trif-logo
Give
Give

TIRF Policy & Planning

HomeTIRF Policy & Planning

TIRF supports evidence-informed decision making through policy briefs, curated research resources, and expert consulting services. Explore tools and insights designed to help educators, institutions, and policymakers strengthen language education policy and planning.

Research has the greatest impact when it informs decision making. Through its work in policy and planning, TIRF helps bridge the gap between research, policy, and practice in English language education. This section features TIRF Policy Briefs that translate research findings into accessible insights for policymakers and educational leaders, curated reference lists that provide pathways into key areas of policy and planning research, and consulting services that support institutions, organizations, and government agencies in developing evidence-informed policies and strategic initiatives. Together, these resources reflect TIRF’s commitment to strengthening language education through informed leadership and effective planning.

TIRF Policy Briefs

Beyond guiding TIRF’s own research priorities, TIRF Policy Briefs serve as an accessible bridge between scholarly inquiry and real-world decision-making. They distill complex issues into concise, evidence-based insights that can inform educators, administrators, policymakers, donors, and the public. By providing both a scholarly foundation and practical recommendations, the Briefs can influence policy formation, classroom practice, and public understanding of language education issues.

The TIRF Policy Briefs included below represent the issues within each language education policy area that TIRF is concerned with. In each area, we aim to collect information on issues and research available in the profession, with links to resources (such as TIRF’s Reference Lists) and sources of policy guidance.

The rationale for developing these briefs is twofold. First, the language education field faces rapid shifts—technological, demographic, political, and economic—that demand timely, accessible summaries of what research tells us and where gaps remain. Second, there is a growing need for trusted, independent voices to synthesize and translate research into actionable guidance for multiple audiences.

By curating these Briefs, TIRF ensures that stakeholders can quickly grasp the current state of knowledge, appreciate the implications for policy and practice, and identify opportunities for collaboration and innovation. TIRF aims to sponsor doctoral research in selected areas and publish selected policy papers in its series of publications. Additionally, the Foundation endeavors to work with partners and clients to carry out research into policy issues and practical implementation of policy in language education settings. Therefore, each Brief not only signals TIRF’s commitment to advancing rigorous, relevant research, but also equips readers with tools to advocate for equitable, effective language education worldwide.

Access to Learning a Second Language

The opportunity to learn additional languages is far from universal. Geographic isolation, economic disadvantage, political constraints, and limited educational infrastructure all contribute to unequal access. These disparities risk deepening global inequalities, as language skills often correlate with expanded educational professional and especially employment opportunities.

Policies that expand access must address barriers holistically—ensuring affordability, increasing the availability of qualified teachers, and integrating language learning into broader development strategies. In many contexts this will mean an increased focus on online and distance learning.

TIRF’s research and development priorities in this area include:

  • Mapping global inequities in access to L2 learning.
  • Studying the effects of targeted interventions in underserved communities.
  • Developing resources to inform government and institutional policy formation.
  • Sharing scalable models for expanding access in low-resource contexts.
  • Reviewing technological support for L2 learning

Age of Learning a Second Language

The question of when to begin learning a second language is one of the most debated in language education. In particular, there is strong interest in many countries around the world in expanding access to English language skills. Some research suggests early exposure offers advantages in pronunciation, fluency, and long-term proficiency (the common notion that young children are “like sponges” for new languages). Other studies highlight that age is only one factor, with quality of instruction, context, and motivation often outweighing starting age.

Policy decisions on this matter must account for practical realities, such as available resources, teacher training, and societal attitudes toward multilingualism. A policy that mandates early second language learning without adequate preparation can fail to deliver expected results. It is also important to consider possibilities for articulation across education levels to allow for development of higher levels of proficiency.

TIRF’s research and development priorities in this area include:

  • Reviewing and synthesizing global research on age-related language learning outcomes.
  • Identifying factors that mediate the relationship between age of onset and proficiency.
  • Evaluating policy recommendations on age of beginning L2 learning tailored to different educational and cultural contexts.
  • Developing tools to help institutions determine optimal starting ages for their learners and to define the resources needed for success.

Artificial Intelligence

Generative AI and large-language models are transforming educational settings at a speed that often exceeds institutions’ capacity to respond. Their use is already widespread, and this influence is projected to accelerate over the coming years.

While AI offers extraordinary opportunities for personalized learning, instructional efficiencies, and innovation, it also raises urgent concerns around ethics, data privacy, academic integrity, and equitable access.

Institutions worldwide are grappling with the need to devise coherent, practical policy frameworks that encourage the productive use of AI while minimizing risks of abuse and unethical application.

Such frameworks must address the responsibilities of both faculty and students, define acceptable and unacceptable practices, structure governance and compliance, and ensure consistent enforcement.

TIRF’s research and development priorities in this area include:

  • Developing policies on responsible AI use, transparency, preventing unethical usage, and addressing abuse.
  • Establishing clear citation and attribution guidelines for AI-assisted work, along with sanctions for breaches.
  • Designing professional learning programs for faculty to build AI literacy and integrate AI responsibly into pedagogy and assessment.
  • Developing student-centered training modules to build awareness of AI’s benefits, limitations, potential risks and pitfalls.
  • Recommending institutional structures, such as appointing dedicated staff to oversee AI policy and compliance.
  • Encouraging research on AI’s pedagogical impact on translation, linguistics, and literature courses

Curriculum Development

Language education institutions worldwide are concerned with improving the learning outcomes of their students, and to this end wish to ensure that the curriculum the institution provides for faculty and students to follow is the most appropriate to the learning goals of the students and most effective in supporting them to reach those goals.

Different language education settings will require different kinds of curriculum.

The needs of learners in elementary education settings, secondary education settings or tertiary settings are quite different. Thus the curriculum policies will be different for each area of language education.

Setting the policy for curriculum development entails first defining goals and aims of learning, and defining pedagogies and practices required and recommended.

It is also necessary, for international contexts, to define the nature of the curriculum to be developed, especially whether this includes or does not include learning materials.

The definition is not necessarily internationally standardised. A language education curriculum can include:

  • What is to be learned
  • Linguistic components
  • Skills components
  • Wider competences such as critical thinking, social justice topics etc
  • What materials are to be used to develop these learning goals
  • What instruments will be used to assess the outcomes of these learning goals
  • Guidance for teachers on the pedagogical delivery of these learning goals
  • What available technology and AI can be included to support pedagogical goals and learning outcomes

Low-Resource Context Pedagogies

In many parts of the world, language educators face shortages of textbooks, technology, and trained personnel. Yet, remarkable innovations often emerge from these settings—solutions that are adaptable, cost-effective, and rooted in community knowledge.

Language education policies at national, state, and local levels for low-resource contexts should promote pedagogical strategies that maximize impact with minimal resources, encourage local material development, support professional development for educators, and leverage community involvement.

This may include the provision of off-grid resource access via the use of solar power driving local internet access to resources on portable servers, use of established radio and mobile networks to deliver learning content free of charge over the air, etc.

TIRF’s research and development priorities in this area include:

  • Documenting and analyzing successful low-resource teaching models.
  • Creating guidelines for adapting high-resource curricula to low-resource environments.
  • Encouraging partnerships that provide material and professional development support.
  • Promoting the use of open educational resources and low-tech solutions in language education.

Mother-Tongue Teaching

Research consistently demonstrates that a strong foundation in the mother tongue supports broader language development, literacy, and academic achievement for all students. Yet in many multilingual communities, mother tongue instruction for some students is politically contested, under-resourced, or deprioritized in favor of dominant or foreign languages. Social attitudes, economic pressures, and national identity politics often shape—and sometimes limit—policy decisions about which languages may serve as the medium of instruction or as a curriculum subject.

Institutions and governments face difficult decisions in balancing national cohesion, global competitiveness, and the preservation of languages spoken in their communities. Effective policy frameworks must address these tensions, ensuring that students benefit from instruction in languages they understand best, particularly in early education.

TIRF’s research and development priorities in this area include:

  • Documenting successful models of bilingual and mother tongue-based education.
  • Analyzing the long-term academic, cognitive, and social outcomes of mother tongue instruction for students.
  • Creating guidelines for integrating mother tongue instruction into existing curricula.
  • Examining policy contexts that affect mother tongue teaching and use in education.

Multilingualism

Multilingualism is an asset that brings cognitive, cultural, and economic benefits. Yet, many educational systems continue to favor monolingual instructional models, often unintentionally marginalizing heritage and minority languages. This approach can contribute to educational inequities and limitations on students’ development. Policies that encourage multilingualism can strengthen social cohesion, foster intercultural understanding, and prepare students for global engagement.

Effective policy frameworks should recognize the value of linguistic diversity, provide opportunities for students to develop multiple languages, and train educators to support multilingual classrooms. By recognizing and supporting linguistic diversity, schools can become more inclusive spaces that reflect and celebrate the multilingual realities of their communities.

TIRF’s research and development priorities in this area include:

  • Identifying and evaluating effective multilingual education models, including bilingual and immersion programs, and analyzing their impacts on academic achievement and social integration
  • Examining how multilingualism intersects with equity and inclusion in education.
  • Providing policy tools that help institutions design, implement, and sustain multilingual programs.
  • Promoting public awareness of the cognitive, social, and economic benefits of multilingualism.

Teacher Training

Teachers serve as the bridge between policy and practice. However, professional development in language education varies dramatically worldwide. Many educators lack access to sustained training in innovative pedagogical methods, assessment design, technology integration, and inclusive teaching practices. Without well-supported teachers, even the most carefully designed policies and curricula will fail to meet their objectives.

Strong teacher training policies should facilitate equitable access to professional development, ongoing support, and opportunities for collaboration. In contexts where resources are limited, creative solutions such as peer mentoring, online communities of practice, and open educational resources can play a vital role.

TIRF’s research and development priorities in this area include:

  • Designing teacher training frameworks adaptable to diverse contexts.
  • Developing guidelines for integrating technology and AI into professional development across educational contexts.
  • Identifying best practices for mentoring, peer learning, and reflective practice.
  • Studying the relationship between teacher professional development and student outcomes.
Reference Lists for Policy & Planning

Effective policy and planning require access to reliable research. TIRF’s curated reference lists bring together key publications on a wide range of topics related to language education policy, planning, and implementation. These resources are designed to support policymakers, researchers, graduate students, and educational leaders seeking an efficient starting point for understanding important issues and identifying relevant scholarship.

This Policy and Planning section of TIRF’s website provides scholarly citations to publications. The resources are organized under the topic headings below.

Please note that these citations are not fully cited in APA format. Further details will need to be found online by our website visitors, if interested.

Age of Starting Foreign Language Education

This category focuses on discussions related to the introduction of foreign language education at different age levels, particularly K-12, primary, or secondary schooling.

  • Abou-El-Kheir, A., & MacLeod, P. (2017). English education policy in Bahrain–a review of K-12 and higher education language policy in Bahrain.
  • Baldauf, R. B., Kaplan, R. B., Kamwangamalu, K., & Bryant, P. (2013). Language planning in primary schools in Asia.
  • Braden, S., & Christison, M. (2018). The absence of language-focused teacher education policy in U.S. K12 contexts: Insights from language socialization research in a ninth-grade physics classroom.
  • García, E. E., & Frede, E. C. (Eds.). (2019). Young English language learners: Current research and emerging directions for practice and policy.
  • Hiramatsu, S. (2005). Contexts and policy reform: A case study of EFL teaching in a high school in Japan.
  • Latif, M. M. A. (2017). English education policy at the pre-university stages in Egypt: Past, present and future directions.
  • MacLeod, P., & Abou-El-Kheir, A. (2017). Qatar’s English education policy in K-12 and higher education: Rapid development, radical reform and transition to a new way forward.
  • Ministry of Education. (2001). English language syllabus 2001 for primary and secondary school.
  • Neau, V. (2003). The teaching of foreign languages in Cambodia: A historical perspective (implies different historical age groups).
  • Shamim, F. (2011). English as the language for development in Pakistan: Issues, challenges and possible solutions (touches upon primary education).
  • Shek, C., Johnson, R. K., & Law, E. (1991). Survey of the language policy and practice in 193 Hong Kong secondary schools.
  • Trilokekar, R. D., & Masri, A. E. (2019). Ontario’s K-12 international education strategy: Policy impacts on teacher education for international, intercultural and multilingual sensibilities.
  • Widodo, H. P. (2016) Language policy in practice: Reframing the English language curriculum in the Indonesian secondary education sector.

Bilingualism in Schools

This category covers research on bilingual education programs, dual-language immersion, and policies related to English language learners (ELLs).

  • Abedi, J., Hofstetter, C. H., & Lord, C. (2004). Assessment accommodations for English language learners: Implications for policy-based empirical research.
  • Bernstein, K. A., Henderson, K. I., Chaparro, S., & and Alvarez, A. (2024). Creating DLBE programs that center equity in the face of school choice policies.
  • Bettney, E. (2022). Examining hegemonic and monoglossic language ideologies, policies, and practices within bilingual education in Colombia.
  • Chang-Bacon, C. K. (2022). Monolingual language ideologies and the Massachusetts sheltered English immersion endorsement initiative: A critical policy analysis.
  • Clark‐Gareca, B., Short, D., Lukes, M., & Sharp‐Ross, M. (2020). Long‐term English learners: Current research, policy, and practice.
  • Dorner, L. M. (2011). Contested communities in a debate over dual language education: The import of “public” values on public policies.
  • Emerick, M. R., & Goldberg, J. L. (2023). “I would purposely try to keep them separated”: Language ideologies, language policy, and beliefs about emergent bilinguals in career and technical education.
  • García, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2010). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and practices for English language learners.
  • Hamman, L. (2018). Bilingualism for all? Interrogating language and equity in dual language immersion in Wisconsin.
  • Henderson, K. I. (2017). Teacher language ideologies mediating classroom-level language policy in the implementation of dual language bilingual education.
  • Heineke, A. J., & Davin, K. J. (Eds.). (2020). The seal of biliteracy: Case studies and considerations for policy implementation.
  • Hernández, R. T., & Subtirelu, N. C. (2021). Educators influencing policy: The language opportunity coalition and the Seal of Biliteracy in the U.S..
  • Hornberger, N. H. (2002). Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: An ecological approach.
  • Hornberger, N. H. (2003). Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings.
  • Hornberger, N. H. (2016). Honoring Richard Ruiz and his work on language planning and bilingual education.
  • Johnson, D. C., & Freeman, R. (2010). Appropriating language policy on the local level: Working the spaces for bilingual education.
  • Leong, P. N. C. (2016). Singapore’s English-knowing bilingual policy: A critical evaluation.
  • Manan, S. A., Dumanig, F. P., & David, M. K. (2015). The English-medium fever in Pakistan: Analyzing policy, perceptions and practices through additive bi/multilingual education lens.
  • Mavrogordato, M., & White, R. S. (2020). Leveraging policy implementation for social justice: How school leaders shape educational opportunity when implementing policy for English learners.
  • Migliarini, V., & Stinson, C. (2021). Inclusive education in the (new) era of anti-immigration policy: Enacting equity for disabled English language learners.
  • Mortimer, K. S. (2016). Paraguayan bilingual education policy implementation.
  • Newcomer, S. N., & Puzio, K. (2016). Cultivando confianza: A bilingual community of practice negotiates restrictive language policies.
  • Okraski, C. V., Hancock, C. R., & Davin, K. J. (2020). An innovative approach to the Seal of Biliteracy in Minnesota.
  • Pshigusa, E. (2024). Equity/heritage and globalized human capital discourses in Ohio's Seal of Biliteracy policy, promotional materials, and stakeholder perceptions.
  • Ruiz, R. (2010). Reorienting language-as-resource (relevant to bilingual education).
  • Subtirelu, N. C., Borowczyk, M., Thorson Hernández, R., & Venezia, F. (2019). Recognizing whose bilingualism? A critical policy analysis of the Seal of Biliteracy.
  • Sugarman, J., & Geary, C. (2018, August 28). English learners in select states: Demographics, outcomes, and state accountability policies.
  • Usma Wilches, J. A. (2015). From transnational language policy transfer to local appropriation: The case of the national bilingual program in Medellín, Colombia.
  • Yang, J., & Jang, I. C. (2022). The everyday politics of English-only policy in an EFL language school: Practices, ideologies, and identities of Korean bilingual teachers.

Curriculum Development

This category includes references related to the creation, modification, and implementation of educational programs and learning materials, including pedagogies and instruction practices.

  • Ager, D. E. (2005). Prestige and image planning (relevant to curriculum development).
  • Baldauf, R. B., & Kaplan, R. B. (2005). Language-in-education policy and planning (includes curriculum aspects).
  • Bärenfänger, O., & Tschirner, E. (2008). Language educational policy and language learning quality management: The Common European Framework of Reference (relates to curriculum).
  • Canagarajah, S. (2016). Shuttling between scales in the workplace: Reexamining policies and pedagogies for migrant professionals.
  • Choccata-Cruz, E., Villanueva-Figueroa, R., Galvez-Aurazo, V., Zarate-Ruiz, G., & Miranda-Aburto, E. (2024). Regional educational policies and critical interculturality in rural areas of the province of Abancay-Apurímac, 2023 (implies curriculum aspects).
  • Codó, E. (2022). Introducing global CLIL: Critical, ethnographic and language policy perspectives (CLIL is a pedagogical approach).
  • Corson, D. (1999). Language policy in schools: A resource for teachers and administrators (includes curriculum design).
  • Council of Europe. (2007). From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education: Guide for the development of language education policies in Europe.
  • Council of Europe (2007). Guide for the development of language education policies in Europe: From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education.
  • Dixon, L. Q. (2009). Assumptions behind Singapore’s language-in-education policy: Implications for language planning and second language acquisition (informs curriculum).
  • Dudzik, D. (2007). The great debate affecting English policies and curricular reforms in multilingual, postcolonial Djibouti.
  • Erin, J., Brogan, K., Clerc-Gevrey, M. C., Minardi, S., & Štiberc, L. (2022). Setting up whole-school policies and practices through a symbolic approach to language matters (relates to school practices).
  • Julián-de-Vega, C., & Fonseca-Mora, M. (2017). Language policy and teacher team coordination practices in secondary CLIL schools.
  • Liddicoat, A. J. (2005). Corpus planning: Syllabus and materials development.
  • Liddicoat, A. J. (2014). The interface between macro and micro-level language policy and the place of language pedagogies.
  • Ministry of Education. (2001). English language syllabus 2001 for primary and secondary school.
  • Mitchell, R., Brumfit, C., & Hooper, J. (1994). Knowledge about language: Policy, rationales, and practices (relates to curriculum implementation).
  • Myskow, G., Underwood, P., & Hattori, T. (2012). EFL writing in Japan: Theory, policy and practice (relevant to curriculum).
  • Neau, V. (2003). The teaching of foreign languages in Cambodia: A historical perspective (includes curriculum).
  • Phyak, P. (2018). Translanguaging as a pedagogical resource in English language teaching: A response to unplanned language education policies in Nepal.
  • Rojas-Alfaro, R., & Montenegro Sánchez, A. M. (2024). Discussing a concept for an online learning platform with rural sixth-grade students in mind: Evidence-based guidelines for designers, teachers, and policy change.
  • Schneer, D. (2007). (Inter)nationalism and English textbooks endorsed by the Ministry of Education in Japan (textbooks are part of curriculum).
  • Widodo, H. P. (2016) Language policy in practice: Reframing the English language curriculum in the Indonesian secondary education sector.

Low-Resource Contexts

This category identifies references that specifically address language policy, education, and implementation challenges in contexts often characterized by limited resources, developing economies, or situations involving refugees and rural communities.

  • Abdelhay, A. K., Makoni, B., & Makoni, S. B. (2011). The Naivasha language policy: The language of politics and the politics of language in the Sudan.
  • Abiria, D. M., Early, M., & Kendrick, M. (2013). Plurilingual pedagogical practices in a policy constrained context: A Northern Ugandan case study.
  • Aloreibi, A., & Carey, M. D. (2017). English language teaching in Libya after Gaddafi.
  • Arar, K., Örücü, D., & Gümüş, S. (2024). Educational leadership and policy studies in refugee education: A systematic review of existing research.
  • Barrio, B. L. (2017). Special education policy change: Addressing the disproportionality of English language learners in special education programs in rural communities.
  • Channa, L. A., Manan, S. A., & David, M. K. (2021). Global aspirations versus local resources: Planning a sustainable English teaching policy in Pakistan.
  • Choccata-Cruz, E., Villanueva-Figueroa, R., Galvez-Aurazo, V., Zarate-Ruiz, G., & Miranda-Aburto, E. (2024). Regional educational policies and critical interculturality in rural areas of the province of Abancay-Apurímac, 2023.
  • Daghigh, A. J., Jan, J. M. & Kaur, S. (Eds.). (2022). Neoliberalization of English language policy in the global south.
  • Dudzik, D. (2007). The great debate affecting English policies and curricular reforms in multilingual, postcolonial Djibouti.
  • Faux, N. R. (Ed.) (2007). Low-educated second language and literacy acquisition: Research, policy and practice: Proceedings of the second annual forum.
  • Gómez Soler, I., & Fuentes, R. (2021). Navigating a policy vacuum in the New Latino Diaspora: Teaching Spanish as a heritage language in Tennessee high schools.
  • Hamid, M. O. (2011). Planning for failure: English and language policy and planning in Bangladesh.
  • Hos, R., & Cinarbas, H. I. (2017). Education interrupted: English education policy from the rubble in Syria: Language education policy in Syria.
  • IPAR Rwanda. (2014). Evaluation of results-based aid in Rwandan education: 2013 evaluation report.
  • Khan, A. (2018). Whither mother-tongue (in) education?: An ethnographic study of language policy in rural primary schools in Pakistan.
  • Newman, T. (2018). Policy and practicality in Timorese higher education: Lessons from lecturers in development-related disciplines.
  • Omoniyi, T. (2007). Alternative contexts of language policy and planning in Sub-Saharan Africa.
  • Papa, E. (2018). Using Photovoice with Cambodian and Guatemalan youth to uncover community cultural wealth and influence policy change.
  • Pettitt, N. (2018). Refugee women in the United States writing themselves into new community spaces.
  • Phyak, P. (2018). Translanguaging as a pedagogical resource in English language teaching: A response to unplanned language education policies in Nepal.
  • Rojas-Alfaro, R., & Montenegro Sánchez, A. M. (2024). Discussing a concept for an online learning platform with rural sixth-grade students in mind: Evidence-based guidelines for designers, teachers, and policy change.
  • Samuelson, B. L., & Freedman, S. W. (2010). Language policy, multilingual education, and power in Rwanda.
  • Shamim, F. (2011). English as the language for development in Pakistan: Issues, challenges and possible solutions.
  • Sharma, B. K. (2018). Economic markets, elite multilingualism, and language policy in Nepali schools.
  • Siddiek, A. G. (2011). Foreign language teacher training in the Sudan: Past, present and strategies for future recruitment policies.
  • Stephens, C. (2018). Media discourses of language policy and the “new” Latino diaspora in Iowa (a U.S. state with emerging low-resource migrant populations).
  • Usma, J. (2009). Education and language policy in Colombia: Exploring processes of inclusion, exclusion, and stratification in times of global reform.

Multilingualism

This section includes references that focus on the presence and management of multiple languages in societies, education, and individuals, including family language policies and linguistic diversity.

  • Abiria, D. M., Early, M., & Kendrick, M. (2013). Plurilingual pedagogical practices in a policy constrained context: A Northern Ugandan case study.
  • Ajibade, Y. A., Adeyemi, B. B., & Awopetu, E. O. (2012). Unity in diversity: The Nigerian youth, Nigerian Pidgin English and the Nigerian language policy.
  • Akin, S. (2011). Language planning in diaspora: The case of the Kurdish Kurmanji dialect.
  • Aksinovits, L., & Verschik, A. (2024). Family language policy in the Estonian diaspora in Finland: Language ideology and home language education.
  • Ascher, H. R., & Pichery, K. M. (2024). Language policy in English as a medium of instruction schools: A multilingual approach.
  • Bai, P., & Young, A. S. (2024). Family language policy and parental language ideologies among Chinese transnational families in multilingual Luxembourg.
  • Baker, F. S. (2015). Managing diversity in education. Language, policies, pedagogies.
  • Bettney, E. (2022). Examining hegemonic and monoglossic language ideologies, policies, and practices within bilingual education in Colombia.
  • Blommaert, J., Kelly-Holmes, H., Lane, P., Leppänen, S., Moriarty, M., Pietikänen, S., & Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2009). Media, multilingualism and language policing: An introduction.
  • Calafato, R. (2022). Multilingual teacher identity in the Emirates: Implications for language policy and education.
  • Canagarajah, S., & Ashraf, H. (2013). Multilingualism and education in South Asia: Resolving policy/practice dilemmas.
  • Cantas, N. (2024). Negotiating family language policy: Emotional experiences and playful language input in heritage language learning.
  • Choccata-Cruz, E., Villanueva-Figueroa, R., Galvez-Aurazo, V., Zarate-Ruiz, G., & Miranda-Aburto, E. (2024). Regional educational policies and critical interculturality in rural areas of the province of Abancay-Apurímac, 2023.
  • Codó, E. (2022). Introducing global CLIL: Critical, ethnographic and language policy perspectives (relevant to multilingual contexts).
  • Council of Europe. (2007). From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education: Guide for the development of language education policies in Europe.
  • Council of Europe (2007). Guide for the development of language education policies in Europe: From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education.
  • Cummins, J. (2013). Language and identity in multilingual schools: Constructing evidence-based instructional policies.
  • Cunningham, D., & Hatoss, A. (Eds.). (2005). An international perspective on language policies, practices and proficiencies.
  • Curdt-Christiansen, X. L., & Huang, J. (2020). Factors influencing family language policy.
  • Curle, S., Ali, H., Alhassan, A., &. Scatolini, S. S. (Eds.). (2022). English-medium instruction in higher education in the Middle East and North Africa: Policy, research and pedagogy (relevant to multilingual contexts).
  • Dagenais, D. (2013). Mulitlingualism in Canada: Policy and educaiton in applied linguistic research.
  • De Backer, F., Van Avermaet, P., & Slembrouck, S. (2017). Schools as laboratories for exploring multilingual assessment policies and practices.
  • Dudzik, D. (2007). The great debate affecting English policies and curricular reforms in multilingual, postcolonial Djibouti.
  • Elorza, I., & Muñoa, I. (2008). Promoting the minority language through integrated plurilingual language planning: The case of the ikastolas.
  • Extra, G. (2002). The other languages of multicultural Europe: Perceptions, facts and educational policies.
  • Fang, G. F., & Saha, P. (Eds.). (2024). English-Medium instruction in multilingual universities: Politics, policies, and pedagogies in Asia.
  • Galante, A. (2018). Examining Brazilian foreign language policy and its application in an EFL university program: Teacher perspectives on plurilingualism.
  • Grommes. P., & Hu, A. (Eds.) (2014). Plurilingual education. Policies – practices – language development.
  • Grommes, P., & Hu, A. (2014). Introduction (to edited volume on Plurilingual education).
  • Hatoss, A. (2024). Shifting ecologies of family language planning: Hungarian Australian families during COVID-19.
  • Heugh, K. (2013). Multilingual education policy in South Africa constrained by theoretical and historical disconnections.
  • Hornberger, N. H. (2002). Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: An ecological approach.
  • Hornberger, N. H. (2003). Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings.
  • Hornberger, N. H., & Johnson, D. C. (2007). Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers and spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice.
  • Jank, I., & Rasi, S. (2025). Hungarian as a minority and majority language in different language policy contexts (relevant to multilingualism).
  • Kucheryavaya, E. V., Witkowska, M., Kalinovskaya, V., Seleznev, P., Zubanova, S., & Fedyakin, A. (2020). The multiculturalism policy in Europe.
  • Lanza, E. (2020). Urban multilingualism and family language policy.
  • Lanza, E., & Gomes, R. L. (2020). Family language policy: Foundations, theoretical perspectives and critical approaches.
  • Li, X., & Shen, Q. (2024). Individual agency in language-in-education policy: A story of Chinese heritage language schools in multilingual Brussels.
  • Little, D., Leung, C., & van Avermaet, P. (Eds.) (2013). Managing diversity in education: Languages, policies, pedagogies.
  • Liu, Y., Guo, S., & Gao, X. (2024). Coping with national language policy shift: Voices of Chinese immigrant parents in multilingual Luxembourg.
  • Makoni, S., Makoni, B., & Rosenberg, A. (2010). The wordy worlds of popular music in eastern and southern Africa: Possible implications for language-in-education policy (relevant to multilingualism).
  • Malsbary, C. (2014). “Will this hell never end?”: Substantiating and resisting race-language policies in a multilingual high school.
  • Maseko, B., & Mlilo, S. (2022). Family language policy, school language practices and language socialisation among the Tonga.
  • May, S. (2025). The multilingual turn, language policy, and English as a ‘world language’.
  • McGroarty, M. (2010). Language and ideologies (relevant to multilingualism).
  • Messina Dahlberg, G., & Gross, B. (2024). Cultural-linguistic diversity in Italy and Sweden? A sociomaterial analysis of policies for heritage language education.
  • Meyer, B., & Apfelbaum, B. (Eds.). (2010). Multilingualism at work: From policies to practices in public, medical and business settings.
  • Norrby, C., & Hajek, J. (Eds.) (2011). Uniformity and diversity in language policy: Global perspectives.
  • Rahman, T. (2006). Language policy, multilingualism and language vitality in Pakistan.
  • Raza, K., Coombe, C., & Reynolds, D. (Eds). (2021). Policy development in TESOL and multilingualism: Past, present and the way forward.
  • Samuelson, B. L., & Freedman, S. W. (2010). Language policy, multilingual education, and power in Rwanda.
  • Sevinç, Y., & Mirvahedi, S. H. (2023). Emotions and multilingualism in family language policy: Introduction to the special issue.
  • Sharma, B. K. (2018). Economic markets, elite multilingualism, and language policy in Nepali schools.
  • Shohamy, E. (2011). Assessing multilingual competences: Adopting construct valid assessment policies.
  • Spolsky, B., Inbar, O., & Tannenbaum, M. (Eds.) (2015). Challenges for language education and policy: Making space for people.
  • Subtirelu, N. C. (2018). Linguistic diversity and the politics of international inclusion: Challenges in integrating international teaching assistants at a university in the United States.
  • Tang, F., & Calafato, R. (2025). Family language policy: The impact of multilingual experiences at university and language practices at home.
  • Thomas, C. A. (2008). Bridging the gap between theory and practice: Language policy in multilingual organizations.
  • Trilokekar, R. D., & Masri, A. E. (2019). Ontario’s K-12 international education strategy: Policy impacts on teacher education for international, intercultural and multilingual sensibilities.
  • Van Mulken, M., & Hendriks, B. (2015). Your language or mine? or English as a lingua franca? Comparing effectiveness in English as a lingua franca and L1–L2 interactions: Implications for corporate language policies (relevant to multilingualism).
  • Wang, Y.-C. (2018). Rethinking culturally and linguistically diverse students’ perceptions of family language policies and identities in an American afterschool program.
  • Wen, Z., Han, L., Hu, G., & Teng, M. F. (2022). Rethinking language policy and planning in the Greater Bay Area of China: insights from translanguaging theory.
  • Zhou, M. (2000). Language policy and illiteracy in ethnic minority communities in China.

National Policy

This category includes references that discuss language policies at a macro (national, governmental, or institutional) level, language planning, policy implementation, and the political or social impact of such policies within a country or region.

  • Abdelhay, A. K., Makoni, B., & Makoni, S. B. (2011). The Naivasha language policy: The language of politics and the politics of language in the Sudan.
  • Abou-El-Kheir, A., & MacLeod, P. (2017). English education policy in Bahrain–a review of K-12 and higher education language policy in Bahrain.
  • Aghagolzadeh, F., & Davari, H. (2017). English education in Iran: From ambivalent policies to paradoxical practices.
  • Aizawa, I., & Rose, H. (2019). An analysis of Japan’s English as a medium of instruction initiatives within higher education: The gap between meso-level policy and micro-level practice.
  • Ajibade, Y. A., Adeyemi, B. B., & Awopetu, E. O. (2012). Unity in diversity: The Nigerian youth, Nigerian Pidgin English and the Nigerian language policy.
  • Alderson, J. C. (2009). Air safety, language assessment policy and policy implementation: The case of aviation English.
  • Alexander, N. (2002). Linguistic rights, language planning and democracy in post-apartheid South Africa.
  • Ali, N. L. (2013). A changing paradigm in language planning: English-medium instruction policy at the tertiary level in Malaysia.
  • Alidou, H., & Jung, I. (2002). Education language policies in Francophone Africa: What have we learned from field experiences?.
  • Al-Jardani, K. S. (2017). English education policy in Oman.
  • Aloreibi, A., & Carey, M. D. (2017). English language teaching in Libya after Gaddafi.
  • Al-Tamimi, R. (2019). Policies and issues in teaching English to Arab EFL learners: A Saudi Arabian perspective.
  • Amara, M. H. (2003). Recent foreign language education policies in Palestine.
  • Archibald, J. (2002). Immigrant integration: The ongoing process of reform in France and Quebec.
  • Ascher, H. R., & Pichery, K. M. (2024). Language policy in English as a medium of instruction schools: A multilingual approach.
  • Aytürk, İ. (2004). Turkish linguists against the West: The origins of linguistic nationalism in Atatürk’s Turkey.
  • Aytürk, İ. (2008). Politics and language reform in Turkey: The ‘academy’ debate.
  • Baker, F. S. (2017). National pride and the new school model: English language education in Abu Dhabi, UAE.
  • Baldauf, R. B. (2005). Language planning and policy research: An overview.
  • Baldauf, R. B., & Kaplan, R. B. (2003). Language policy decision and power: Who are the actors?.
  • Baldauf, R. B., & Kaplan, R. B. (2005). Language-in-education policy and planning.
  • Bärenfänger, O., & Tschirner, E. (2008). Language educational policy and language learning quality management: The Common European Framework of Reference.
  • Barnawi, O. Z. (2017). Neoliberalism and English language education policies in the Arabian Gulf.
  • Barnawi, O. Z., & Al-Hawsawi, S. (2017). English education policy in Saudi Arabia: English language education policy in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Current trends, issues and challenges.
  • Benrabah, M. (2007). Language-in-education planning in Algeria: Historical development and current issues.
  • Bhattacharya, R., Gupta, S., Jewitt, C., Newfield, D., Reed, Y., & Stein, P. (2007). The policy—practice enactments: Perspectives from practice.
  • Bhattacharya, U. (2017). Colonisation and English ideologies in India: A language policy perspective.
  • Bianchi, R., & Hussein-Abdel Razeq, A. (2017). The English language teaching situation in Palestine.
  • Bianco, J. L. (2013). Innovation in language policy and planning: Ties to English language education.
  • Bickley, V. (1985). Planning for language use in Hong Kong.
  • Blommaert, J. (1999). State ideology and language in Tanzania.
  • Blommaert, J. (2005). Language policy and national identity.
  • Blommaert, J. (2006). Language policy and national identity.
  • Boukadi, S., & Troudi, S. (2017). English education policy in Tunisia, issues of language policy in post-revolution Tunisia.
  • Bui, T. T. N., & Nguyen, H. T. M. (2016). Standardizing English for educational and socio-economic betterment: A critical analysis of English language policy reforms in Vietnam.
  • Calafato, R. (2022). Multilingual teacher identity in the Emirates: Implications for language policy and education.
  • Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). A geopolitics of academic writing (relevant for policy context).
  • Canagarajah, S. (2005). (Ed.). Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice.
  • Canagarajah, S. (2006). Ethnographic methods in language policy.
  • Channa, L. A., Manan, S. A., & David, M. K. (2021). Global aspirations versus local resources: Planning a sustainable English teaching policy in Pakistan.
  • Cheng, L., DeLuca, C., Braud, H., & Yan, W. (2018). Grading policies in Canada and China: a comparative study.
  • Cheng, L. & Yan, W. (2018). Immigrant student achievement and educational policy in Canada.
  • Cheng, L., Yan, W., Mei. Y., & DeLuca, C. (2017). Grading policies in China: Are we Assessing the learner or the learning?.
  • Chua, C. S. K. (2006). Singaporean education planning: Moving from the macro to the micro.
  • Chung, J., & Choi, T. (2016). English education policies in South Korea: Planned and enacted.
  • Clarke, M. (2007). Language policy and language teacher education in the United Arab Emirates.
  • Clayton, T. (2002). Language choice in a nation under transition: The struggle between English and French in Cambodia.
  • Coleman, H., & Capstick, T. (Eds.). (2012). Language in education in Pakistan: Recommendations for policy and practice.
  • Corson, D. (1999). Language policy in schools: A resource for teachers and administrators.
  • Council of Europe. (2007). From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education: Guide for the development of language education policies in Europe.
  • Council of Europe (2007). Guide for the development of language education policies in Europe: From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education.
  • Crawford, J. (2000). At war with diversity: US language policy in an age of anxiety.
  • Daghigh, A. J., Jan, J. M. & Kaur, S. (Eds.). (2022). Neoliberalization of English language policy in the global south.
  • Dahmardeh, M., & Nunan, D. (2024). Factors influencing Iranian language education policy: An empirical investigation.
  • Daoud, M. (2002). Language policy and planning in Tunisia: Accommodating language rivalry.
  • Darder, A. (2014). Cultural hegemony, language, and the politics of forgetting: Interrogating restrictive language policies.
  • Darvin, R. (2018). Digital literacy, language learning, and educational policy in British Columbia.
  • Dawe, C. J. (2014). Language governmentality in Philippine education policy.
  • DeLuca, C., Braund, H., Valiquette, A., & Cheng, L. (2018). Grading policies and practices in Canada: A landscape study.
  • DeLuca, C., Cheng, L., & Volante, L. (2019). Grading across Canada: Policies, practices, and perils.
  • Diallo, I. (2014). English in education policy shift in Senegal: From traditional pedagogies to communicative language teaching.
  • Dixon, L. Q. (2009). Assumptions behind Singapore’s language-in-education policy: Implications for language planning and second language acquisition.
  • Doğançay-Aktuna, S. (1995). An evaluation of the Turkish language reform after 60 years.
  • Doğançay-Aktuna, S. (2004). Language planning in Turkey: Yesterday and today.
  • Dudzik, D. (2007). The great debate affecting English policies and curricular reforms in multilingual, postcolonial Djibouti.
  • Dumas, G. (2002). Quebec’s language policy: Perceptions and realities.
  • Durrani, M. (2012). Banishing colonial specters: Language ideology and education policy in Pakistan.
  • Dy, S. S. (2004). Strategies and policies for basic education in Cambodia: Historical perspectives.
  • Edmonson, J. (2000). America reads: A critical policy analysis.
  • Eggington, W. G. (2005). Language policy and planning: Introduction.
  • Elyas, T., & Al-Ghamdi, A. (2018). A critical 'positivist' analysis of Tatweer policy in Saudi Arabia.
  • Errihani, M. (2017). English education policy and practice in Morocco.
  • Esseili, F. (2020). Civic nationalism and language-in-education policies in the UAE.
  • Evers, C. (2011). Orthographic policy and planning in Sénégal/Senegal: The détournement of orthographic stereotypes.
  • Extra, G. (2002). The other languages of multicultural Europe: Perceptions, facts and educational policies.
  • Farr, M., & Song, J. (2011). Language ideologies and policies: Multilingualism and education.
  • Finn, H. B., & Avni, S. (2018). Academic literacy as language policy in community college developmental writing.
  • Fitzsimmons-Doolan, S. (2018). Language ideology change over time: Lessons for language policy in the U.S. state of Arizona and beyond.
  • Gamage, U. P. (2023). Systemic functional linguistic approach to language policy-problems in Sri Lanka: From colonialism to post-war reconciliation.
  • Gil, J. (2016). English language education policies in the People’s Republic of China.
  • Glasgow, G. P., & Paller, D. L. (2016). English language education policy in Japan: At a crossroads.
  • Grin, F. (2007). Economics and language policy.
  • Guerrero, C. (2009). Language policies in Colombia: The inherited disdain for our native languages.
  • Gursoy, E., Korkmaz, S. C., & Damar, E. A. (2017). English language teaching within the new educational policy of Turkey: Views of stakeholders.
  • Halonen, M. & Ihalainen, P., & Saarinen, T. (2014). Language policies in Finland and Sweden: Interdisciplinary and multi-sited comparisons.
  • Hamid, M. O. (2011). Planning for failure: English and language policy and planning in Bangladesh.
  • Hamid, M. O. (2020). Globalisation, English for everyone and English teacher capacity: Language policy discourses and realities in Bangladesh.
  • Hamid, M. O., & Erling, E. J. (2016). English-in-education policy and planning in Bangladesh: A critical examination.
  • Hanewald, R. (2016). The impact of English on educational policies and practices in Malaysia.
  • Haque, E., & Patrick, D. (2015). Indigenous languages and the racial hierarchisation of language policy in Canada.
  • Harrison, W., Prator, C., & Tucker, R. (1975). English-language policy survey of Jordan: A case study in language planning.
  • Haskell, C. D. (2002). Language and globalization: Why national policies matter.
  • Hayati, M., & Mashhadi, A. (2010). Language planning and language-in-education policy in Iran.
  • Heineke, A. J. (2016). Restrictive language policy in practice: English learners in Arizona.
  • Hettema, L. J. (2024). Local processes and practices of policy implementation for Sami languages: An ethnographic study in administrative areas for Sami language in Sweden.
  • Hiramatsu, S. (2005). Contexts and policy reform: A case study of EFL teaching in a high school in Japan.
  • Hismanoglu, M. (2012). The impact of globalization and information technology on language education policy in Turkey.
  • Holmen, A. (2025). Danish language legislation and de facto language policies.
  • Hong, L. (2009). Speak Standard English to maintain competitive edge, says DPM Teo. Channel NewsAsia (Singaporean language policy commentary).
  • Hornberger, N. H. (2006). Frameworks and models in language policy and planning.
  • Hornberger, N. H. (Ed.) (2008). Can schools save Indigenous languages? Policy and practice on four continents.
  • Hornberger, N. H. (2016). Honoring Richard Ruiz and his work on language planning and bilingual education.
  • Hornberger, N. H. (2020). Reflect, revisit, reimagine: Ethnography of language policy and planning.
  • Hornberger, N. H. (2021). Ideological and implementational spaces in COVID-era language policy and planning: Perspectives from Indigenous communities in the Global South.
  • Hos, R., & Cinarbas, H. I. (2017). Education interrupted: English education policy from the rubble in Syria: Language education policy in Syria.
  • Hughes, R. (2008). Internationalisation of higher education and language policy: Questions of quality and equity.
  • Hult, F. M. (2010). Analysis of language policy discourses across the scales of space and time.
  • Hult, F. M. (2018). Foreign language education policy on the horizon.
  • Idris, H. F., Legère, K., & Rosendal, T. (2007). Language policy in selected African countries: Achievements and constraints.
  • Iranmehr, A., Davari, H., Nourzadeh, S., & Hassani, G. (2023). English education policy and practice in Iran and Saudi Arabia: A comparative study.
  • Jánk, I., & Rási, S. (2025). Hungarian as a minority and majority language in different language policy contexts.
  • Jang, K. S., Si, K. J., & Yun, J. H. (2011). A study of how national English education policies affect communicative language learning for EFL learners in Korea.
  • Jeon, M. (2016). English language education policy and the native-speaking English teacher (NET) scheme in Hong Kong.
  • Johnson, D. (2013). Language policy: Research and practice in applied linguistics.
  • Johnson, R. K. (1983). Language policy in education in Hong Kong.
  • Johnson, R. K. (1983). Language policy in Hong Kong: The Llewellyn report and the medium of instruction.
  • Johnson, R. K. (1994). Language policy and planning in Hong Kong.
  • Kalėdienė, L., & Aleknavičienė, O. (2025). Language policy in Lithuania: Current issues in the legal framework.
  • Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2011). Language planning: Approaches and methods.
  • Kaplan, R. B. (2011). Macro language planning.
  • Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B. (1997). Language planning from practice to theory.
  • Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B. (2003). Language and language-in-education planning in the Pacific Basin.
  • Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B. (2005). Language policy and planning in Europe, Vol. 1: Hungary, Finland and Sweden.
  • Kaske, E. (2008). The politics of language in Chinese education: 1895-1919.
  • Kaur, A., Young, D., & Kirkpatrick, R. (2016). English education policy in Thailand: Why the poor results?.
  • Kheng, C. C. S., & Baldauf, R. B. Jr. (2011). Global language: (De)colonisation in the new era (relevant to national policy framing).
  • Kirkgöz, Y. (2007). English language teaching in Turkey: Policy changes and their implementations.
  • Kirkgöz, Y. (2007). Language planning and implementation in Turkish primary schools.
  • Kirkgöz, Y. (2009). Globalization and English language policy in Turkey.
  • Kırkgöz, Y. (2017). English education policy in Turkey.
  • Kirkpatrick, R. (Ed.) (2016), English language education policy in Asia.
  • Kirkpatrick, R. (Ed.). (2017). English language education policy in the Middle East and North Africa.
  • Kirkpatrick, R., & Bui, T. T. N., (2016). Introduction: The challenges for English education policies in Asia.
  • Kobayashi, Y. (2007). TEFL policy as part of stratified Japan and beyond.
  • Kramer-Dahl, A. (2003). Reading the “Singlish Debate”: Construction of a crisis of language standards and language teaching in Singapore.
  • Kramer-Dahl, A. (2007). Teaching English language in Singapore after 2001: A case of change in progress.
  • Kuteeva, M., & Airey, J. (2014). Disciplinary differences in the use of English in higher education: Reflections on recent language policy developments.
  • Kwo, O., & Bray, M. (1987). Language and English in Hong Kong: New policies but unresolved problems.
  • Lam, A. S. (2005). Language education in China: Policy and experience from 1949.
  • Latif, M. M. A. (2017). English education policy at the pre-university stages in Egypt: Past, present and future directions.
  • Lewis, G. (1999). The Turkish language reform: A catastrophic success.
  • Liddicoat, A. J. (2013). Language-in-education policies: The discursive construction of intercultural relations.
  • Liddicoat, A. J. (2014). The interface between macro and micro-level language policy and the place of language pedagogies.
  • Liddicoat, A. J. (2016). Language planning in universities: Teaching, research and administration.
  • Liddicoat, A. J., & Baldauf, R. B. (2008). Language planning in local contexts: Agents, contexts and interactions.
  • Limerick, N. (2011). Political organization and texts: Legislative developments in Ecuador.
  • Lin, A., & Martin, P. (Eds.). (2005). Decolonization, globalization: Language-in-education policy and practice.
  • Linton, A. (2009). Language politics and policy in the United States: Implications for the immigration debate.
  • Little, D. (2007). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Perspectives on the making of supranational language education policy.
  • Litzenberg, J. (2020). “If I don’t do it, somebody else will”: Covert neoliberal policy discourses in the decision‐making processes of an intensive English program.
  • Lin, A. M. Y., & Martin, P. M. (Eds.) (2005). Decolonisation, globalisation: Language-in-education policy and practice.
  • Liu, C. C. (1989). Multilingual development and language planning in Hong Kong.
  • Lo Bianco, J. (2002). Real world language politics and policy.
  • Lord, R. (1987). Language policy and planning in Hong Kong: Past, present and (especially) future.
  • Macalister, J. (2016). English language education policy in Timor-Leste.
  • MacLeod, P., & Abou-El-Kheir, A. (2017). Qatar’s English education policy in K-12 and higher education: Rapid development, radical reform and transition to a new way forward.
  • Maher, J. C. (2002). Language policy for multicultural Japan: Establishing the new paradigm.
  • Mair, V. (2004). Foreward. In M. Zhou & H. Sun (Eds.), Language policy in the People’s Republic of China: Theory and practice since 1949.
  • Makoni, S., Dube, B., & Mashiri, P. (2006). Zimbabwe colonial and post-colonial language policy and planning practices.
  • Makoni, B., Makoni, S., & Mashiri, P. (2007). Naming practices and language planning in Zimbabwe.
  • Makoni, B., Makoni, S., & Nyika, N. (2009). Language planning from below: The case of the Tonga in Zimbabwe.
  • Makoni, B., Makoni, S., & Pfukwa, C. (2010). Language planning, language ideology and entextualization: War naming practices.
  • Makoni, S., Makoni, B., & Rosenberg, A. (2010). The wordy worlds of popular music in eastern and southern Africa: Possible implications for language-in-education policy.
  • Manan, S. A., David, M. K., & Dumanig, F. P. (2015). Disjunction between language policy and children's sociocultural ecology – an analysis of English-medium education policy in Pakistan.
  • Manan, S. A., David, M. K., & Dumanig, F. P. (2016). English language teaching in Pakistan: Language policies, delusions and solutions.
  • Mardunio, M. R., Martin, I. P., & Plata, S. M. (2016). English language education in the Philippines: Policies, problems, and prospects.
  • Maria Tenuta, A., Jorge, M., & Augusto de Souza, R. (2017). Language teaching in the Brazilian changing scenario of language education policies.
  • Martin, I. (2007). Some remarks on post-1990 English language teaching policy in Cuba.
  • May, S. (2005). Language policy and minority language rights.
  • May, S. (2008). Language and minority rights.
  • McCarty, T. L. (2011). Ethnography and language policy.
  • McCarty, T. L., & Coronel-Molina, S. (2017). Language education planning and policy by and for Indigenous peoples.
  • McCarty, T. L., & May, S. (Eds.). (2-27). Language policy and political issues in education.
  • McGroarty, M. (2002). Evolving influences on educational language policies.
  • McGroarty, M. (2006). Neoliberal collusion or strategic simultaneity? On multiple rationales for language-in-education policies.
  • McGroarty, M. (2008). The political matrix of linguistic ideologies.
  • Medgyes, P. (2005). World-language: Foreign language policy in Hungary.
  • Menken, K., & García, O. (2010). Introduction (to edited volume on negotiating language policies in schools).
  • Menken, K. & García, O. (Eds.). (2010). Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers.
  • Miliander, J., & Trebbi, T. (2011). Introduction (to edited volume on educational policies and language learner autonomy).
  • Miranda, N., & Valencia Giraldo, S. (2019). Unsettling the ‘challenge’: ELT policy ideology and the new breach amongst state-funded schools in Colombia.
  • Mitchell, R., Brumfit, C., & Hooper, J. (1994). Knowledge about language: Policy, rationales, and practices.
  • Moore, H. (2007). Non-language policies and ESL: Some connections.
  • Mortimer, K. S. (2018). Small stories of/in changing times in Paraguay: A resource for identity work in language policy appropriation.
  • Najda, J. (Ed.). (2024). Fourth international handbook of globalisation, education and policy research.
  • Nekvapil, J. (2011). The history and theory of language planning.
  • Nero, S. (2018). Challenges of language education policy development and implementations in Creole-speaking contexts: The case of Jamaica.
  • Neau, V. (2003). The teaching of foreign languages in Cambodia: A historical perspective.
  • Nguyen, V. H., & Hamid, M. O. (2021). The CEFR as a national language policy in Vietnam: insights from a sociogenetic analysis.
  • Norrby, C., & Hajek, J. (Eds.) (2011). Uniformity and diversity in language policy: Global perspectives.
  • Nunan, D. (2002). The impact of English as a global language: Policy and planning in Greater China.
  • Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia-Pacific Region.
  • Oda, M. (2020). Reforming foreign language teaching policy in Japan: The politics of “standardization”.
  • Okuda, T. (2018). Policy borrowing in university language planning: A case of writing centers in Japan.
  • Omoniyi, T. (2007). Alternative contexts of language policy and planning in Sub-Saharan Africa.
  • Or, I. G., & Shohamy, E. (2017). English education policy in Israel.
  • Orman, J. (2008). Language policy and nation-building in post-Apartheid South Africa.
  • Ortega, L. (1999). Language and equality: Ideological and structural constraints in foreign language education in the US.
  • Ortega, Y. (2024). Symbolic annihilation: Processes influencing English language policy and teaching practice.
  • Ortíz Medina, J. M., Usma Wilches, J. A., & Gutiérrez, C. (2019). Critical intercultural dialogue opening new paths to internationalisation in HE: Repositioning local languages and cultures in foreign language policies.
  • Parmar, F. F. (2007). Transforming language policies to make more room: Reflections from a principal of a college in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.
  • Pearson, P. (2014). Policy without a plan: English as a medium of instruction in Rwanda.
  • Pennycook, A. (2000). Language, ideology and hindsight: Lessons from colonial language policies.
  • Pennycook, A. (2002). Language policy and docile bodies: Hong Kong and governmentality.
  • Pennycook, A. (2004). Language policy and the ecological turn.
  • Pennycook, A. (2006). Postmodernism in language policy.
  • Perry, J. R. (1985). Language reform in Turkey and Iran.
  • Perry, S. J. (2023). A critical discourse analysis of ELT institutional contradictions in language policy and recruitment in Japan.
  • Phillipson, R. (2003). English-only Europe? Challenging language policy.
  • Phuong, J. (2017). Disability and language ideologies in education policy.
  • Phyak, P. (2016). Local-global tension in the ideological construction of English language education policy in Nepal.
  • Phyak, P. (2024). Producing the disciplined English-speaking subjects: Language policing, development ideology, and English medium of instruction policy.
  • Phyak, P., & Sah, P. K. (2024). Epistemic injustice and neoliberal imaginations in English as a medium of instruction (EMI) policy.
  • Pita, M. D., & Utakis, S. (2006). Educational policy for the transnational Dominican community.
  • Polsky, B. S. (2002). Heritage languages and national security: An ecological view (relevant to national policy).
  • Power, E. J. (1982). Philosophy of education: studies in philosophies, schooling, and educational policies.
  • Qiu, Y., Zheng, Y., & Liu, J. (2023). “So, only relying on English is still troublesome”: A critical examination of Japan’s English medium instruction policy at multiple levels.
  • Qixin, H. (2002). English language education in China.
  • Rahman, T. (2006). Language policy, multilingualism and language vitality in Pakistan.
  • Rahman, T. (2010). Language policy, identity, and religion: Aspects of the civilization of the Muslims of Pakistan and North India.
  • Ramanathan, V. (2005). The English-Vernacular divide: Postcolonial language politics and practice.
  • Ramanathan, H. (2016). English education policy in India.
  • Rana, A. M. K., Bhatti, A. M., & Farukh, A. (2020). Perceptions of Punjabi speakers towards English language teaching policies in Pakistan: A systematic approach.
  • Raza, K., Coombe, C., & Reynolds, D. (Eds). (2021). Policy development in TESOL and multilingualism: Past, present and the way forward.
  • R’boul, H. (2022). ELT in Morocco: Postcolonial struggles, linguistic imperialism and neoliberal tendencies.
  • Ricento, T. (2000). Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning.
  • Ricento, T. (Ed.). (2000). Ideology, politics, and language policies: Focus on English.
  • Ricento, T. (2006). Language policy: Theory and practice: An introduction.
  • Ricento, T. (Ed.). (2006). An introduction to language policy: Theory and method.
  • Ricento, T. K., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional.
  • Rivers, D. J. (2011). Strategies and struggles in the ELT classroom: Language policy, learner autonomy, and innovative practice.
  • Rivers, W. P., Robinson, J. P., Hardwood, P. G., & Brecht, R. D. (2013). Language votes: Attitudes toward foreign language policies.
  • Romero-Little, M. E., McCarty, T. L., Warhol, L., & Zepeda, O. (2007). Language policies in practice: Preliminary findings from a large-scale study of Native American language shift.
  • Rose, H., McKinley, J., Xu, X., & Zhou, S. (2020). Investigating policy and implementation of English medium instruction in higher education institutions in China.
  • Rubdy, R. (2001). Creative destruction: Singapore’s Speak Good English Movement.
  • Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning.
  • Ruiz, R. (1990). Official languages and language planning.
  • Samuelson, B. L., & Freedman, S. W. (2010). Language policy, multilingual education, and power in Rwanda.
  • Savski, K. (2021). CEFR as language policy: opportunities and challenges for local agency in a global era.
  • Savski, K. (2021). Language policy and linguistic landscape: Identity and struggle in two southern Thai spaces.
  • Savski, K. (2023). Language policy from textuality to (re)entextualization: Expanding the toolkit for discursive analyses.
  • Savski, K. (2023). Negotiating hegemonies in language policy: Ideological synergies in media recontextualizations of audit culture.
  • Schiffman, H. F. (1996). Linguistic culture and language policy.
  • Schmidt., R. (2006). Political theory and language policy.
  • Schmidt, R. (2008). National language policy or a framework for a national language education policy?.
  • Schneer, D. (2007). (Inter)nationalism and English textbooks endorsed by the Ministry of Education in Japan.
  • Seargeant, P. (2008). Ideologies of English in Japan: The perspective of policy and pedagogy.
  • Shamim, F. (2011). English as the language for development in Pakistan: Issues, challenges and possible solutions.
  • Sharma, B. K. (2018). Economic markets, elite multilingualism, and language policy in Nepali schools.
  • Shek, C., Johnson, R. K., & Law, E. (1991). Survey of the language policy and practice in 193 Hong Kong secondary schools.
  • Shin, H., & Lee, B. (2019). “English divide” and ELT in Korea: Towards critical ELT policy and practices.
  • Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective of the uses of language tests (relevant to policy).
  • Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches.
  • Silver, R. E. (2005). The discourse of linguistic capital: Language and economic policy planning in Singapore.
  • Silver, R. E., & Skuja-Steele, R. (2005). Priorities in English language education policy and classroom implementation.
  • Simmons, A. B. (1999a). Economic integration and designer immigrants: Canadian policy in the 1990s.
  • Simmons, A. B. (1999b). Immigration policy: Imagined futures.
  • Song, J. J. (2012). South Korea: Language policy and planning in the making.
  • Spolsky, B. (2007). Towards a theory of language policy.
  • Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy.
  • Spolsky, B. (2009). Language management.
  • Spolsky, B. (Ed.) (2012). The Cambridge handbook of language policy.
  • Stephens, C. (2018). Media discourses of language policy and the “new” Latino diaspora in Iowa.
  • Stoicheva, M. (Ed.). (2011). Language policies. Bulgaria-Europe.
  • Stroud, C., & Wee, L. (2007). Consuming identities: Language planning and policy in Singaporean late modernity.
  • Stull, G. C. (2012). Language, borders, and education: Language policy and the making of New Mexico and Arizona.
  • Sugarman, J., & Geary, C. (2018, August 28). English learners in select states: Demographics, outcomes, and state accountability policies.
  • Tachau, F. (1964). Language and politics: Turkish language reform.
  • Tam, P. T. K. (1986). The impact of governmental and institutional language policy and practices on the individual’s choice of the instructional medium in schools in Hong Kong.
  • Tan, C. (2006). Change and continuity: Chinese language policy in Singapore.
  • Taşpınar, Ö. (2008). Turkey’s Middle East policies: Between Neo-Ottomanism and Kemalism.
  • Tefera, A., Gonzalez, T., & Artiles, A. J. (2017). Challenges to policy as a tool for educational equity: The case of language and ability difference intersections.
  • Thomas, C. A. (2008). Bridging the gap between theory and practice: Language policy in multilingual organizations.
  • Thong, T. (1985). Language planning and language policy of Cambodia.
  • Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the community.
  • Tollefson, J. W. (2006). Critical theory in language policy.
  • Tri, D., & Moskovsky, C. (2023). Language use in English-medium instruction programs in Vietnamese higher education: From policy to practice.
  • Trilokekar, R. D., & Masri, A. E. (2019). Ontario’s K-12 international education strategy: Policy impacts on teacher education for international, intercultural and multilingual sensibilities.
  • Trim, J. L. M. (2002). Foreign language policies in Europe, with special reference to the roles of the Council of Europe and the European Union.
  • Trowler, P. R. (2003). Education policy.
  • Tryzna, M. M., & Al Sharoufi, H. (2017). English language education policy in Kuwait.
  • T’sou, B. (1994). Language planning issues raised by English in Hong Kong: Pre- and post-1997.
  • Tsui, A. B. M., & Tollefson, J. W. (2004). The centrality of medium-of-instruction policy in soiopolitical processes.
  • Tsui, A. B. M., & Tollefson, J. W. (Eds.) (2007). Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts.
  • Tupas, T. R. F. (2001). Global politics and the Englishes of the world.
  • Turner, E. O., & Mangual Figueroa, A. (2019). Immigration policy and education in lived reality: A framework for researchers and educators (relevant to national policy).
  • Ulum, Ö. G. (2020). Neoliberal policies and English language education in Turkey.
  • Usma, J. (2009). Education and language policy in Colombia: Exploring processes of inclusion, exclusion, and stratification in times of global reform.
  • Usma Wilches, J. A. (2015). From transnational language policy transfer to local appropriation: The case of the national bilingual program in Medellín, Colombia.
  • van Els, T. (2005). Status planning for learning and teaching.
  • Walinsky, H. (2002). Meeting current and future language needs of the German public sector, with special emphasis on defense (relevant to national policy).
  • Walisundara, D. C., & Hettiarachchi, S. (2016). English language policy and planning in Sri Lanka: A critical overview.
  • Wan, D. (2014). The history of language planning and reform in China: A critical perspective.
  • Wee, L. (2003). Linguistic instrumentalism in Singapore.
  • Wee, L. (2005). Intra-language discrimination and linguistic human rights: The case of Singlish (relevant to language policy).
  • Wee, L. (2006). The semiotics of language ideologies in Singapore.
  • Wee, L. (2010). ‘Burdens’ and ‘handicaps’ in Singapore’s language policy: On the limits of language management.
  • Wen, Z., Han, L., Hu, G., & Teng, M. F. (2022). Rethinking language policy and planning in the Greater Bay Area of China: insights from translanguaging theory.
  • Widodo, H. P. (2016) Language policy in practice: Reframing the English language curriculum in the Indonesian secondary education sector.
  • Wiley, T. (2000). Continuity and change in the function of language ideologies in the United States.
  • Wiley, T. G. (2004). Language policy and English only.
  • Wiley, T. G. (2006). The lessons of historical investigation: Implications for the study of language policy and planning.
  • Wiley, T. G., & García, O. (2016). Language policy and planning in language education: Legacies, consequences, and possibilities.
  • Willinsky, J. (1984). Well-tempered tongue: The Politics of Standard English in the high school.
  • Winer, L. (2007). No ESL in English schools: Language policy in Quebec and implications for TESL teacher education.
  • Wright, S. (2016). Language policy and language planning: From nationalism to globalization (2nd ed.).
  • Yang, J., & Jang, I. C. (2022). The everyday politics of English-only policy in an EFL language school: Practices, ideologies, and identities of Korean bilingual teachers.
  • Yau, M. S. (1989). The controversy over teaching medium in Hong Kong: An analysis of a language policy.
  • Yavuz, M. H. (1998). Turkish identity and foreign policy in flux: The rise of Neo-Ottomanism (relevant to national policy).
  • Yazan, B. (2015). Adhering to the language roots: Ottoman Turkish campaigns on Facebook.
  • Yokoyama, T. (2018). Official and realized hiring policy of assistant language teachers in Japan.
  • Yoshida, K. (2002). Fishbowl, open seas and the teaching of English in Japan (relevant to policy).
  • Zappa-Hollman, S. (2007). EFL in Argentina’s schools: Teachers’ perspectives on policy changes and instruction.
  • Zhang, Z. (2024). It is all about TOEIC: Discovering topics and trends in employee perceptions of corporate language policy.
  • Zhao, S. (2011). Actors in language planning.
  • Zhao, S., & Baldauf, R. B. Jr. (2012). Individual agency in language planning: Chinese script reform as a case study.
  • Zhou, M. (2000). Language policy and illiteracy in ethnic minority communities in China.
  • Zhou, M., & Sun, H. (Eds.). (2004). Language policy in the People’s Republic of China: Theory and practice since 1949.

Teacher Training

This category includes references that discuss the education, development, beliefs, and capacity of language teachers, and how policy influences these aspects.

  • Braden, S., & Christison, M. (2018). The absence of language-focused teacher education policy in U.S. K12 contexts: Insights from language socialization research in a ninth-grade physics classroom.
  • Calafato, R. (2022). Multilingual teacher identity in the Emirates: Implications for language policy and education.
  • Clapson, M., & Hyatt, D. (2007). Policy, cultural, and ideological influences on the career paths of teachers of English in French higher education.
  • Clarke, M. (2007). Language policy and language teacher education in the United Arab Emirates.
  • Demirezen, M. (2021). Spelling pronunciation versus relaxed pronunciation in foreign language teacher education policy.
  • Farrell, T. S. C., & Kun, S. (2008). Language policy, teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices.
  • Frisén, L. B., Sundqvist, P., & Sandlund, E. (2021). Policy in practice: Teachers’ conceptualizations of L2 English oral proficiency as operationalized in high-stakes test assessment.
  • Galante, A. (2018). Examining Brazilian foreign language policy and its application in an EFL university program: Teacher perspectives on plurilingualism.
  • Gursoy, E., Korkmaz, S. C., & Damar, E. A. (2017). English language teaching within the new educational policy of Turkey: Views of stakeholders (includes teachers).
  • Hamid, M. O. (2020). Globalisation, English for everyone and English teacher capacity: Language policy discourses and realities in Bangladesh.
  • Haque, E., & Cray, E. (2007). Constraining teachers: Adult ESL settlement language training policy and implementation (relates to teacher roles).
  • Hawanti, S. (2014). Implementing Indonesia’s English language teaching policy in primary schools: The role of teachers’ knowledge and beliefs.
  • Hayes, D. (2012). Mismatched perspectives: In-service teacher education policy and practice in South Korea.
  • Henderson, K. I. (2017). Teacher language ideologies mediating classroom-level language policy in the implementation of dual language bilingual education.
  • Jeon, M. (2016). English language education policy and the native-speaking English teacher (NET) scheme in Hong Kong.
  • Julián-de-Vega, C., & Fonseca-Mora, M. (2017). Language policy and teacher team coordination practices in secondary CLIL schools.
  • Kvietok, F. (2011). Interpreting and implementing interculturality: EIB educators and in-service teacher training programs.
  • Le, V. C., Ngyuen, H. T. M., Nguyen, T. T. M., & Barnard, R. (Eds.). (2019). Building teacher capacity in English language teaching in Vietnam: Research, policy and practice.
  • Mahalingappa, L. J., & Polat, N. (2013). English language teacher education in Turkey: Policy vs academic standards.
  • Manh, L. D. (2018). Agentic responses to communicative language teaching in language policy: An example of Vietnamese English primary teachers.
  • Nguyen, M. H., & Hayati, N. (2022). The positioning of teacher reflective practice in TESOL-related policies.
  • Öztürk, G., &, Aydin, B. (2019). English language teacher education in Turkey: Why do we fail and what policy reforms are needed?.
  • Ramanathan, V., & Morgan, B. (2007). TESOL and policy enactments: Perspectives from practice (teachers' perspective).
  • Siddiek, A. G. (2011). Foreign language teacher training in the Sudan: Past, present and strategies for future recruitment policies.
  • Tajeddin, Z., & Watanabe, A. (Eds.). (2022). Teacher reflection: Policies, practices, and impacts.
  • Trilokekar, R. D., & Masri, A. E. (2019). Ontario’s K-12 international education strategy: Policy impacts on teacher education for international, intercultural and multilingual sensibilities.
  • Winer, L. (2007). No ESL in English schools: Language policy in Quebec and implications for TESL teacher education.
  • Yokoyama, T. (2018). Official and realized hiring policy of assistant language teachers in Japan.
  • Zappa-Hollman, S. (2007). EFL in Argentina’s schools: Teachers’ perspectives on policy changes and instruction.

Use of Mother Tongue in Instruction

This category specifically includes references related to the role of a student's first language in the educational setting, often contrasting with or discussing English Medium Instruction (EMI).

  • Aizawa, I., & Rose, H. (2019). An analysis of Japan’s English as a medium of instruction initiatives within higher education: The gap between meso-level policy and micro-level practice.
  • Ascher, H. R., & Pichery, K. M. (2024). Language policy in English as a medium of instruction schools: A multilingual approach.
  • Curle, S., Ali, H., Alhassan, A., &. Scatolini, S. S. (Eds.). (2022). English-medium instruction in higher education in the Middle East and North Africa: Policy, research and pedagogy.
  • Fang, G. F., & Saha, P. (Eds.). (2024). English-Medium instruction in multilingual universities: Politics, policies, and pedagogies in Asia.
  • Fenton-Smith, B., Humphreys, P., & Walkinshaw, I. (Eds.). (2017). English medium instruction in higher education in Asia-Pacific: From policy to pedagogy.
  • Guerrero, C. (2009). Language policies in Colombia: The inherited disdain for our native languages.
  • Johnson, R. K. (1983). Language policy in Hong Kong: The Llewellyn report and the medium of instruction.
  • Khan, A. (2018). Whither mother-tongue (in) education?: An ethnographic study of language policy in rural primary schools in Pakistan.
  • Kosonen, K., & Young, C. (Eds.). (2009). Mother tongue as bridge language of instruction: Policies and experiences in Southeast Asia.
  • Kuteeva, M., & Airey, J. (2014). Disciplinary differences in the use of English in higher education: Reflections on recent language policy developments.
  • Mahboob, A. (2017). English medium instruction in higher education in Pakistan: Policies, perceptions, problems, and possibilities.
  • Manan, S. A., David, M. K., & Dumanig, F. P. (2015). Disjunction between language policy and children's sociocultural ecology – an analysis of English-medium education policy in Pakistan.
  • Pearson, P. (2014). Policy without a plan: English as a medium of instruction in Rwanda.
  • Phyak, P. (2024). Producing the disciplined English-speaking subjects: Language policing, development ideology, and English medium of instruction policy.
  • Phyak, P., & Sah, P. K. (2024). Epistemic injustice and neoliberal imaginations in English as a medium of instruction (EMI) policy.
  • Premsrirat, S., & Hirsh, D. (Eds). (2025). Mother tongue-based multilingual education in the Asia-Pacific region.
  • Qiu, Y., Zheng, Y., & Liu, J. (2023). “So, only relying on English is still troublesome”: A critical examination of Japan’s English medium instruction policy at multiple levels.
  • Rose, H., McKinley, J., Xu, X., & Zhou, S. (2020). Investigating policy and implementation of English medium instruction in higher education institutions in China.
  • Sah, P. K., & Li, G. (2024). School as the agency of social reproduction: A case of medium of instruction policymaking for quasi-privatization in Nepal.
  • Tsui, A. B. M., & Tollefson, J. W. (2004). The centrality of medium-of-instruction policy in soiopolitical processes.
  • Tri, D., & Moskovsky, C. (2023). Language use in English-medium instruction programs in Vietnamese higher education: From policy to practice.
Policy & Planning Services

TIRF offers consulting and advisory services to organizations, institutions, ministries of education, and other stakeholders seeking research-informed guidance. Services may include policy analysis, program reviews, strategic planning support, environmental scans, expert consultations, and the development of evidence-based recommendations. Through these activities, TIRF helps clients navigate complex challenges and make informed decisions that strengthen language education systems and outcomes.

TIRF brings a research-informed perspective to the complex challenges associated with language policy and planning. The information below provides an overview of these fields and illustrates the breadth of issues that language policy and language education policy seek to address.

To collaborate with TIRF and to learn more, please write to [email protected].

Aim

TIRF seeks to develop and share knowledge and expertise on language policy and language education policy, along with policy-related resources, with potential partners, clients, and the broader community.

Definitions

Broadly defined, language policy is the framework that governs how languages function in society and in law in a given sociopolitical unit (nation, state, city, corporation, etc.). A clear example is the designation of one or more languages as “official” by a national government.

Language education policy is a subset of this broader domain, focused on how languages (or sometimes dialects) are handled in schools and learning institutions, both how they are used and how they are learned. For example, a nation or a local school system might set a policy requiring the teaching of additional languages at a point in the educational sequence.

The following tables provide additional detail and examples.

Comparison

Language PolicyLanguage Education Policy
Definition

Decisions and practices about the role, status, and use of languages in society

Language policy refers to the official or unofficial decisions, laws, or practices that determine the status, use, rights, and functions of languages within a society or state.

It addresses which languages are recognized, promoted, or restricted, and in what contexts (government, courts, media, education, etc.).

Subset of language policy focusing on the teaching and learning of languages, and language use in education

Language education policy is a subset of language policy that specifically deals with how languages are taught and/or used as mediums of instruction in the education system and how they are taught/used.

It involves decisions about which languages are taught, how they are taught, and which languages are used to teach other subjects.

Scope

Society-wide or within specific institutions (government, courts, media, workplaces, public life)

Schools, universities, educational systems, governments

Main Concern

Which languages are recognized, promoted, or restricted in public life

Which languages are taught, how they are taught, and which one(s) may serve as the medium of instruction

Examples
  • Official vs. national language designation (e.g., Hindi and English as official languages in India; Portuguese as official language of Brazil)
  • Language rights of minorities (e.g., Sámi language rights in Norway)
  • Language use in government administration, courts, and public services
  • Language and identity, nationalism, or cultural preservation (e.g., English and Hawaiian as official languages of the U.S. state of Hawaii)
  • Multilingualism and language planning (status planning, corpus planning, acquisition planning)
  • Mother tongue teaching policies – the choice of medium of instruction (e.g., English-medium vs. mother-tongue education in Kenya)
  • Foreign language (L2) education policies (e.g., requiring English or French as an additional language in schools)
  • Second language (L2) education policies to determine age of learning L2
  • Bilingual or multilingual education models (e.g., Canada’s French immersion programs; bilingual education in local language and Spanish in indigenous communities in Mexico)
  • Curriculum design policies for language teaching
  • teacher training policies for language teaching
  • Policies on low resource context pedagogies
  • Policies on endangered language revitalization through schools (e.g., Māori language in New Zealand schools).
  • AI usage policies in foreign language education

Country-Specific Case Study Examples

CountryLanguage Policy (Society-Wide)Language Education Policy (Schools & Universities)
South AfricaEleven official languages recognized in the Constitution; multilingualism is promoted in theory.Mother-tongue instruction in early grades; shift to English or Afrikaans later; English dominates higher education despite policy for multilingualism.
IndiaHindi & English official languages of the Union (nation); states may adopt their own official languages (e.g., Tamil, Bengali).Three-Language Formula: regional language + Hindi + English (implementation varies). Tamil Nadu rejects Hindi in favor of Tamil + English.
CanadaOfficially bilingual (English & French); both equal in federal services.French immersion programs in English-dominant provinces; Quebec requires French-medium education for most students.
New ZealandEnglish, Māori, and NZ Sign Language official languages. Strong Māori revitalization movement.Māori immersion schools (Kura Kaupapa Māori). Māori language taught as subject in mainstream schools. Policies promote bilingualism.
TanzaniaKiswahili national and official language (symbol of unity); English used in some official domains.Kiswahili used in primary schools; English used in secondary and higher education.
SpainOfficial language Spanish, with Catalan a co-official language with Spanish in Catalonia and other regions and Basque (Euskara) a co-official language with Spanish in the Basque Country.In Catalan and Basque regions, bilingual education in the two official languages available for maintenance of the regional language and access to Spanish language proficiency. All students in Spain required to study an additional foreign language, often English.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Ready to bring expert insights to your organization? Contact us to learn more about TIRF Talks and how we can tailor our program to your needs. Fill out the form below, and we'll get back to you shortly to discuss how we can create a valuable experience for your team.
Name
This field is hidden when viewing the form