Language policies: Educational and family language policies

Plurilingual education portal

Subject classification: this is an education resource.

Type classification: this resource is a course.

Starting activity

Read the following short scenario:

A parent approaches you after class and says, “At home we only speak Arabic, but my child is learning Italian and studying English too. I’m afraid they’re getting confused. Should we stop using Arabic at home?”

What would you say to this parent? Why?
How can educators support both the student and the family in a situation like this?
What does this scenario tell us about the relationship between home language practices and school expectations?

Personal Reflection:

Which languages did you study at school? Why?
Which languages were offered at your school? Do you know why?

Objectives

At the end of this section, you will be able to:

comment on the role of language policies in education;
explain how family language policies can promote and/or hinder plurilingualism;
mention tensions and contradictions in language policies.

Key Words

Language policy, educational language policy, family language policy, CLIL

Introduction

Language policies are implicit or explicit decisions, expressed in formal or informal instances, dealing with the management of languages at society, at micro (individual), meso (such as families) and macro (such as the educational systems) levels (Shohamy, 2006; Spolsky, 2007). At the meso level, such policies are known under family language policies (FLP; see Curd-Christiansen & Lanza, 2018; Curd-Christiansen, 2025). At the macro level, they are called educational language policies (ELP), and they include regulations about the use of languages at school, as well as which languages are expected to be taught and learnt (see Cenoz & Gorter, 2012; Shohamy, 2006).

Depending on their formulations and scope, language policies might become key tools for fostering equity and participation in increasingly multilingual and mobile societies. Nevertheless, in contexts where language and family education policies are narrowly defined and implemented forcefully, they might become instruments of control and of discrimination. Indeed, language, ELP and FLP might also be formulated and implemented in ways that seek to homogenise students and families. In other words, rather than promoting the development of individual plurilingual competence and maintaining societal linguistic diversity, such policies may contribute to their erasure and eradication. When linguistic diversity is seen as a problem to be solved, rather than a resource to be valued, ideologies at the political level and educational systems risk reproducing inequalities and undermining the linguistic identities of families, in general, and learners, more specifically.

In a school setting, effective linguistic integration enables all learners to develop their linguistic, academic, social and interpersonal skills to their full potential. In this context, families play an essential active role, not as mere observers, but as partners in shaping linguistic and educational outcomes.

From this introduction, we can infer that the language policies at different levels are interconnected, but not always coherently and there may be tensions between the language policies of the nation state, educational language policies, and family language policies.

A Brief History

Language education policies have long been central to state-building (Gogolin, 1994) and educational planning, at least in Europe. In 19th-century Europe, language policies often aimed to consolidate national identities through the imposition of standard national languages in schools (De Fornel, 2023). These policies prioritized homogeneity of one single standard language and often marginalized regional and minority languages.

In terms of ELP in Europe, post-second world war language policies tended to favour English as a lingua franca. Indeed, even when policies promoted linguistic diversity in regulatory documents, English was still the preferred language. For instance, when foreign languages are included in the school curriculum, English is usually the language taught. From the late 20th century onward, due to globalization and increased migration, language policies began to shift toward more inclusive approaches that recognize linguistic diversity. Key reference texts such as the “Common European Framework of Reference for Languages” (CEFR) reflect this shift by promoting plurilingual competence as a valuable educational and social asset. Nevertheless, despite this plurilingual stance, some some fallacies can be identified in current ELP, as critically noted by Melo-Pfeifer (2018): including two foreign languages in the curriculum usually favours English as the first foreign language, early language teaching tends to be limited to English, and curricula tend to separate languages, which are taught and learned in a monoglot manner. Additionally, in the university context, Higher Education internationalization programs mainly involve English as a Medium of Instruction (Yanaprasart & Melo-Pfeifer, forthcoming).

Contemporary views on language policies invite us to rethink language and family education policies not just as top-down decisions but as dynamic, negotiated and contested processes that reflect broader social, cultural, and political dynamics.

Definitions

A “language policy” is the set of measures implemented by public authorities to explicitly or implicitly influence the corpus, functions, or acquisition of a language. A language policy is considered a “public policy” when it is used to specifically address issues that are politically defined as collective in nature (Knoepfel et al. 2001), such as the provision of public services in multiple languages, the management of communication between speakers of different languages, the lack of competence in foreign languages, and the insufficient proficiency in the dominant local language among adult migrants and asylum seekers.

Language policy “has three interrelated but independently describable components: practices, beliefs, and management” (Spolsky, 2007, p. 3). According to the same author,

Language practices are the observable behaviors and choices – what people actually do (p. 3).
Beliefs include the values assigned to the different languages, linguistic varieties and features.
Management refers to “the explicit and observable effort by someone or some group that has or claims to have authority over the participants in the domain to modify their practices or beliefs” (p. 4)

Some ELP aim at fostering the knowledge and use of foreign languages and are therefore the object of educational language policies. This is the case of policies addressing the development of plurilingual repertoires at school.

In parallel, the notion of family language policy (FLP) has gained prominence since the early 2000s (King et al., 2008; Spolsky, 2009). It was defined by King et al. as “explicit and overt planning in relation to language use within the home among family members” (2008, p. 907), which also includes analysing how linguistic home environments are created to support literacy development in the heritage language (see Boibin, 2021, Melo-Pfeifer, 2022, and Wang & Yu2024, on Homescapes). It explores the implicit and explicit decisions families make about which languages to use at home and how these affect children’s linguistic development. Despite this focus, FLP studies usually focus on mothers’ beliefs and tend to overwhelmingly rely on middle class and educated families’ perspectives. In common, FLP studies highlight that families do not merely respond to official language policies, but actively interpret, negotiate, or even resist them, shaping their own “micro-policies” of language use. It should also be considered that families, even if they have positive attitudes toward their languages, may still adopt practices that do not always promote their use at home. It is also important to note that family language beliefs and practices can change according to family dynamics (death of a spouse, family separation, migration, etc.).

Recent scholarship (Rose, Armon-Lotem & Altman, 2023) emphasizes that FLPs are key mediators between the societal and familial spheres, and they play a significant role in determining bilingual children's outcomes. These policies can be influenced by ideologies (beliefs about the status and value of languages), management strategies (e.g., "one parent, one language"), and everyday language practices. They may also be constrained or supported by external factors such as school policies, media, and peer group influences.

Practical examples

Practical Example (1): CLIL as ELP

One example of public policy and educational initiative to ensure the expansion of language education is the CLIL approach (Content and Language Integrated Learning). It combines the teaching of non-linguistic subjects with a foreign language, typically English, allowing students to learn subject content and language skills simultaneously. The CLIL approach offers several potential advantages, including improving foreign language proficiency, intercultural sensitivity, critical thinking, and preparing students for studying and working in international contexts. However, some challenges and critics are also associated to CLIL (Bonnet & Breidbach, 2026): the need for highly qualified teachers in both the subject and the language of instruction (which differs from the mother tongue), the risk that students with weaker language skills may struggle with subject comprehension, the possibility of reducing the depth of content covered due to language barriers, the overtly neoliberal and capitalist ideologies promoted by some CLIL programs, the elitist status of some CLIL initiatives, and the fact that it did not, in fact, promote plurilingual education, rather favouring English at the European level.

Where CLIL proves difficult for students with weak foundations in the medium of CLIL instruction, pedagogical translanguaging comes into play. This method allows students to use all their linguistic resources to learn, creating a more inclusive educational environment. In schools with migrant children or linguistic inequalities, translanguaging is essential: it enables students to use their first languages as a support for learning the language of schooling and other subjects. This strategy not only improves understanding but also strengthens students’ linguistic identity, preventing insecurity or abandonment of their heritage language.

Practical Example (2): Supportive ELP for plurilingual families

Another key aspect of language acquisition is the role of families in promoting bilingualism and plurilingualism, especially when this process begins at an early age, with the intergenerational transmission of heritage languages (Audras, 2025). Early childhood bilingualism offers numerous advantages: young children are naturally exposed to two or more languages, allowing them to acquire them gradually and without pressure. Family language policies, often implicit and informal, play a crucial role here. As previously stated, these refer to the beliefs, practices, and strategies families adopt - explicitly or tacitly - to manage language use at home. Encouraging children to talk about school experiences in their home language, for instance, helps them reprocess concepts, deepen understanding, and strengthen memory. It also allows parents to participate actively in their children's education, even if they do not master the school language.

At the same time, FLP and policies favouring plurilingual families should recognize and reinforce the value of home language practices. This includes providing access to bilingual resources, community support programs, and school-family collaboration initiatives that help preserve heritage languages and foster plurilingual identities.

When seeking to actively promote plurilingualism and multilingualism, ELP and FLP can be complementary: the former seek to guarantee quality language education, while the latter should provide the foundation for effective acquisition starting at home. Nevertheless, ELP, mainly those limiting and constraining the use of different languages at the state level, and FLP might also be contradictory and leave families uncertain on which languages to use (namely in school communication), on their multilingual parenting and on the (legal) risks and benefits associated to intergenerational language transmission.

Take-home messages

Language policies at the meso (nation state), macro (school and family levels) and micro (individual) levels might be inconsistent and be characterized by various tensions in terms of practices, beliefs, and management;
The intentions of ELP in favor of plurilingual education can have unexpected contradictory effects;
The parental role is crucial for language maintenance and transmission, and it can be supported or jeopardised by educational language policies and societal discourses;

Self-assessment

Resources to go further

Balboni, P. E. (2008). Fare educazione linguistica. UTET.
Bruner, J. (1996). La cultura dell’educazione. Feltrinelli.
Spolsky, B. (2023). Rethinking Language Policy. Edinburgh University Press.
Spolsky, B. (2012) (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy. Cambridge University Press.
Shohamy, E. (2006). Language Policy Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. Routledge.

Bibliography

Audras, I. (2025). Politiques linguistiques familiales. In Ch. Ollivier & S. Melo-Pfeifer (Eds.), Encyclopédie de l’éducation plurilingue / Encyclopaedia of plurilingual education. (pp. 262-264). Peter Lang.

Boivin, N. (2021). Homescape: Agentic space for transmigrant families’ multisensory discourse of identity. Linguistic Landscape. An International Journal, 7(1), 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1075/ll.19019.boi

Bonnet, A., & Breidbach, A. (2026). CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning). In C. Ollivier & S. Melo-Pfeifer (Eds.), Encyclopédie de l’éducation plurilingue - Encyclopaedia of plurilingual education (pp. 74-76). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2012). Language policy in education: additional languages. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy. Cambridge University Press.

Curd-Christiansen, X. L. (2025), Family language policies. In Ch. Ollivier & S. Melo-Pfeifer (Eds.), Encyclopédie de l’éducation plurilingue / Encyclopaedia of plurilingual education. (pp. 265-267). Peter Lang.

Curd-Christiansen, X. L., & Lanza, E. (Eds.). (2018) Multilingual Family Language Management: Efforts, Measures and Choices. Multilingual Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 37 (2). Special Issue: https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/multi-2017-0132/html.

De Fornel, T. (2023). De l'intercompréhension entre langues romanes : sources, tensions et variations épistémologiques. Université de Bordeaux. https://theses.hal.science/tel-04417897

De Mauro T., (2014). In Europa son già 103. Troppe lingue per una democrazia

Gogolin, I. (1994). Der monolinguale Habitus der multilingualen Schule. Waxmann Verlag.

King, K. A., Fogle, L., & Logan-Terry, A. (2008). Family Language Policy. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2, 907–922. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00076.x

Knoepfel, P., Larrue, C., Varone, F, & Hill, M. (2001). Public Policy Analysis. The Policy Press.

Melo-Pfeifer, S. (2022). Linguistic landscapes in the home: multilingual children’s toys, books and games. In A. Stavans & U. Jessner (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Childhood Multilingualism. (pp. 605-622).Cambridge University Press

Melo-Pfeifer, S. (2018). The multilingual turn in foreign language education. Facts and fallacies. In A. Bonnet & P. Siemund (Eds.), Foreign Language Education in Multilingual Classrooms. (pp. 191-212). John Benjamins.

Rose, K., Armon-Lotem, S., & Altman, C. (2023). Family language policy and vocabulary of bilingual children across different ages. Ampersand, 100154, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2215039023000474.

Shohamy, E. (2006). Language Policy Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. Routledge.

Spolsky, B. (2007). Towards a Theory of Language Policy. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 22(1), 1-14.

Wang, N., & Yu, Y. (2024). Family language policy and the design of homescape in transnational families. Linguistic Landscape. An International Journal, 11(1), 47–75. https://doi.org/10.1075/ll.23073.wan

Yanaprasart, P., & Melo-Pfeifer, S. (2026). Learning and Teaching Multilingually in Higher Education. Multilingual Matters.

Credits

This resource has been created by Projet PEP (discuss • contribs) (Erasmus+ project, co-financed by the European Commission) :

Diego Cortes Velasquez (Universitá Roma Tre)
Sílvia Melo-Pfeifer (Universität Hamburg).

Portal:Plurilingual education

	A)Foster the acquisition of multiple languages.
	B) Reduce language learning drop-outs.
	C) Favour heritage and home language use and transmission
	D) None of the above
	E) All of the above.

Point added for a correct answer:
Points for an incorrect answer:
Ignore the questions' coefficients: