Acceso usuarios
Over the past two decades, heightened migration has increased linguistic diversity in schools. For schools to cope with this multilingualism, many governments impose a monolingual policy where only the language of instruction is allowed. Although many schools adopt such a policy, the classroom practices may differ since multilingual students often revert to translanguaging-as-practice. Drawing on three key conceptual language policy (LP) models (Bonacina-Pugh, 2012. Researching ‘practiced language policies’: Insights from conversation analysis. Language Policy, 11(3), 213–234; Johnson & Johnson, 2015. Power and agency in language policy appropriation. Language Policy, 14(3), 221–243; Ricento & Hornberger, 1996. Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401–427), this study explores LP formation across macro (government), meso (school), and micro (classroom) educational levels in Flanders, Belgium. Macro-level analysis involves scrutinizing policy documents from the Educational Department of Flanders. Meso-level investigation includes policy documents from three secondary schools, compared with insights from interviews with the schools' principals and language coaches. Semi-structured interviews with teachers (n = 18) and classroom observations (n = 138 hours) provide nuanced perspectives at the micro-level. Triangulating data reveals declared, perceived, and practiced language policies at various levels. The study underscores LP's intricate nature within a multilingual educational context. Results highlight the contrast between macro-level policy straightforwardness and the complexity faced at meso- and micro-levels, where context-specific challenges arise. As schools navigate linguistic diversity, the role of language coaches becomes pivotal in creating inclusive and effective educational settings.
