French immersion programs have traditionally served predominantly English-speaking, Canadian-born students and families in their pursuit of bilingual education in Canada’s two official languages, French and English. Nevertheless, many newcomer, multilingual families are interested in French immersion programs for their children (Dagenais & Jacquet, 2000; Dagenais & Moore, 2008; Davis et al., 2019). Researchers have found that newcomer, multilingual students tend to develop strong language proficiency in French immersion programs (Bourgoin & Dicks, 2019; Knouzi & Mady, 2017; Mady, 2015). However, such learners are often excluded from French immersion due to supposedly low English language abilities and a lack of inclusive language-in-education policy (Bourgoin, 2016; Davis, 2019; Mady & Masson, 2018). Moreover, some educators have espoused the view that immersion programs might be appropriate for some newcomer students, but not necessarily for refugee-background students who might face significant challenges in their lives (Davis et al., 2021). In this French-English bilingual presentation, I will share the findings of a critical, mixed-methods study drawing from semi-structured interviews (N=40) and surveys (N=126) to explore the perspectives and language ideologies of educators in eight school divisions in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Alberta with respect to refugee-background students in French immersion programs. Adopting the critical theoretical perspective of sociolinguistics for change (Auger et al., 2007; Dalley & Roy, 2008; Roy, 2020), I will focus on the findings of this study pertaining to language-in-education policy, gatekeeping practices, and resources for refugee-background students. This presentation will examine a critical tension between the inclusive perspectives of most French immersion educators and the inequitable language-in-education policy in most school divisions. In conclusion, I will make five recommendations for researchers, educators, and administrators to create more equitable language-in-education policy and resources for refugee-background students in French immersion programs across Canada.

Not all students in Canada have equitable access to French Immersion (FI), and many therefore miss out on opportunities associated with fluency in both of Canada’s official languages. Although multiple factors contribute to inequitable access, students who are considered “at risk” for academic difficulties are disproportionately excluded from FI. Those deemed ‘at ­risk’ include students: who have language or learning based disabilities, who speak a minority language at home, or who live in disadvantaged socio­economic situations. As school boards across the country seek to improve inclusion, it is essential to understand the barriers that sustain these inequities and the supports needed to address them.

Methods. Study 1: We conducted a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of selected media articles and editorials to examine how FI is represented in public discourse. Study 2: Using a mixed-methods design, we collected quantitative survey data and qualitative interview responses from caregivers and educators. This phase explored (a) their beliefs about children’s capacity to succeed in FI and (b) the supports they view as necessary for equitable access.

Results. Study 1: Preliminary findings indicate that public discourse surrounding FI in Ottawa often reflects ableist and elitist assumptions. Media narratives frequently frame FI as a program intended for high-achieving students or as an academically “elite” stream. Study 2: Both caregivers and educators consistently reported insufficient systemic supports and funding to promote inclusion. Participants emphasized the need for increased resources, including specialized instructional support and professional development for educators.

This research contributes to the growing literature on inclusion in FI by highlighting a persistent gap between evidence and practice. Although extensive research demonstrates that students from diverse backgrounds can succeed in FI, the belief that FI is best suited for “elite” learners continues to influence decisions and practices, ultimately limiting access for some students.

Ongoing sociocultural and sociopolitical tensions continue to inform 21st century U.S. higher education's goals and its purported value proposition to the greater citizenry. Matters of cultural inclusion, belongingness, and academic success among multicultural and bi/multilingual student populations at 2- and 4-year minority-serving institutions (MSIs) such as Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) and Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institutions (AANAPISI) (Garcia, 2019, 2023a) have been a strong impetus for reassessing the efficacy of literacy-based programs across subject areas (Cummins, 2005; Garcia, 2009; 2019; Skutnabb-Kangas & May, 2020). Holistically centering bilingual and bicultural learners' academic and social integration have arisen as high priorities at a large 2-year MSI in the U.S. Mid-Atlantic with federal HSI and AANAPISI designations.

As an action-oriented response to these student-centered imperatives, building faculty capacity towards 'linguistic servingness' (Garcia, 2023b) via professional development is presented as part of a case study. Data collection results are presented from critically-based semi-structured faculty interviews to glean optimal professional development characteristics that operationalize culturally affirming and linguistically sustaining teaching for heritage language learners (Lacorte 2016). In furthering the reach of interdisciplinary bilingual and bicultural teaching practices, faculty voices yielded three overarching themes: 1. Affirming language orientations, 2. student pathways and success outcomes, and 3. faculty professional development. This case study will showcase emergent faculty-determined professional development characteristics that privilege intercultural approaches, critical engagement, collaborative interdisciplinarity, and high impact practices as pragmatic foci to serving minoritized language users within English-dominant U.S. higher education.

The host of changes to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)’s International Student Program in 2024 and 2025 have had severe repercussions on the postsecondary sector in Canada. In a system heavily reliant on international students and their tuition dollars, the drastically reduced international student enrollments resulting from these changes, have led to budget shortfalls, program closures and suspensions, and layoffs (Nash, 2025).

Additionally, these measures have had unintended consequences with regards to language-in-education policy, specifically, the practice of English for Academic Purposes in Canada. EAP programs at universities and colleges in Canada provide pre-admission pathway programs, but also concurrent support for students as they complete their degree programs. They therefore sit at the convergence of recruitment and admissions policies, academic policies and teaching learning practices, and student services and support.

EAP has always been a field which operates on the margins of academia in terms of structures and status of EAP programs, teachers, and students (Ding and Bruce, 2017; Haque, 2007; MacDonald, 2016; McCartney & Metcalfe, 2018; Murie & Fitzpatrick, 2009; Walsh Marr, 2021). Despite the significant contributions to both institutions’ enrolment and economic viability, as well as students’ academic trajectories, the field of EAP is being pushed further out. Languages Canada (2025) reported a 56% reduction in postsecondary pathway language program students in 2024. This raises questions as to the future of EAP in our institutions.

In this session, we will explore the decline of the field of EAP in Canada as an unintended consequence of the IRCC policy changes of 2024-2025. As scholar-practitioners, we will describe the status quo, the host of policy decisions, and also structural, historical, and pedagogical factors that contributed to this situation. We will also propose avenues forward, addressing both policy and pedagogy, with a focus on the practitioner experience.