Conference Agenda

This language policy study examines the English language policy and planning of Bangladesh, a South Asian country with a long history of British colonization. Roughly 95 to 99 per cent of Bangladeshis speak Bangla as their national language (Hamid, Jahan, and Islam 2013) but their level of literacy is routinely measured by their English knowledge (Hasan and Rahaman, 2012). During 200 years of colonial rule, English was legislatively imposed as the language of schooling. Since gaining independence in 1971, Bangladesh continues to uphold the place of English in education. This practice produces inequitable access to education. In light of this reality, this research explores the historical and structural factors that have led to English language policy and planning in Bangladesh and the systems of inequality that have been sustained through language policy in the educational institutions of Bangladesh. Drawing on historical-structural analysis, I interpret the following data sources: Bangladesh Education Commission Reports (1972-2010) and newspaper articles. My research findings suggest that English language policy is implicit in Bangladesh. The hide-and-seek approach with English language policy explains why, although English is prevalent in the education system, it is difficult to find an explicit English language policy in Bangladesh. Schools and universities adapt their own English language policy that creates inequitable access to education, a fact often not mentioned in the national language policy. My research makes recommendations for creating an explicit and equitable English-in-education policy in Bangladesh.

Hamid, M. O., Jahan, I., & Islam, M. M. (2013). Medium of instruction policies and language practices, ideologies and institutional divides: Voices of teachers and students in a private university in Bangladesh. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14(1), 144-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2013.771417

Hasan, S. M., & Rahaman, A. (2012). The status of Bangla and the English language in post-colonial Bangladesh-resistance versus utility. Language in India, 12(1), 14-23. http://go.galegroup.com.libproxy.uregina.ca:2048/

In China, debates on integrating Chinese into English-Medium Instruction in higher education are increasingly prominent, yet few studies connect policy frameworks with classroom realities. This systematic review synthesizes 54 empirical and non-empirical studies (2015–2025, English and Chinese) using Spolsky’s language policy theory (2009), which views policy as the interaction of language management, ideology, and practices.

Our review reveals that at the level of language management, EMI is officially defined as “bilingual courses” intended to serve both internationalization and domestic needs. The national goal is to cultivate graduates who are proficient in both English and Chinese rather than English-only users. However, at the level of language ideology, English continues to be associated with academic prestige, modernity, and global competitiveness, while Chinese and regional languages are positioned as secondary in China’s higher education system. This ideological pattern reinforces Western-centric hierarchies and reduces bilingualism to a symbolic rather than a functional goal. At the level of language practices, teachers and students often rely on Chinese to clarify disciplinary concepts and facilitate understanding, yet they frequently feel anxious about doing so. Teachers fear that using Chinese contradicts the "spirit" of EMI, and students worry that it signals insufficient English proficiency. This tension results in a fragmented classroom environment where students’ full linguistic resources are underutilized.

Underlying this tension is the lack of clear pedagogical guidance and aligned assessment, leading many universities to treat EMI as de facto English-only and weakening the bilingual vision. By tracing where management, ideology, and classroom practices misalign, we explain how this drift occurs and specify what is needed to prevent it: detailed task-level pedagogy for functional bilingualism, and teacher PD that normalizes planned cross-linguistic scaffolding. This reframes China’s EMI from symbolic bilingualism to implementable bilingual pedagogy and sets a concrete agenda for classroom-based evaluation.

Teaching English in Pakistan is not a neutral act. In 2013, the Bachelors in Education (B. Ed. Honors) in Pakistan was revised and expanded in to a four year long program after a joint collaboration between the Higher Education Commission (HEC) and USAID (United States Agency for International Development). The new B.Ed. program includes courses such as Teaching Literacy, Teaching English I and II (HEC, 2013). As part of the reforms, HEC issued Course Guides. These course guides contain detailed instructions for teacher educators on how to teach these courses, aiming to trigger a ‘seismic change’ (HEC, 2012) in teaching methods. Studies on the efficacy of the new B.Ed. program have so far indicated mixed results. Causes have ranged from the discrepancies between beliefs and enacted practices (Munshi et al., 2015), lack of resources and facilities (Gopang, Parveen and Kamran, 2020). When it comes to ESL courses, the quality has been affected by a lack of support (Waseem and Kazmi, 2018) or the overarching institutional influences and culture (Rind, Kadiwal, and Gritter, 2016). This paper proposes critically analyzing these Course Guides as they have implications for teacher practices in English language classrooms. Additionally, this chapter echoes Niyozov and Khan’s (2020) lens of placing the B.Ed program and by extension, the Course guides amidst a framework of policy borrowing and deconolonization. By utilizing critical discourse analysis (CDA), this chapter aims to investigate how these Course Guides may be reproducing Eurocentric or monolingual modes of teaching English rather than moving towards a decolonial and contextualized teaching practice. Additionally, how may these course guides be upholding or transmitting neoliberal governmentality as other USAID programs have been shown to do? (Shah, 2025). The chapter will also include anecdotes from the author’s own experiences in teacher education and professional development in Karachi, Pakistan.

California is one of the most linguistically diverse places in the U.S. and the world. However, language policies in California were not always in favor of linguistic diversity. Proposition 227 in 1998 mandated that public school instruction be conducted in English. This law required immigrant children to be taught through English immersion and eliminated most bilingual education programs. While Proposition 58 repealed this law in 2016, allowing bilingual education, California is experiencing a severe shortage of bilingual teachers (Carver-Thomas & Marling-Hammond, 2017), and research continues to report that teacher preparation programs frequently fall short in equipping candidates with the knowledge and pedagogical strategies to effectively teach multilingual learners (Cartiera, 2006, Lucas & Villegas, 2013), and multilingual students are often placed in mainstream classrooms where teachers lack training to address their needs (Lucas, Strom, Bratkovich, & Wnuk, 2018; Villegas, SaizdeLaMora, Martin, & Mills, 2018).

Dual Language Learners (DLLs), whose home language is other than English, make up about 60 % of children (ages 0-8) in California. As a response to ever-growing linguistic diversity and the need to support multilingual children, early childhood studies faculty developed a project in which translanguaging is embedded as a theoretical and pedagogical tool. Through this project, student teachers collaboratively develop a wide range of bilingual resources utilizing their full linguistic repertoire. Data sources include student teachers’ work samples and final reflections. This study showcases how faculty create space to combat the impacts of English-only law by helping student teachers see translanguaging as an asset-based language practice and by empowering them to enact effective pedagogical practices for multilingual children.