 14 neighborhoods. The West and South Side neighborhood areas are significant to Chicago's history and culture, mainly due to its immigrant communities (Guerra, 1998). The city's school district is the third largest in the U.S., representing 47.1% (n = 151,506) Hispanic or Latino and 26% (n = 83,633) emergent bilinguals (Illinois Report Card, n.d.). The participants in this study reside in all of Chicago's regions.
Researcher Positionality
My parents settled in the city's south to raise us as bilingual, biliterate, and bicultural in the U.S. and México, with transnational aspirations common among immigrant families (Connaughton-Crean & Ó Duibhir, 2024; Ee, 2018). Transnational families extend beyond borders (Hernando-Llorens & Blair, 2017), with children thriving in both countries (Chaparro, 2020; McClain, 2010; Surrain, 2021). I attended a Chicago TBE program and later a school without language support. My parents promoted Spanish at home and through trips to México. Limited literacy led us to move to México, enrolling in English curriculum schools while traveling to the U.S. frequently. Growing up in a transnational family shaped my path to becoming a bilingual teacher. I worked in schools with mainly Latino and bilingual students in TBE programs. I struggled with parents who thought their children would become bilingual, only to find the program focused solely on English proficiency.
Both experiences led me to evaluate the impact of English literacy at home and family linguistic barriers. Viewing this through a transnational lens and as an educator helps interpret Latinx parents’ unique experiences with their children's language and biliteracy. I recorded my experiences separately from the participants’ during interpretation to minimize bias.
Data Collection
The data collection occurred from June 2021 to January 2022. Thirty parents participated in the semistructured interview and selected the language and modality of their preference and convenience; there was no in-person option because the study took place during the COVID-19 pandemic. About 80% of parents (n = 24) completed the interview in Spanish by phone, one parent in English, and 20% (n = 6) preferred a web platform (Zoom). The interview protocol included 18 open-ended questions about beliefs, language practices, and management (e.g., feelings about Spanish loss, languages the child reads the most, language rules). I am biliterate, and I transcribed the interviews verbatim in Spanish. The quantitative findings informed the qualitative phase, addressing the first research question, assessing parents’ family language policies. The qualitative results examined and expanded on parents’ beliefs and expectations regarding the school's language program, addressing the second question. It enhanced the understanding of parents’ personal experiences, facilitating the interpretation of statistical outcomes. Survey findings on parents’ beliefs and experiences in their children's language programs were limited by the closed-ended questions. Interview data further illuminated parents’ understanding of bilingual programs and family language policies.
The length of each semistructured interview ranged from 30 min to 105 min. Participants were assigned pseudonyms and informed about their right to withdraw from the study at any time, as well as the consent form, following IRB guidelines.
Data Analysis
I analyzed data using a mixed methods (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018), data analysis spiral, and phenomenological approach (Moustakas, 1994, as cited in Creswell & Poth, 2018), leading to qualitative insights and frequency counts. After each interview, I recorded answers within 24 h using research codes and a filtering process (Ochs, 2006). As a biliterate, I transcribed interviews verbatim in Spanish with MS Word, repeatedly listening to recordings for accuracy and verifying demographic data. After coding in MAXQDA, I explored data by reading transcripts, noting, and recording initial thoughts.
The goal was to condense participants’ experiences into a concise account through three steps. First, phenomenological reduction (bracketing) involved setting aside my experiences to focus on the participants. Next, horizonalization listed significant statements about the topic, treating them equally (e.g., speak both languages, bilingual). I categorized details into units based on questions such as language beliefs, practices, and management to explore the first research question; see Table 2 for coding details. Finally, I clustered codes into themes (e.g., Spanish language and literacy practices) by removing duplicates and comparing statements (Maxwell, 2013). Analyzing participants’ language choices revealed quantified frequency counts, indicating a need to convert qualitative data into quantitative data, which helped examine and expand on parents’ beliefs. This not only revealed larger percentages or counts of responses in specific language practices but also highlighted exceptions or adaptability in parents’ beliefs.
Codebook.
I summarized key qualitative findings on parents’ strategies, comparing them with studies (Bayley & Schecter, 2005; Velázquez, 2019), frameworks such as language policy (Spolsky, 2004) and LEP (Shohamy, 2006). I interpreted data and acknowledged my bilingual educator and transnational family background (Creswell & Poth, 2018), noting limitations such as small sample size and socioeconomic factors affecting FLP (King & Fogle, 2013; Schwartz & Verschik, 2013). Respondent validation was used, including cases with discrepancies, for example, parents satisfied with the program despite expecting bilingual children. I validated data by comparing qualitative and quantitative results (Campbell, 1988, as cited in Maxwell, 2013).
Findings
This section highlights the three key findings from the qualitative analysis of a family's language and literacy practices among its members, aimed at sustaining Spanish at home. The results show parents’ efforts to reduce the impact of English literacy practices at school on their children and to eliminate linguistic barriers affecting their relationships. These findings reflect parents’ reports on family interactions and children's behaviors, supported by quotations and a quantitative analysis of interview responses.
The first finding concerns language at home. Families interviewed used Spanish to interact with their children, who communicated in both English and Spanish. Few parents spoke English, mainly when children had limited Spanish skills. As some children learned primarily in English at school, parents emphasized Spanish to balance this.
A second finding was children's language choices in speaking, listening, reading, and writing. Depending on age, these choices varied between Spanish and English. Younger children spoke more Spanish than older siblings, listened to music or the radio in both languages, and watched television only in English. They also used only English with friends and for reading and writing.
The final finding emphasized the impact of home English literacy practices from school experiences. Parents interviewed reflected on their children's literacy in both languages and questioned the effectiveness of the transitional programs. Parents with children in TBE felt the school was not sufficiently reinforcing the importance of Spanish in family life. Regardless of the school's language program, speaking Spanish remained vital to family existence.
Language Choices at Home
The first section of Table 3 illustrates the patterns of Spanish and English usage in daily interactions among Latinx families interviewed in this study. I used a descriptive distribution of parental responses (response frequency in the dataset), showing variation. The most common response from participants regarding the language used in adult-to-adult interactions and interactions with children was Spanish (90%, n = 27), except for three spouses (10%) who used both languages, with one or both being more dominant in English. They spoke about daily routines, school, or family-related matters and disciplined their children. Twelve parents (40%) mentioned talking to their children in English and Spanish, mostly about school-related issues. The family used Spanish for family-related matters and to discipline their children. Angélica used Spanish to give her children “Consejos para que la entiendan bien” or “Advice so they could understand her well,” and Fabiola expressed “Tú sabes que una regañada sabe mejor en español, que en inglés” or “You know that a scolding is better in Spanish than in English.”
Language Choices and Literacy Practices at Home (N = 30).
Despite many parents speaking only Spanish, a significant number of interviewed parents also used both languages (40%, n = 12). Those who used both were learning English or had children with limited Spanish skills, so they communicated in the language their children understood best. For example, Sandra used a few English words and relied on her younger children to help translate conversations with her older, predominantly English-speaking daughters. However, thought “Se minimiza mucho la conversación” or “Conversation is minimized.” In the results, children used only English or a mix of Spanish and English. They primarily spoke English regarding school-related topics or daily routines (e.g., teacher notes or homework, leaving for school) while using both languages for family matters (e.g., during dinner). When siblings argued, their children used Spanish rather than English. I excluded parents with only one child from the total count for this interaction. The family interactions in this study demonstrate flexibility in their FLP, even though most families communicated in Spanish. To preserve their Spanish heritage, their FLP was adapted as needed for effective communication.
Children’s Language Choices Across Language Domains
The second section of Table 3 describes parents reporting on their children's language choices across the language domains of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Results show an average response rate for both languages and English, except for reading and writing, where responses favored English, indicating a greater impact on their FLP.
Listening
A frequent response from parents interviewed (53%, n = 16) reported their children listened to music or the radio in both Spanish and English. “Yo creo que mi hija, ella pone música, pone los dos” or “I believe my daughter, she plays music in both (languages)” shared Amanda. In homes where parents believed their children listened to English and Spanish equally, families used both languages. In contrast, 40% (n = 12) thought their children only listened to English, while some parents felt their kids listened solely to Spanish. According to these parents, listening to music in Spanish helps their children learn the language, and some begin to expose their kids to more Spanish music or radio after visiting their homeland. This was the case for Javier's son, “escuchan más en inglés, pero ahora que fue a México empezó a escuchar corridos” or “they listen to more (music) in English, but since he went to México, he started listening to ballads.” Although parents believed their children preferred both languages, they observed that trips to their homeland increased Spanish exposure, sparking curiosity for learning and listening to Spanish music.
Regarding children and media, 57% of parents (n = 17) reported their children watched or used devices more in English than Spanish, although 40% (n = 12) stated a mix of both languages. Respondents identified the prevalence of shows and videos primarily in English and their children's inclination to watch or use devices in English when alone as reasons for this preference. As Minerva expressed, “creo que, en español, no tenemos muchas series o programas” or “I think that we do not have as many series in Spanish.” Most parents agree with Minerva that English dominance was inevitable in the predominantly English-speaking U.S.
As a family, they frequently watched television in Spanish, and if a movie was available only in English, they opted to watch it with Spanish subtitles. Watching the news with their older children was challenging, as Maribel shared, “a veces, cuando ven las noticias, quizás no entiendan todas las palabras” or “sometimes when they watch the news, they might not understand all the words,” because parents needed to explain complex vocabulary to their children. Parents noted that their children struggled to follow serious topics in the news or adult conversations.
Speaking
Forty-seven of the interviewed parents (n = 14) stated that in speaking, the children in the study used both languages, and at times, Spanish more than English, even when children were alone. Indeed, children with friends or cousins their age predominantly used English (67%, n = 20). Only 29 parents (96%) responded to this item; they believed their children preferred English (48%, n = 15) over Spanish, while others thought they favored both languages (38%, n = 11), and only 14% (n = 4) preferred Spanish. In family reunions or when visiting relatives, parents reported 63% (n = 19) of children used Spanish or used both languages (37%, n = 11), depending on the language their adult relatives spoke. If relatives spoke English, children preferred to address them in English rather than Spanish. Amparo's description of her children using both languages reflects some of these findings. Cuando hay reunión familiar, hay una prima que no habla casi el español. Entonces las demás saben entonces hablan puro inglés. Pero también tengo una sobrina que viene de México y entonces ella habla sólo español. Entonces tienen que hablar los dos igual [When there is a family reunion, there is a cousin who does not speak Spanish. Then the rest know to speak only in English. But I also have a niece that visits from Mexico and she only speaks in Spanish. So, they have to speak both equally]
Parents noted that their children knew when to use English or Spanish, feeling it natural for them to use primarily English with friends or familiar speakers.
Reading
Seventy percent of interviewed parents (n = 21) said their children read the most in English, with only 4% (n = 1) reading in Spanish and 17% (n = 5) in both languages. Children reading in both languages were in a DL or the early grades in the TBE program. I also asked parents their thoughts on their children's ability in both languages. Parents with children in a DL, TBE, or HL program felt they had similar reading abilities in both languages. “En inglés leen a nivel y en español, yo creo que si leen a grado también. Si pueden leer novelas literarias y lo entenderían” or “They read at grade level in English and in Spanish, I think they also read at grade level. They can read literary novels and would comprehend them” said, Bertha. Conversely, students who had exited the program were no longer developing Spanish; parents ranked them much lower than their grade level.
Reading novels or newspapers in Spanish was challenging for their children due to a lack of comprehension and knowledge of complex vocabulary. Yuliana explained, “just English, because he doesn’t…he attempts to read it, but he definitely doesn’t understand it.” Only nine parents with children in a DL program felt that their kids had strong reading skills in Spanish.
Parents in a TBE program noted a decline in their children's Spanish reading skills after exiting, as the curriculum shifted to English, reducing Spanish practice opportunities. This change led parents to question the TBE program and recognize they had misunderstood its goals, which were not centered on fostering bilingualism as they initially thought.
Writing
Like the reading domain, 73% (n = 22) of parents interviewed reported that their children in the study mainly used English to write. Twenty parents from the study acknowledged reading and writing as the more challenging domains for their children. For example, Angélica shared that although her children, “sí saben escribir en español, incluyendo en textos -todos- no creo que puedan escribir un reporte” or “yes, they can write in Spanish, including texts -all of them- but I do not believe they can write an essay.” Parents frequently expressed their children's inability to communicate in Spanish, even writing simple notes; seven parents thought their children could write letters or school essays in Spanish. Twenty-one parents (70%) mentioned they communicated with their children via texting in Spanish. Even though their children sometimes wrote incomprehensible words or phrases, they accepted their texts to practice their Spanish writing skills. All parents in the study believed their children had poor Spanish writing skills. They shared ways to encourage writing practice, feeling it is valuable for their children's future careers.
Parents’ descriptions of their children's language choices across language domains reveal that at home, part of their FLP is to nurture their children's Spanish skills to improve communication. As children grow, meaningful discussions may get lost in translation, affecting the parent–child bond. Parents see their children favor English and wish to enhance their Spanish interest while worrying about reading and writing skills. In today's global economy, biliterate and biculturalism are vital; some parents find that visiting their homeland helps their children become active community members in both languages.
The Impact at Home of English Literacy Practices at School
Parents interviewed reflected on their children's literacy practices, the school's potential impact on their children's Spanish proficiency at home, and their FLPs. Most parents felt Spanish use was solid in their homes, regardless of the school's influence on their children. However, Lorena and Wilma believed it had somewhat affected their children's Spanish language practices, despite having rules about speaking Spanish at home. She noticed the change once Lorena's daughter transitioned to an English-only classroom. “Siento que, sí le afecto un poco, porque sentí que sí estaba perdiendo su español, cuando entro ahí” or “Yes, I believe it affected her a little, because I felt she was losing her Spanish once she entered there.” Even Lorena's daughter became aware of her diminishing Spanish skills and told her mother: Mami, háblame más en español. Quiero ir algún día a ver a mi abuelita, y quiero que me entienda. No quiero que se me olvide o me va a dar mucha pena decir algo como equivocado y que se rían de mí. O simplemente quiero abrazar a mi abuelita y decirle que la quiero, y seguir hablando su idioma que ella habla. [Mommy, talk to me in Spanish. I want to one day visit my grandmother and I want her to understand me. I don’t want to forget, or I feel embarrassed when I say something wrong, and they laugh at me. Simply, I want to hug my grandmother and tell her I love her and keep speaking the language she speaks.] Un poquitito porque quieren hablar, por ejemplo, hablan entonces más inglés porque entonces fué lo más practicaron durante siete u ocho horas y si hablan español fué poquito. Entonces fueron más horas en inglés, con los maestros, con los compañeros, eh en las clases, entonces vienen acá y quieren seguir, entonces no, estamos en casa, están conmigo. Ahora, practiquemos el español. [A little because they want to speak, for example more English because that is what they practiced for seven or eight hours and if they used Spanish, it was brief. So, there were more hours in English, with teachers, classmates, eh in class, then they come here and want to continue but no, we are home, with me. So, no we practice Spanish.]
Interviewed parents such as Miguel, Manuela, and Amparo were skeptical about transitional bilingual programs. Promoting Spanish in the early grades made no sense, as Miguel insisted, “Uno lo que quiere, es que sus hijas pues que hablen los dos” or “What one wants, is that our daughters, well speak both” (languages). Manuela also wanted her children to be bilingual which is why she argued, “Pero ya cuando les empiezan a meter más inglés, más inglés, más inglés usted pierde a esos niños. ¿Cuál es el chiste de ser bilingüe cuando ya no se les da la instrucción en bilingüe?” or “But when they begin to introduce more English, more English, more English, you lose those children. What is the point of being bilingual when they are no longer given bilingual instruction?” Manuela's children would only speak English, which was difficult for her to accept. Still, she greatly regretted pulling him out of the DL program, “Pero no, oiga, grave error…grave, grave error” or “But no, hey, serious mistake…serious, serious mistake.” Amparo felt devastated, as the school was not reinforcing her efforts and FLP. “Como que el apoyo que yo les doy en casa me gustaría que se reforzara también dentro de la escuela. “Yo creo que sería eso, me hicieron sentir incompleta” or “I would like the support that I give them at home to be reinforced at school as well. I think that would be it; they made me feel incomplete.”
Speaking a non-English language is often viewed as a deficit for marginalized students in the U.S. While immigrant families, such as Latino parents, encourage maintaining their home language, English's dominance makes this difficult. Furthermore, Illinois schools primarily offer transitional programs and limited DL programs, ignoring the crucial role of Spanish in Latino families and their FLP.
Discussion
This study aimed to build on the FLP framework and explore parents’ language beliefs, choices, and literacy practices among Latinx families in Illinois. It also examines the impact of English literacy on family life, the significance of incorporating Spanish in daily routines, and parents’ wishes to remove linguistic barriers. All interviewed parents expressed a desire for their children to be bilingual and biliterate in both Spanish and English. Regardless of the language program at their children's school, whether it aligned with or deviated from their family goals, speaking Spanish was their reality (Bayley & Schecter, 2005; García et al., 2021).
Viewing this through the lens of bilingual education typology highlighted the need for more inclusive language policies where schools can support biliteracy programs aligning with families’ aspirations and their FLP. The integration of the FLP framework helped trace and recognize how Latinx families in this urban city integrate language and literacy practices outside of an academic setting and contrast the impact of English literacy practices at school on their home life, aiming to avoid linguistic barriers within their families. Results corroborate with other studies regarding their daily routines (Hua & Wei, 2016; Kaveh, 2017; Mirvahedi, 2021; Palviainen & Kędra, 2020; Velázquez, 2019 ), literacy practices, and family interactions. Parents wanting to preserve Spanish often speak it at home (Ronderos et al., 2021). They align with Kaveh's (2017) findings that families visit their homeland annually to improve language skills and enforce rules on speaking the home language. However, few parents admitted to strictly implementing it.
Family interactions mainly involved speaking Spanish among themselves and with their children (Velázquez, 2019), while children used English and Spanish. A few parents used English and Spanish to communicate with their children, primarily when the children spoke limited or no Spanish. Parents reflect their practices or beliefs about Spanish through their daily language practices at home. Since some of their children were developing only English at school, parents prioritized Spanish to counteract English dominance. Children often use only English with their friends. Although the FLP for a larger percentage of families primarily involved communicating in Spanish, their FLP demonstrated flexibility aimed at effective communication.
Children's language choices across listening, speaking, reading, and writing fluctuated between using both languages and English and varied by children's ages (García et al., 2021). Children listened to Spanish and English music or radio, but they primarily watched television in English alone. Kang's (2015) study of Korean families and García et al. (2021) confirm similar language practices to those revealed by Latinx families. Children predominantly used English with friends and for reading and writing, resulting in parents seeing their Spanish skills in these domains below grade level. Reflecting on their children's literacy skills, parents mostly noted improvements in English reading and writing, leading to questions about the effectiveness of the transitional programs. They felt the school their children attended was not adequately reinforcing the role of Spanish in their family life (Bayley & Schecter, 2005; García et al., 2021), indicating a greater impact on their FLP. The FLP, for a larger percentage of families, Spanish, played a significant role in their lives. However, they also adjusted their FLPs to their children's language preferences to improve communication, similar to the few families where English or both languages were used. It shows that the uniquely distinctive FLP families might have is equally important for those families.
Implications
This section discusses the various implications for literacy development and emergent bilingual education. Although these findings are based solely on Latinx parents, they reflect common language choices and literacy practices among parents from non-Latino backgrounds (Kang, 2015; Kaveh, 2017). The findings offer insights into how Latinx families integrate language and literacy practices outside of an academic setting and actively contribute to their children's bi/literacy development. Recognizing and affirming Latinx families’ involvement informs instructional practices (García et al., 2021; Murillo, 2012).
This study amplifies the voices of Latinx parents in Illinois, highlighting criticism of transitional programs, their bilingual aspirations for their children, and their often-overlooked preferences for a DL program. This research is significant because most studies are conducted in California or Texas (Bayley & Schecter, 2005; Lee et al., 2015). Moreover, Illinois state policies and schools frequently overlook these concerns and aspirations. The legislation in Illinois must explicitly include language outlining the characteristics of its two transitional programs (TBE & TPI) and English proficiency goals, and incorporate DL programs into the law (e.g., New Mexico, Utah). This would encourage schools to consider offering DL programs or reinstating late-exit bilingual programs. School BPACs are not giving adequate attention to parents’ concerns and needs about the school's language program that they wish for their children.
Parents should have a say in language program(s) available in their local schools.
The parents interviewed unanimously believe their children will learn English; their concern is the fear of losing Spanish. They want bilingualism and biliteracy for their children, similar to what my parents wished for. We must advocate for access to the language programs Latinx parents seek and emergent bilinguals deserve.
Despite parental preferences and research supporting DL programs, inequitable language and literacy practices create barriers to their effective implementation. Factors include insufficient federal funding, resources, and teacher education initiatives, plus a lack of incentives to hire bilingual leaders and staff (García & Kleifgen, 2018).
As educators, staff, and researchers, we often fail to communicate effectively with parents about school language and literacy programs. Parents require explanations of biliteracy pathways for emergent bilinguals, as well as legislation such as Article 14C on student placement, and current bilingual theories, including translanguaging (García & Kleifgen, 2018). Teacher programs should also develop these crucial skills and learnings. Schools must offer language and literacy programs aligning with parents’ educational goals for their children.
Parents disliked TBE programs. Thus, school staff must be transparent about the TBE program's goals and expectations, including the transition to English-only instruction after early grades. They should explain the differences between program models, sharing details about DL programs, bilingualism, and biliteracy goals, as options for students.
The findings revealed the interconnectedness of educational experiences and beliefs, each influencing the other. Spolsky's (2012) FLP framework should consider “experiences” as an additional component. Experiences shape family language choices; parents’ experiences with their children's school language program affect their decisions and impact the tenets of a family's language policy.
Lastly, this study examines the significance of Spanish within the home. Parents rightly resist oppressive literacy practices, as schools can connect or further isolate families through LEPs. Interviews with parents shed light on the importance of preserving Spanish and the crucial role a family's language and bi/literacy practices play in a child's language acquisition (Schwartz & Verschik, 2013), which becomes integral to the family's language policy. The family language policies of parents reflect their commitment to maintaining Spanish to ensure ongoing communication with their children. Regardless of the language program their children participated in (TBE, TPI, DL), parents went to great lengths to oppose the erasure of Spanish.
Limitations and Implications for Future Research
Potential limitations of the study include ignoring different internal and external aspects influencing FLPs (e.g., religious community, sports team, and socioeconomic factors). The sample was also small, and the targeted population was homogenous (Latinx parents). A larger sample of parents from diverse socioeconomic levels, languages, and multiple regions might garner different results, strengthening generalizations.
The study addresses the limited research on FLP among Latinx families, focusing specifically on language practices and families in the Midwest. Although a few additional studies have emerged in recent years (García et al., 2021; Ronderos et al., 2021), more research still needs to eliminate the stigmatization and misconceptions the education field holds regarding Latinx families’ literacy practices. Future research should also explore how school language policies influence Latinx immigrant families’ language use at home, especially among refugees, Black communities, and non-English speakers. Including fathers is vital; this study mostly involved mothers, with only two interviews. Understanding how immigrant parents navigate the system enhances bilingual education and FLP research. This research shows that bilingual families create unique spaces to foster identity and agency for their children. They advocate for inclusive language and literacy programs in Illinois schools and seek recognition of their Spanish and reflection of their FLPs in school language policies. Lastly, educational researchers must make their research accessible to Latinx parents and educators.
Conclusion
Latinx families in this study maintained Spanish at home through layered language and literacy practices outside school, actively supporting their children's biliteracy. They want their children to be bilingual and biliterate in Spanish and English, thereby removing language barriers and advocating for inclusive programs like dual language.
Footnotes
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.