Pedagogies and Practices in

Multilingual Classrooms: Singularities

in Pluralities
OFELIA GARCÍA CLAIRE E. SYLVAN
City University of New York Internationals Network
Graduate Center 50 Broadway
Urban Education and Hispanic and New York, NY 10004
Luso-Brazilian Literatures and Languages Email: claire.sylvan@
365 Fifth Avenue internationalsnetwork.org
New York, NY 10016
Email: ogarcia@gc.cuny.edu

Bilingual classrooms most often have strict language arrangements about when and who should
speak what language to whom. This practice responds to diglossic arrangements and models of
bilingualism developed in the 20th century. However, in the 21st century, heteroglossic bilingual
conceptualizations are needed in which the complex discursive practices of multilingual stu-
dents, their translanguagings, are used in sense-making and in tending to the singularities in the
pluralities that make up multilingual classrooms today. Examining the case of a network of U.S.
secondary schools for newcomer immigrants, the International High Schools, this article looks
at how students’ plurilingual abilities are built through seven principles that support dynamic
plurilingual practices in instruction—heterogeneity, collaboration, learner-centeredness, lan-
guage and content integration, language use from students up, experiential learning, and
local autonomy and responsibility. As a result, students become not only more knowledge-
able and academically successful but also more confident users of academic English, better
at translanguaging, and more plurilingual-proficient. The article presents translanguaging in
education as the constant adaptation of linguistic resources in the service of meaning-making
and in tending to the singularities in the pluralities that make up multilingual classrooms
today.

THE LITERATURE ON BILINGUALISM IN dents homogeneously by language level, using es-

education—whether the education of language tablished pedagogies and instructional materials
majorities or language minorities—has most of- that are leveled and that use one language at a
ten treated language groups as if they were static, time.
homogeneous, and monolithic. Thus, models and However, in the 21st century, a monolithic view
pedagogies of second-language education and of ethnolinguistic groups has been increasingly
bilingual education developed in the 20th cen- questioned, with scholars pointing to differences
tury generally treat groups as if they were mono- created by class, gender, and power (see, e.g.,
lingual and acquiring an additional language in Brubacker, 2009). Furthermore, with globaliza-
a stepwise fashion. These programs group stu- tion and technological innovation, ethnolinguis-
tic communities that had been previously isolated
have started to come into contact with different
The Modern Language Journal, 95, iii, (2011)
people. Thus, the idea that an additional language
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01208.x could be taught to a monolithic group that starts
0026-7902/11/385–400 $1.50/0 out as monolingual is no longer viable (see, e.g,

C 2011 The Modern Language Journal Garcı́a, 2009a).
386 The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011)
We argue in this article that the multi- FROM MONOLINGUALISM TO LINEAR
lingual/multicultural classrooms of today are BILINGUALISM TO DYNAMIC
characterized by an increased plurality of prac- BILINGUALISM IN SCHOOLS
tices. Rather than constructing educational mod-
A First Turn: From Monolingualism to Linear
els for a particular type of student who uses one
Bilingualism
language or the other, we must learn to focus
on teaching individuals within multilingual class- During the second half of the 20th century,
rooms in which the plurality is created by pay- schools started to pay more attention to devel-
ing attention to the singularity of the individ- oping the bilingual proficiency of monolingual
ual student. We speak of teaching for singulari- children, both language majorities and language
ties in pluralities, extending arguments proposed minorities. This first turn from strictly mono-
by Makoni, Makoni, Abdelhay, and Mashiri (in lingual schools to more bilingualism in schools
press) in studying language policies in Africa. coincided with the ethnic revival that took place
To the pluralization of singularity that has ac- around the world in the 1960s (Fishman, 1985).
companied the “invention” of many African “lan- In Canada, Wallace Lambert and his associates
guages” as different and singular units (Makoni showed that bilingualism resulted in positive cog-
& Pennycook, 2007), Makoni et al. offer the nitive advantages (Peal & Lambert, 1962). At the
concept of singularization of plurality—that is, a request of Anglophone parents in Québec who
focus on the individual differences in the dis- wanted their children to become bilingual in or-
cursive regimes that we call “languages.” The der to participate in a Francophone Québec that
result, then, is the facilitation of communica- was gaining political power, Lambert and his as-
tion to improve the lives of speakers of lan- sociates developed an early immersion bilingual
guage, instead of promoting a specific language or education program in St. Lambert, a suburb of
languages. Montréal, in 1965 (Lambert & Tucker, 1972).
In the same way, teaching in today’s multilin- In the United States, the era of Civil Rights
gual/multicultural classrooms should focus on turned the attention of educators to the failure
communicating with all students and negotiating in school of language minorities—in particular,
challenging academic content with all of them of Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Native
by building on their different language practices, Americans. As a result, bilingual education pro-
rather than simply promoting and teaching one grams were established, some funded through
or more standard languages. In this article, we Congress’s authorization of the Bilingual Ed-
use singularities in pluralities to refer to the in- ucation Act (Title VII of the Elementary and
creased plurality of practices—linguistic, educa- Secondary Education Act). In the beginning,
tional, cultural—that characterize students in the some of these programs had a philosophy of
multilingual/multicultural classrooms of today. maintaining the home language of the children
Additionally, we use the concept of singularities while developing English (maintenance bilingual
in pluralities to discuss how teachers’ pedago- education programs), but very soon, in the 1974
gies and practices that facilitate learning in these reauthorization of the Bilingual Education Act,
complex contexts must build on students’ singu- programs were defined as transitional, with
lar language practices as part of the classrooms’ home languages used only until the children
pluralities. were proficient in English (transitional bilingual
This article starts out by reviewing program- education programs).
matic and theoretical constructs that have been This ethnic revival movement of the second half
used in the past, as well as those that support our of the 20th century was also fueled by the inde-
position. It then focuses on one type of education pendence of many African and Asian countries.
for students who are linguistically diverse—the In- As new countries were forged, decisions had to be
ternationals Network for Public Schools (INPS)— made about how to teach a multilingual popula-
a group of schools that serve newcomer adoles- tion that was to be schooled in a language that
cent immigrants in the United States. We specifi- was often “foreign” to them. In many cases, and
cally look at the dynamic structures, pedagogies, with the urging and support of the United Na-
and language practices in these schools as exam- tions Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Orga-
ples of how to invert schooling structures and nization (UNESCO), a transitional bilingual edu-
subvert traditional language education so as to pay cation model was often adopted.
attention to the singularities of students within These bilingual education programs—an
multilingual classrooms. improvement over the monolingual programs of
Ofelia Garcı́a and Claire E. Sylvan 387
FIGURE 1 ings and enactments of bilingualism in educa-
Additive Versus Subtractive Bilingualism tion. In some countries of Europe, maintenance
bilingual education had been used to educate
autochthonous minorities. However, the collapse
of totalitarian regimes meant that more national
minorities started to claim greater autonomy.
Bilingual education became a way of educat-
the past and which continue today—are shaped ing children who, after suffering political repres-
by the two models of bilingualism that Lambert sion and monolingual schooling, had a broad
(1974) developed—additive bilingualism and range of linguistic competence in their own home
subtractive bilingualism. Additive bilingualism languages. Thus, bilingual education programs
refers to the type of bilingualism Lambert hoped started to change, capturing this greater linguis-
to develop as a result of immersion bilingual edu- tic heterogeneity. Developmental bilingual educa-
cation programs in Québec. A child enters school tion programs, more aware of this greater range
with a first language (L1), a second language of language abilities, started to come into being,
(L2) is added, and, as a result, the child becomes not only in Europe but also in the United States
a speaker of both languages. The thinking is that and other places.
the child’s bilingualism needs to move toward The Deaf, who had been exposed to oralism as
“ultimate attainment,” an endpoint in which the a schooling practice throughout the world, with
process is complete. Subtractive bilingualism, signacy not recognized as valid, started experi-
however, is often what language-minority students menting with developmental bilingual education
get. Students enter school with an L1, and while programs. Deaf educators were mindful of the
the L2 is added, the first language is subtracted. broad oracy ability ranges in the Deaf commu-
The child’s bilingualism is moving away from the nity, with some being profoundly deaf and oth-
“ultimate attainment” of bilingualism. Instead, ers hard of hearing, and with cochlear implants
it is moving backward toward the “ultimate increasing the diversity of oracy abilities. They
attainment” of monolingualism. Both models can were also aware of the broad signing ability in
be rendered as in Figure 1. the Deaf community, with most children born
In these conceptualizations of bilingualism, to hearing parents and thus arriving at school
the two languages are seen as having a linear re- with little signacy, but others arriving with devel-
lationship, with the L2 moving forward (additive) opmentally appropriate signacy. The signacy and
or the L1 moving backward (subtractive). In ad- oracy heterogeneity also produced diverse literacy
dition, there is a conception of two autonomous practices. Thus, for the Deaf community, the di-
languages—an L1 and an L2—and of bilinguals versity of signacy, literacy, and oracy meant that
as two monolinguals within one individual. only a developmental bilingual education pro-
At the same time, other theories of bilingual- gram in which students’ different abilities were
ism were being developed. No other scholar has addressed was adequate (Baker, 2010; Marschark,
contributed more to advancing theoretical frame- 2009).
works surrounding the changing shape of bilin- In places in which Indigenous peoples con-
gualism in education than Jim Cummins. Early in tinued to be mostly disempowered (e.g., Latin
1979, Cummins developed his theory of linguis- America), the only way of including the students’
tic interdependence, positing that both languages home languages was through transitional bilin-
bolster each other in the students’ acquisition gual education (López, 2006, 2008). However, in
of language and knowledge. At the same time, countries where Indigenous peoples had gained
Cummins proposed his theory of the common un- some measure of political power, while having lost
derlying proficiency, positing that knowledge and much of their home language proficiency, such
abilities acquired in one language are potentially as in the case of the Māoris in Aotearoa/New
available for the development of another. Zealand, immersion revitalization bilingual educa-
tion programs were developed (Berryman, Glynn,
Woller, & Reweti, 2010; May, 2004, 2010). In these
A Second Turn: From Linear Bilingualism
to Dynamic Bilingualism programs, there was also a great range of linguistic
diversity, with Māori bilingual ability being highly
Toward the end of the 20th century, the greater heterogeneous. Thus, there was recognition that
movement of people, goods, and information the students could not be treated as monolingual
brought about by globalization, innovations in English speakers, for they could all reach back to
technology, and changes connected to corporate bits and pieces of their ancestral language prac-
globalization further impacted our understand- tices in order to develop them further. There was
388 The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011)
also recognition that Māori children were not two subtractive bilingualism with monolingual norms
monolinguals in one—a prevalent view of bilin- as the goal. The programs of the second turn,
gualism in the past that has been challenged by however, conceptualize bilingualism as dynamic
many (see, e.g., Grosjean, 1982, 2010). (Garcı́a, 2009a). This dynamic conceptualization
Meanwhile, in many countries where bilingual- of bilingualism goes beyond the notion of two au-
ism was becoming the norm, parents started tonomous languages, of an L1 and an L2, and
clamoring for bilingual education programs that of additive or subtractive bilingualism. Instead,
would make all children bilingual to whichever dynamic bilingualism suggests that the language
extent they needed to be competent in different practices of all bilinguals are complex and inter-
language practices. In the United States, two-way related; they do not emerge in a linear way. As
bilingual education programs—sometimes called Garcı́a (2009a) has said, they do not result in ei-
“dual language” programs for political expedi- ther the balanced two wheels of a bicycle (as in
ency because of the silencing of bilingualism in additive bilingualism) or in a unicycle (as in sub-
the United States (see Garcı́a, 2009a; Garcı́a & tractive bilingualism), but instead bilingualism is
Kleifgen, 2010)—started to be implemented. Two- like an all-terrain vehicle with individuals using it
way bilingual education programs educate to- to adapt to both the ridges and craters of commu-
gether language-majority and language-minority nication in uneven terrains (see Figure 2; see also
children in two languages, separating languages Garcı́a & Kleifgen, 2010). Dynamic bilingualism
by teacher, subject, or part of the day or week. sees the complex bilingual language practices as
These programs grew out of the political desir- both the center of how language practices occur
ability of educating language minorities together and the goal for communication in an increas-
with language majorities, as well as of keeping ingly multilingual world.
bilingualism as a possibility to educate language Garcı́a (2009a) proposed two types of dynamic
minorities at a time of increased attacks against bilingualism for the 21st century—recursive dy-
transitional bilingual education programs. In Eu- namic and dynamic. Recursive dynamic bilingual-
rope and other places, content and language in- ism characterizes the bilingual development of
tegrated learning (CLIL) bilingual education pro- those individuals who have undergone a high de-
grams came into being around the same time. gree of language loss and thus need to recover
CLIL programs teach at least one subject to all bits and pieces of their ancestral language prac-
students through the medium of an additional tices as they reach back to move forward. Dynamic
language. (For an excellent treatment of CLIL, bilingualism refers to the development of different
see Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010.) language practices to varying degrees in order to
The differences between conceptualizations of interact with increasingly multilingual communi-
bilingualism in these programs of what we are ties in a global world.
calling the second turn and those that we con- This second turn in which bilingualism started
sidered in the previous section of what we are to be recognized as more dynamic was then char-
calling the first turn are telling. The programs acterized by moving away from conceptualizations
of the first turn claim an L1 and an L2 for the of language as a monolithic construct made up
group of children and have a linear additive or of discrete sets of skills to a conceptualization of

FIGURE 2
Types of Bilingualism

Note. This figure is adapted from Garcı́a and Kleifgen (2010). We gratefully acknowledge permission
from Teachers College Press to reproduce this figure.
Ofelia Garcı́a and Claire E. Sylvan 389
language as a series of social practices that are em- engage in complex discursive practices in order
bedded in a web of social relations that maintain to “make sense” of, and communicate in, multi-
asymmetries of power (Pennycook, 2010; Street, lingual classrooms. According to Garcı́a (2009a),
1984). Pennycook (2010) explained: translanguaging refers to multiple discursive
practices as seen from the perspective of speak-
A focus on language practices moves the focus from ers themselves. It is the communicative norm of
language as an autonomous system that preexists multilingual communities.
its use, and competence as an internal capacity
Translanguaging builds on the concept of lan-
that accounts for language production, towards an
guaging as social practices explained earlier. How-
understanding of language as a product of the em-
bodied social practices that bring it about. (p. 9, our ever, translanguaging also relates to the con-
emphasis) cept of transculturación introduced by the Cuban
anthropologist Fernando Ortiz (1940/1995). For
In speaking about language as an activity, some Ortiz, transculturation refers to the complex and
scholars refer to languaging (Becker, 1995; multidirectional process in cultural transforma-
Makoni & Pennycook, 2007; Maturana & Varela, tion, as well as to the questioning of the epistemo-
1987; Shohamy, 2006). Languaging is different logical purity of disciplines and of the knowing
from language conceived simply as a system of subject. The concept of transculturation thus in-
rules or structures; languaging is a product of so- volves what Mignolo (2000) called “border think-
cial action and refers to discursive practices of ing.” Mignolo saw border thinking as “knowledge
people. Languaging, as Becker (1995) explained, conceived from the exterior borders of the mod-
“is shaping old texts into new contexts. It is done ern/colonial world system”—that is, “subaltern
at the level of particularity” (p. 9). knowledge” (p. 11). In blending transculturation
Within a dynamic conceptualization of bilin- and languaging, the term translanguaging re-
gualism, bilinguals are valued for their differ- sponds to the complex and multidirectional pro-
ing multicompetence (Cook, 2002) because their cesses in the language practices of people and
lives, minds, and actions are different from challenges the view of languages as autonomous
those of monolinguals. As Herdina and Jessner and pure, as constructed in Western thought.
(2002) have pointed out, the interactions of bilin- Translanguaging, then, is a product of border
guals’ interdependent language systems create thinking, of knowledge that is autochthonous
new structures that are not found in monolin- and conceived from a bilingual, not monolingual,
gual systems. Learning is then not just the “tak- position.
ing in” of linguistic forms by learners, but as Translanguaging includes codeswitching—
Larsen-Freeman and Cameron (2008) have said, defined as the shift between two languages in
“the constant adaptation of their linguistic re- context—and it also includes translation, but it
sources in the service of meaning-making in re- differs from both of these simple practices in that
sponse to the affordances that emerge in the it refers to the process in which bilingual students
communicative situation, which is, in turn, af- make sense and perform bilingually in the myr-
fected by learners’ adaptability” (p. 135). This iad ways of classrooms—reading, writing, taking
view is based on van Lier’s (2000, 2004) con- notes, discussing, signing, and so on. However,
cept of “affordance,” which he defined as a rela- translanguaging is not only a way to scaffold in-
tionship between a learner and the environment struction and to make sense of learning and lan-
“that signals an opportunity for or inhibition of guage; it is part of the discursive regimes that
action” (2004, p. 4). students in the 21st century must perform, part
Cummins himself moved away from discussing of a broad linguistic repertoire that includes, at
an L1/L2 dichotomy, characterizing the way in times, the ability to function in the standardized
which languages had been conceptualized in academic languages required in schools. It is thus
bilingual classrooms as “two solitudes” (Cummins, important to view translanguaging as complex dis-
2007) and calling for bilingual instructional strate- cursive practices that enable bilingual students to
gies in the classroom as a way of promoting “iden- also develop and enact standard academic ways of
tities of competence among language learners languaging.
from socially marginalized groups, thereby en-
abling them to engage more confidently with liter- SINGULAR PLURALITIES AND DYNAMIC
acy and other academic work in both languages” PLURILINGUAL EDUCATION
(p. 238).
Garcı́a (2009a), extending Williams (cited in Education for bilingualism (i.e., to teach
Baker, 2006), talks about translanguaging as the an additional language) includes types of pro-
process by which bilingual students and teachers grams that are bilingual but also some that are
390 The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011)
monolingual. For example, in the United States, had recently arrived. Latino immigrants to the
transitional bilingual education programs use two United States often follow a migration pattern
languages to develop English, whereas English- referred to as step migration, in which one fam-
as-a-second-language programs are monolingual ily member initiates the migration, with children,
programs in which instruction is supposed to spouses, and siblings left behind, until the lengthy
be in English. Both, however, are conceived as process of obtaining permanent visas is resolved
education for bilingualism because their objective (Grasmuck & Pessar, 1991). For this reason, the
is to teach an additional language. Whether edu- child’s language characteristics often have little
cational programs are monolingual or bilingual to do with the language of the home. In this
and whether they view bilingualism linearly or dy- fifth-grade two-way bilingual classroom, often the
namically, they are often structured as if groups mother had been in the United States for a long
of students need the same language “treatment,” time and spoke English. She sometimes had a
as if language and life (or the content they need new husband and young children whose linguis-
to learn) were separate. Thus, schools often have tic repertoires did not coincide with that of the
language policies and practices that are organized child. There had been divorces, marriages, and re-
as top–down and are applied to the group or composition of families, each bringing with them
groups as if everyone needed the same. However, a new set of language practices. There had also
all educators need to pay attention to the indi- been moves to different communities, also accen-
vidual experience of students in their classrooms. tuating different language practices.
John Dewey (1938), the American educational re- Among the “Latinos” there were class differ-
former, has said: ences, national differences, and racial differences.
Among the so-called “Anglos,” there were stu-
Every experience is a moving force. Its value can be dents who spoke English at home, but there were
judged only on the ground of what it moves toward also speakers of Italian, Portuguese, Arabic, Urdu,
and into . . . It is then the business of the educator
Gujarati, and Romanian. Although the teacher
to see in what direction an experience is heading . . .
had been educated as a bilingual teacher and was
Failure to take the moving force into account so as to
judge and direct it on the ground of what it is moving well versed in theoretical frameworks and peda-
into means disloyalty to the principle of experience gogy, she was ignorant of the linguistic complex-
itself. (p. 38) ity of her classroom. In fact, on the first day, when
Garcı́a walked in, the children told her that the
Recently, one of us (Garcı́a) was in a fifth-grade Romanian girl was a “Roman.” When Garcı́a in-
two-way bilingual classroom that, although atten- quired further, it became obvious that neither the
tive to dynamic bilingualism, demonstrated how teacher nor the children had any idea of either
organizing classrooms for homogeneous groups the country of Romania nor the Romanian lan-
of students is often not enough in our complex guage (nor, incidentally, of whether the child was
world. The teacher described the class as being a Roma from Romania). The teacher had also
half Latino, half Anglo. However, of course, the never heard of Guaranı́ and had no idea that one
individual experiences of the children were far of her students was a Guaranı́ speaker. For her,
more complex than simply those of two ethnic or the job simply was to teach the children in two
linguistic groups. Among the so-called “Latinos,” languages—English and Spanish. Clearly, the in-
there were monolingual Spanish speakers, mono- dividual linguistic, cultural, and schooling expe-
lingual English speakers, and bilingual and trilin- riences of the children were being ignored. This
gual speakers. Not all of the Latinos who were school only structures a language group experi-
learning English were speakers of Spanish, for in ence, denying the many individual variations that
the group there was a recently arrived Mexican exist.
indigenous child who spoke Mixteco at home as Schools that are truly organized to respect
well as a Paraguayan child who was bilingual in the singular pluralities in multilingual classrooms
Spanish/Guaranı́. Those Latinos who were born have to let go, then, of some principles that even
in the United States were not necessarily the ones bilingual education has long held dear. No longer
who were English speakers, for some had been is it possible to isolate languages or to limit instruc-
born in the United States and had then moved tion to two or even three languages; it is important
back to Latin America or had moved back and to create a context in which educators pay close
forth over the course of their lifetime. Some who attention to how a student and his or her language
were born in Latin America had been in the practices are in motion—that is, to focus on how
United States for a long time and were fluent the students are engaged in meaningful activities.
English speakers, but there were also those who It is only then that, as Carini (2000) said, “it is
Ofelia Garcı́a and Claire E. Sylvan 391
possible for the teacher to gain the insights very much relevant. (See Bartlett & Garcı́a, 2011
needed to adjust her or his own approaches to and Garcı́a & Bartlett, 2007 for an example of one
the child accordingly” (p. 9, our emphasis). such program for Dominican immigrants in the
Bilingual education programs often have lan- United States.) But there is also space for more
guage allocation policies that dictate when, how, flexible bilingualism in education, emerging not
and for how long each language should be used; from top–down policies, but from educators’ and
that is, language allocation policies most often students’ negotiation of bilingual practices (see
focus on the macroalternation of languages. Rarely Garcı́a, Flores, & Chu, 2011). Garcı́a and Kleifgen
do these policies include thinking about the mi- (2010) have called this type of program dynamic
croalternation of languages, the translanguaging plurilingual education.
that allows educators to adjust language practices We follow the use of the Council of Europe
and content to the child. Educators must negoti- in reserving the term “plurilingual” for the com-
ate sense-making instructional decisions, moment plex language practices of individuals, whereas us-
by moment (for educators as language policy mak- ing “multilingual” to signal the language practices
ers, see Menken & Garcı́a, 2010). Bilingualism in of classrooms, geographic or political areas, or
education must emerge from the meaningful in- groups. In the Council of Europe’s (2001) view,
teraction of students with different linguistic back- plurilingualism is:
grounds and their educators, instead of solely
being handed down to educators as language The ability to use languages for the purposes of com-
policy. munication and to take part in intercultural inter-
This pedagogical philosophy of singular plu- action, where a person, viewed as a social agent, has
proficiency of varying degrees, in several languages,
ralities rooted in progressive education, along-
and experience of several cultures. This is not seen
side understandings of dynamic bilingualism and as the superposition or juxtaposition of distinct com-
its complexities, is what schools must own today. petences, but rather as the existence of a complex or
However, at the same time, and especially in the even composite competence on which the user may
education of language minorities, attention has draw. (p. 168, our emphasis)
to be paid to social justice. Goldfarb and Grinberg
(2002) defined social justice as: In schools with a dynamic plurilingual approach,
the locus of control for language is the stu-
the exercise of altering these arrangements [differ- dents’ own active use—their language/content
ence in terms of power, economic distributions, ac- understandings in motion and in dynamic inter-
cess to knowledge, and generation of knowledge] by
relationship. Regardless of whether classrooms
actively engaging in reclaiming, appropriating, sus-
taining and advancing inherent human rights of eq-
are monolingual (with students of one language
uity, equality, and fairness in social, economic, educa- group), or bilingual (with students of two lan-
tional, and personal dimensions, among other forms guage groups), or multilingual (with students of
of relationships. (p. 162) many language groups), instruction is plurilin-
gual, in the sense that each students’ languaging
Teacher–student relationships and interactions is recognized and the pedagogy is dynamically
have to be simultaneously rooted in the singu- centered on the singularity of the individual expe-
larity of the child’s experience and the plurality riences that make up a plurality. As such, this ped-
of experiences and languages that make up the agogy enables students, as Freire (1970) has said,
bilingual or multilingual classroom. Recognizing to learn from each other as well as from teachers,
the different language practices of students and at the same time that teachers learn from the
focusing on the singularity of the individual expe- students. In addition, this pedagogy is centered
rience and the oppression of groups of minority in the dialogical action that promotes under-
people would enable language minority students standing. Said another way, in these dynamic
to become engaged in their own struggle for lib- plurilingual programs, the direction between
eration and education (Freire, 1970), as well as the educator and the educated goes both ways.
to invest in the development of their additional Both are learners and teachers. The pedagogical
language (Norton, 2000). practices negotiate the dynamic bilingualism of
How schools organize themselves to deliver this students’ individual experiences while actively
instruction depends on the local communities working against existing forms of domination
and the characteristics of the students. For exam- and exploitation of groups of people. It is then to
ple, in the United States, there are schools in res- an example of such schools and how they enact
identially segregated neighborhoods where more this dynamic plurilingual education that we now
traditional bilingual education structures are still turn.
392 The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011)
TABLE 1 more IHSs—seven in New York City and two in
Internationals Network’s Schools in New York City California.
and California and Founding Year Although originally IHSs were linguistically di-
1. The International High School at 1985 verse, serving newcomer immigrant adolescents
LaGuardia Community College of many language backgrounds who were learn-
2. The Manhattan International High School 1993 ing English, two new IHSs have recently opened
3. The Brooklyn International High School 1994 specifically to serve the large number of Latino
4. Bronx International High School 2000 immigrants in New York City. Thus, there are two
5. The International High School at Prospect 2004 models of IHSs. There is a multilingual plurilin-
Heights gual model serving immigrant students with many
6. The Flushing International High School 2004 different home languages and supporting the use
7. International High School at Lafayette 2005
of students’ many languages in sense-making and
8. International Community High School 2006
9. Pan American International High School, 2007 learning. There is also a bilingual plurilingual
Queens model serving immigrant students with Spanish
10. Oakland International High School 2007 as their home language and using English and
11. Pan American International High School 2008 Spanish to make instructional meaning in the two
at Monroe schools called Pan American International High
12. San Francisco International High School 2009 Schools (PAIHSs). The important point, however,
13. International High School at Union 2010 is that regardless of whether the classrooms are
Square multilingual (with students who speak many lan-
guages other than English) or bilingual (with stu-
dents who speak only Spanish), the pedagogy is
a plurilingual one, dynamically centered on the
INTERNATIONALS HIGH SCHOOLS individual students’ language practices—that is,
on the singularity of the plurality in the classroom
The INPS is a U.S. nonprofit organization that (for more on pedagogy at the IHSs, see De Fazio,
supports the work of 13 public (government- 1999; see also Walqui & van Lier, 2010).
supported) high schools for newcomer immigrant The Internationals approach was developed
adolescents who are new to English with what based on the understanding that individuals are
is called the “Internationals approach” (Sylvan incredibly diverse and that immigrant adoles-
& Romero, 2002), which we will describe later. cents, who are emergent bilinguals and arriving with
As of September 2010, 11 of these Internationals limited knowledge of English, still have a large
High Schools (IHSs from now on) are located in array of abilities, knowledge, and experiences—
New York City and 2 in the California Bay Area. linguistic, cognitive, artistic, social, in many other
Table 1 displays a list of the IHSs in 2010. spheres. In the United States, emergent bilinguals
In response to the growing immigrant commu- are most often referred to as English language
nity in New York City and challenges of preparing learners or limited English proficient. We follow
late-entry immigrant adolescents for the rigors of Garcı́a (2009b) in referring to students who are
college study, the first IHS opened in the borough new to English as emergent bilinguals, thus recog-
of Queens in 1985. The success of the educa- nizing their complex abilities and strengths and
tional model led to the opening of Manhattan focusing on their social, emotional, and academic
and Brooklyn IHSs in 1993 and 1994 and Bronx development beyond that of just learning English.
International in 2001, as well as the establish- Building on the immigrant adolescents’ existing
ment of an Internationals Schools Partnership strengths and understanding the centrality of lan-
among the schools to coordinate interschool col- guage to human culture and individual beings,
laborative projects. With grants from both a fed- the Internationals approach focuses on prepar-
erally financed program aimed at disseminating ing adolescent immigrants to succeed in college
exemplary programs for immigrant students who and careers in the United States and especially on
were new to English and the Annenberg Foun- supporting the development of complex language
dation’s “Networks for School Renewal” project practices that include academic English language
in New York City, the Partnership supported new and literacy.
schools as well as provided continuous learn- In addition to being newcomer immigrants who
ing and growth opportunities for all schools and are new to English, the IHSs’ student popula-
their faculties. In 2004, with support from the tion is also poor. In 2009, 92% of students at
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the INPS in- IHSs were on free or reduced lunch—a mea-
corporated and supported the opening of nine sure of poverty—compared to 71% in all New
Ofelia Garcı́a and Claire E. Sylvan 393
York City high schools. Yet, despite their poverty, groups of three to four, usually at hexagonal or
their limited English, and their recent immigra- trapezoidal tables so as to promote interaction.
tion, adolescents at IHSs are doing better, as we They are talking, arguing, trying to make their
will see, than other immigrant emergent bilingual points, and collaborating on a project together.
students in New York City. In so doing, they are using different language
Traditionally, high school study in the United practices, including those they bring from home.
States consists of 4 years. For newcomer In a multilingual–plurilingual model classroom,
immigrant students, it is difficult to develop the an observer will hear several languages at once
level of academic English required for high school and may see materials in many languages. In the
graduation in 4 years. Yet, the graduation rate of bilingual–plurilingual model of the two PAIHSs,
emergent bilingual students in the IHSs is 57%. an observer will see students alternating between
This is 13 percentage points higher than the 44% Spanish and English and using materials in both.
graduation rate of emergent bilingual adolescents In a well-functioning IHS classroom, you find
in all high schools in New York City. It takes students talking in small groups, using bilingual
immigrant adolescents who are learning English dictionaries (both electronic and paper), and
sometimes longer than 4 years to pass all of the switching between English and home languages
high school graduation exams. Whereas the high as needed to complete complex cognitive tasks
school graduation rate of these emergent bilin- and put together a collaborative project, often an
guals citywide is 49% after 5 years and 42% after oral presentation in English to their peers or a
6 years, the high school completion rate of stu- written product. Students are asked to do oral pre-
dents in IHSs is 72% after 5 years and 74% after sentations from their earliest days in the schools
6 years—that is, 23 percentage points higher af- and are supported in taking risks to use their new
ter 5 years and 32 percentage points higher af- language practices publicly. The length and com-
ter 6 years. Clearly, the IHSs are more successful plexity of the presentations will vary based on stu-
in graduating immigrant students who are learn- dents’ linguistic proficiency in English.
ing English than many other high schools in the Students walk around periodically to get ma-
city. Likewise, if we compare the rate of success terials they need to complete their project. The
of IHS students in the English Language Arts and teacher is not in the front of the room talking or
Math exams required for graduation with other sitting at the desk, but rather sitting with the stu-
emergent bilinguals in New York City, 70% of IHS dents listening, redirecting conversation at times,
students passed the English Language Arts exam asking and answering questions, or just being part
compared with 47% of all emergent bilinguals in of the small group discussions as he or she moves
New York City high schools. Whereas 82% of IHS from table to table.
students passed the Math exam, 61% of emer- The teacher will almost always be using English
gent bilingual students in all New York City high with students and asking other students to trans-
schools passed the same exam. (Data from 2009.) late for him or her when a student is using a
What, then, accounts for the success of these language other than English. Despite the many
IHSs? Eight principles lie at the core of the IHS languages that may be involved in the process
instructional design:1 of creating a project, students use English on a
daily basis because the project (with the exception
1. heterogeneity and singularities in plurality;
of home language projects and work in Spanish
2. collaboration among students;
in a PAIHSs model) will generally (although not
3. collaboration among faculty;
always) be in English. Students will be asked to
4. learner-centered classrooms;
present orally often and generally in English; so,
5. language and content integration;
many times they are practicing their English pre-
6. plurilingualism from the students up;
sentations or preparing for their presentations
7. experiential learning; and
using their home languages.
8. localized autonomy and responsibility.
Most of the texts and documents in the class-
Before we describe each of these principles of the room will be in English, although the student ta-
Internationals approach, we illustrate what class- bles also have dictionaries in many languages and
rooms in IHSs might look like. print and Internet material in languages other
than English. Although students may be asking for
A SNAPSHOT: IHS CLASSROOMS translation from other students or having some
discussion in the home language around the text
The IHS classrooms are noisy, active, and in- or document, they go back to English to interact
teractive places. Students are generally sitting in with peers on their project.
394 The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011)
Students are usually working with an activity they are reading and studying and to discuss it
guide provided by the teacher that walks them collectively.
through each step of the project. The activity Authentic experiences are woven into differ-
guides are in English, so they require constant ent parts of the class—a unit is often introduced
negotiation in English. The guides contain many through a field trip, movie clip, pictures, hands-on
graphic organizers that ask students to summarize activity, or small group discussion about a familiar
and categorize the information and then to use concept/experience that relates to the more aca-
it to make conclusions, ask questions, synthesize demic concepts central to that project or unit of
different ideas, or compare perspectives. They study. These shared oral experiences that are de-
also include different media (written word, signed to be accessible to all students anchor the
poetry, visuals, primary documents, etc.) that stu- major concepts for students, provide an accessi-
dents of different levels can use to make sense of ble avenue to return to when the concepts and
their learning. Some guides may contain almost language get to a higher level, generate key vo-
no English text and instead have pictures and cabulary and ideas that students can relate to the
graphics so that students who are not literate or broader topic, and often provide a hook or mo-
those who are completely new to English can have tivation that gets students interested in the topic,
access to the information. understanding how it relates to their own life or
There are resources on the walls that provide the world around them. Students are constantly
students with sentence starters, key vocabulary, asked to reflect on their work—to look at where
and phrases that they can use to add ideas or they are as learners and where they need to go.
politely disagree—all in English. However, as we Students are also asked to think about the broader
said earlier, tables always have dictionaries in var- implications and the “so what?” aspect of what they
ious languages and students consult them fre- are studying.
quently. Documents in different languages and The work of the teachers at the IHSs is heav-
Internet access to home language materials are ily focused on designing the activity guides (not
often available. Multiple conversations are hap- lesson plans) to direct students through active
pening at multiple times in many languages with learning of academic content. Rather than talk
occasional breaks in the “chaos” for the teacher about “lesson plans” that describe what teachers
to explain a concept or practice a skill collectively are doing, the Internationals approach encour-
that students immediately apply in the work they ages teachers to plan curricula and projects to in-
are doing. volve students in active learning, in which students
There is often a student discussion leader/ and teachers rely on each other and in which stu-
facilitator at each table, with every other student dents utilize English and their home languages
playing a key role or assuming responsibility for to complete projects by building on their existing
a meaningful piece of the culminating project. knowledge (both content and linguistic).
Groups of students pool their knowledge. Stu- In short, teachers in IHS classrooms use
dents have considerable choice in how they ar- dynamic plurilingual pedagogy and build on
rive at the final project, including the language translanguaging in the classroom. By allowing
practices with which they negotiate, and the even- individual students to use their home language
tual form that the project takes on, but activity practices to make sense of the learning moment,
guides and rubrics (often collectively designed be- these IHSs go beyond traditional second-language
tween teachers and students) establish parameters programs (such as English as a second lan-
in which students operate. guage [ESL], English structured immersion, or
A student who knows little English will often Sheltered English in the United States) or tra-
be sitting next to a more proficient student who ditional bilingual education programs. Instead
shares a home language so that he or she can of the top–down traditional approach that often
get support and better access the information. dictates language policy in schools and that in the
Students depend on one another to share their United States results in classrooms being English-
experiences, knowledge, perspectives, and under- only or bilingual, the IHSs have designed a dy-
standings of the text; they teach each other. The namic plurilingual system of education. At these
teacher is not the only “expert” in the room, and IHSs, emergent bilingual immigrant adolescents
considerable control is handed over to the stu- are developing English language and literacy so
dents. Content is made accessible because stu- that they can graduate from U.S. high schools.
dents work on figuring out the content, lan- However, they are doing so by being empowered
guage, and implications together. Students are as individuals to use their home language prac-
constantly asked to “re-present” the information tices in singular agentive ways to make meaning
Ofelia Garcı́a and Claire E. Sylvan 395
of their learning of rigorous content and new lan- at IHSs recognize that every individual student’s
guage practices. language characteristics and use differ from those
Now that we have described what IHS class- of others in the class, even when supposedly the
rooms might look like and we have identified the students speak the “same language”; that is, ev-
subtle translanguaging practices that characterize eryone at IHSs recognize the singularities of the
the dynamic plurilingual education of the IHSs, pluralities in language practices that make up the
we turn to explaining each of the core principles classrooms.
of their sociolinguistic and socioeducational
philosophy. Collaboration Among Students
Collaborative structures that build on the strengths
CORE PRINCIPLES
of every individual member of the school community
Heterogeneity and Singularities in Plurality optimize learning. Because the Internationals un-
derstand the individuality of the emergent bilin-
Optimizing heterogeneity builds on the strengths gual experience, students with varied levels of
of every single individual member of the school English proficiency as well as literacy levels and
community. The IHSs have a different approach home language proficiency are in the same class
to heterogeneity than that found in most pro- by design.2 They study complex and sophisticated
grams or schools that work with language-minority topics, through working collaboratively.
students. Because IHSs believe that inevitably all Collaboration leverages the benefits of a hetero-
groups are by nature heterogeneous, instructional geneous class and addresses its challenges. Stu-
programs are designed to leverage diversity. dents are able to share their different perspec-
The students at the IHSs are highly diverse, tives, experiences, and talents. While building
coming from over 90 countries, speaking about community in the classroom and in the school,
55 languages, and ranging in prior academic ex- different students are challenged in multiple
perience from never having attended school to and divergent ways through these heterogeneous
being at or above grade level in their home classes. While supporting struggling students,
language. They have vastly different experi- collaborative grouping also challenges more ad-
ences, with some commonalities. All students are vanced students who must understand the mate-
new learners of English and have been in the rial fully in order to explain it to others. Collabora-
United States 4 years or fewer at the time of admis- tion also allows students to form friendships across
sion. About 70% of students have been separated cultural and linguistic lines because they have a
from one or both parents in the course of immi- reason to talk to one another and are not silently
grating to the United States. They may have seen filling out worksheets or listening to a teacher.
parents and relatives killed in violent upheavals Collaboration enables all students to engage
and wars, or have lived in refugee camps, or have in challenging and creative projects because stu-
been victims of narco-terrorists. The IHSs are de- dents of different levels work together to accom-
signed to promote respect for different language plish a final product they would not be able to do
and cultural practices and to leverage them in all on their own. This instructional approach relies
aspects. on the advantages of small group collaborative
In looking at heterogeneous/homogeneous learning and peer-mediated instruction while rec-
grouping models, educators at IHSs understand ognizing the linguistic heterogeneity of all groups
that even if students have the same scores on lan- of students and their singularities.
guage proficiency tests, they may not have gotten
the same items correct and thus their language
Collaboration Among Teachers
proficiency differs. Even if, amazingly and with-
out cheating, two students have answered all of The collaborative structures in which students work
the questions in the same way, educators at IHSs and learn mirror those in which faculty work and
understand that the thinking that led students to learn, capitalizing on everyone’s diverse strengths and
choose their answers is inevitably divergent. Fur- maximizing their ability to support one another. Just
ther, IHS teachers and administrators know that as students work in groups, IHS teachers work
students differ on numerous other characteristics in groups. Teachers, like students, are assumed
and proficiencies and that language proficiency to be diverse and have various strengths. They
is impacted by the content of study (e.g., study- work in teams with teachers from different disci-
ing astrophysics in any language would be beyond plines (at a minimum, an English language arts,
these authors’ proficiency level). Thus, educators social studies/history, science and math teacher)
396 The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011)

and share responsibility for a cluster of 75–100 and to achieve the same result. This is not possi-
students, who are subdivided into three or four ble when you have students with English language
classes that are, by design, heterogeneous in all proficiency ranging from very little knowledge in
respects (language proficiency, home language, English to grade-level use of English. This is also
literacy level, prior academic experience and/or not possible if students have different literacy lev-
success, etc.). els in their home languages and diverse schooling
These teams are responsible for students’ experiences, academic and literacy traditions, and
progress collectively and holistically—linguistic, classroom scripts.
academic, sociocultural, affective, and so on. As Swain (1996, 2000) has posited, collabora-
Time is built into the day (and often added to tive dialogue is very important in the development
it, with compensation) to allow teachers to meet of an additional language. Educators at the IHSs
for anywhere from 2 to 6 hours a week so that they believe that students are best served when teach-
can learn from each other. These small groups of ers use their professional expertise, not princi-
teachers focus on the design of their curricula and pally as providers of knowledge but as facilitators
their pedagogies, their challenges and successes, of a process that enables students and faculty to
and their students’ progress. learn while making language choices to accom-
Teachers’ collaboration prepares them to plish meaningful activities.
replicate for students their own learning environ- Students’ active use of language is critical to
ments. Teachers learn not from lectures in profes- the academic program of the IHSs. No one learns
sional development sessions and faculty meetings, to ride a bicycle by watching someone else ride
but from each other. The Internationals approach it. Thus, the Internationals model is designed to
expects that the adult learning model and the have students actively use the additional language
model for student learning will mirror each other. practices for as much of each class period as possi-
The IHSs build on the diversity of the teachers so ble. Students use English as well as their home
that the staff can then construct learning experi- languages to understand the material they are
ences based on the linguistic and cultural differ- studying and to prepare oral presentations and
ences of the students with whom they work. written work in English.

Learner-Centered Classrooms Language and Content Integration

Constructing learner-centered classrooms for Language emerges most naturally in purposeful,
meaningful student linguistic and content output is language-rich, interdisciplinary study. The IHS
important. The collaborative pedagogy followed “mantra” is that “every teacher is a teacher of lan-
in the IHSs takes teachers away from the front of guage and content.” Language means both the
the room and enables them to help individual additional language they are acquiring (English,
students or groups that are struggling as well as to as all students are emergent bilinguals who are
leverage their home language practices in order learning English), as well as their home language
to learn. Thus, classrooms are learner centered. (which students use to support learning of both
Many L2 programs and bilingual education pro- academic content as well as English).
grams around the world provide teacher-centered The Internationals approach promotes the lan-
instruction, insisting that the language input that guage practices of all students, especially those
students hear from the teacher is the main el- that include academic English, as students si-
ement in language acquisition (Krashen, 1985). multaneously explore interdisciplinary academic
Yet, teacher-centered instruction limits linguistic content. Language does not exist apart from the
opportunities for all students. In a traditional lan- content of life and the world, and language is
guage classroom, the teacher lectures in what is more readily remembered when it has meaning
called a “target language” and the students fol- and when it is in context. Content-based language
low a common textbook in the same language. development suggests that language use is an out-
Bilingual education programs also tend to sepa- growth of content; that is, by experiencing and
rate languages strictly, with teachers speaking one learning new concepts, students extend their lan-
language or the other and students working on guage base. Language and content integration
worksheets in one language or the other or fol- means that “content is the driver.” Teachers pay
lowing a textbook also written in one language attention to the language load and provide system-
or the other. In both traditional foreign and L2 atic support for students who are developing an
classrooms and bilingual classrooms, all students additional language, but the content is not driven
are expected to be at the same proficiency level by the aim of teaching a particular linguistic
Ofelia Garcı́a and Claire E. Sylvan 397
structure, nor is the language simplified and sacri- a member by using a different home language.
ficed to content. Instead, content is rigorous and At that point, teachers intervene in that group
expressed in authentic and rich language that is process, as they would in any issue of group dy-
scaffolded by collaborative structures that allow namics.
for peer mediation and teacher support, as de-
scribed later. Experiential Learning
For teachers, language and content integration
Expansion of the schools beyond the four walls of
means that when designing a project and creating
the school building motivates immigrant adolescents
an activity guide, they promote students’ progress
and enhances their capacity to negotiate their new
toward key standards in all content areas. They
bilingualism and successfully participate in society.
consider, in their project design, questions of lan-
As we have said, the instruction of language,
guage load. They provide materials with different
content, and skills is embedded in experiential
levels of linguistic complexity but also support
projects that are carefully structured to incorpo-
students’ work with complex materials through
rate student experience and build necessary back-
a variety of scaffolds. These scaffolds include re-
ground knowledge. For example, many projects
viewing key words, designing graphic organizers,
engage students with people outside of the school
supporting students’ use of home languages, hav-
(e.g., surveying community members, letter writ-
ing students write double-entry journals in which
ing advocacy campaigns, service learning, build-
teachers raise questions and they respond, anno-
ing something in the community of the school).
tating (or having students annotate) as students
In most cases, projects begin with a shared oral
read, and analyzing common linguistic structures
experience to build background knowledge and
of a discipline or in a particular reading. From
provide students with a foundation to then access
time to time, teachers might make brief explana-
higher level content (i.e., to build schema). These
tions about the grammar of the new language, but
experiential projects also allow for reinforcement
this is for the purpose of helping students under-
of necessary content and skills.
stand how to use the additional language rather
Experiential learning also refers to the belief
than using grammar to teach the language.
that education has to happen beyond the four
walls of the school. All IHSs place a strong empha-
Plurilingualism from the Students Up sis on field trips, inviting outside speakers, and get-
ting students involved in projects that take them
Rather than having a structure where language outside of the school. IHSs also send all students
practices are controlled by a rigid external language to an internship outside the school that lasts a
education policy, the students use diverse language minimum of 12 weeks. During these internships,
practices for purposes of learning, and teachers usually two to four afternoons a week (during the
use inclusive language practices for purposes of school day), students work usually in an office,
teaching. In the IHSs, the locus of control for lan- hospital, school, or community center. Projects
guage practices lies with the students. Teachers, that guide the internship experience help stu-
who may or may not speak the home language(s) dents gather important information and reflect
of any particular student or group of students, on what they are learning. The resources for lan-
encourage individual students to use their home guage development in experiential learning go
languages to make sense of their learning. The beyond faculty and other students to include com-
students’ language practices are flexible and dy- munity members and families.
namic, responding to their need for sense-making An experience-based curriculum, which en-
in order to learn. ables the students to understand the concepts
However, teachers also encourage groups to they are dealing with, firmly supports their En-
practice language in nonexclusionary ways and glish language acquisition. In the process of en-
will do so themselves whenever possible. In work- gaging in experiences and project development,
ing with one particular student or group of stu- students practice language structures that teach-
dents with whom the teacher shares language ers and other students have modeled. In these in-
practices, the teacher may use those practices. teractions, students formulate and investigate hy-
Sometimes, the teacher may ask students to ex- potheses about how their new language functions.
plain using their home language. However, mind-
ful of not excluding anyone, teachers use English
Localized Autonomy and Responsibility
when speaking to a whole class with diverse home
languages. The teachers are alert to language use Linking autonomy and responsibility at every level
that is not conducive to group progress—for in- within a learning community allows all members
stance, when a group is consistently leaving out to contribute to their fullest potential. The
398 The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011)
underlying assumption of having students and potential (and the possible limitations) of these
teachers work within collaborative structures is educational programs.
that individuals achieve to their highest capacity This article has focused on describing a model
when they feel ownership of, and support for, their practiced by a group of such dynamic plurilin-
efforts and outcomes. Thus, students are respon- gual programs in the United States—those of
sible for their learning, and teachers are respon- the INPS. We have described the principles that
sible for their teaching. However, beyond this, ad- have supported their success—heterogeneity, col-
ministrators at IHSs support teachers in whatever laboration, learner-centeredness, language and
ways they can to be successful with their students. content integration, language use from students
At IHSs, team meetings are a key professional up, experiential learning, and local autonomy
development opportunity for teachers, and these and responsibility. All of these principles support
are supplemented by discipline meetings, full-staff a dynamic plurilingual use of languages of in-
professional development, and a wide range of struction that, in turn, develop students’ plurilin-
Internationals Network professional development gual and pluriliterate abilities. As a result, stu-
opportunities across schools that include, but are dents become not only more knowledgeable and
not limited to, intervisitations, network planning academically successful but also more confident
committees, and network conferences and work- users of academic English, better at translan-
shops. guaging, and more plurilingual proficient. These
are all important linguistic practices in the 21st
century.
CONCLUSION However, it is important to point out that in
the hands of ignorant or misguided educators,
In the 21st century, as classrooms become more dynamic plurilingual programs could have disas-
and more linguistically diverse, the greatest chal- trous results. On the one hand, dynamic plurilin-
lenge will be how to educate all students equi- gual programs could undermine all bilingual
tably and meaningfully. Imposing one school stan- education efforts. They could have the semblance
dardized language without any flexibility of norms of a plurilingual education, when in fact they are
and practices will always mean that those students simply another form of submersion education in
whose home language practices show the greatest English only. On the other hand, without teachers
distance from the school norm will always be dis- who truly understand how to use students’ home
advantaged. Clearly, monolingual education is no language practices to make sense of new language
longer relevant in our globalized world. practices and academic content, translanguaging
However, models of bilingual or multilingual could become random, not sense-making.
education that impose norms of language use in For dynamic plurilingual education to succeed
one or the other language without any flexibility in the 21st century, teachers would have to be ed-
will also privilege those whose language practices ucated to pay close attention to the singularities
follow monolingual norms in two or more lan- that make up our plurality—to clearly notice the
guages. This may have been appropriate in the individual linguistic experience that is the “mov-
20th century without the speed and simultaneity ing force” in learning an additional language and
of movement of people, goods, and services that all learning. In so doing, teachers would learn
technology has made possible today. However, the the value of having students use their home lan-
21st century is characterized by the concurrent guage practices to support learning. Rather than
means of communication in many media and lan- being told what language to use when and where,
guages and, thus, conceptions of bilingualism and educators must practice noticing the learner as
multilingualism must also become more flexible, he or she is engaged in meaningful instructional
more dynamic. activities. In this way, educators can learn to ad-
Schools that respond to this more dynamic just their language and instructional practices to
model of bilingualism/multilingualism adopt a support students’ linguistic and cognitive growth.
dynamic plurilingual approach with translanguag- The goal is for students to be aware of their own
ing as an important strategy so that students and language practices as well as those of their peers as
teachers can make sense of learning moment they are engaged in learning activities. Ultimately,
by moment. Rather than languages being strictly this empowers students themselves so that they
“assigned” a space, time, place, or person in the are able to adjust their own language practices to
curriculum, these dynamic plurilingual programs take into account their singularities in the plurali-
use the individual student’s languages to act on ties of a multilingual classroom and society. At the
learning. We have just begun to understand the same time, a dynamic plurilingual approach helps
Ofelia Garcı́a and Claire E. Sylvan 399
immigrant newcomer adolescents gain high lev- Cook, V. (2002). Background to the L2 user. In V. J. Cook
els of translanguaging competence that they can (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 1–28). Clevedon,
carry forth into the world of work and democratic England: Multilingual Matters.
life, increasingly impacted by global as well as local Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework
of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assess-
forces that are multilingual.
ment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Con-
tent and language integrated learning. Cambridge:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language pro-
ficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum
We are grateful to the editors of this issue as well
age question, and some other matters. Working Pa-
as the two anonymous reviewers for their insights
pers on Bilingualism, 19 , 121–129.
and comments on an earlier draft of this article.
Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual in-
structional strategies in multilingual classrooms.
NOTES
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10,
221–240.
1 The Internationals Network defines its work around
De Fazio, A. (1999). Language awareness at the Inter-
five core principles (heterogeneity and collaboration, national High School. In L. van Lier & D. Cor-
experiential learning, language and content integra- son (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education:
tion, localized autonomy and responsibility, and one Vol. 6. Knowledge about language (pp. 99–107). Dor-
learning model for all). For this article, we have more drecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
specifically defined the Internationals approach utiliz- Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York:
ing eight distinct principles to allow a more granular de- Collier Books.
scription of specific aspects and to more closely align our Fishman, J. A. (Ed.). (1985). The rise and fall of the ethnic
description with the theoretical constructs discussed. revival: Perspectives on language and ethnicity. The
2 Even in “leveled” classes designed to be homoge-
Hague: Mouton.
neous, students will inevitably vary in their English pro- Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York:
ficiency and literacy levels. Herder & Herder.
Garcı́a, O. (2009a). Bilingual education in the 21st cen-
tury: Global perspectives. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Garcı́a, O. (2009b). Emergent bilinguals and TESOL:
REFERENCES What’s in a name? TESOL Quarterly, 43, 322–
326.
Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and Garcı́a, O., & Bartlett, L. (2007). A speech community
bilingualism (4th ed.). Clevedon, England: Multi- model of bilingual education: Educating Latino
lingual Matters. newcomers in the U.S. International Journal of
Baker, C. (2010). Sign language and the deaf commu- Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 1–25.
nity. In J. A. Fishman & O. Garcı́a (Eds.), Handbook Garcı́a, O., Flores, N., & Chu, A. (2011). Extending bilin-
of language and ethnic identity: Disciplinary and re- gualism in U.S. secondary education: New varia-
gional perspectives (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.,pp. 153–172). tions. International Multilingual Research Journal ,
Oxford: Oxford University Press. 5, 1–18.
Bartlett, L., & Garcı́a, O. (2011). Schooling Latino high Garcı́a, O., & Kleifgen, J. (2010). Educating English lan-
school immigrants: Bilingual education and Domini- guage learners as emergent bilinguals: Policies, pro-
can immigrant youth education. New York: Vander- grams and practices for English language learners.
bilt University Press. New York: Teachers College Press.
Becker, A. L. (1995). Beyond translation: Essays toward a Goldfarb, K., & Grinberg, J. (2002). Leadership for so-
modern philosophy. Ann Arbor: University of Michi- cial justice: Authentic participation in the case of a
gan Press. community center in Caracas, Venezuela. Journal
Berryman, M., Glynn, T., Woller, P., & Reweti, M. of School Leadership, 12, 157–173.
(2010). Māori language policy and practice in Grasmuck, S., & Pessar, P. (1991). Between two islands:
New Zealand schools: Community challenges and Dominican international migration. Berkeley: Uni-
community solutions. In K. Menken & O. Garcı́a versity of California Press.
(Eds.), Negotiating language policies in schools: Ed- Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages. Cambridge,
ucators as policymakers (pp. 145–161). New York: MA: Harvard University Press.
Routledge. Grosjean, F. (2010). Bilingual: Life and reality.
Brubacker, R. (2009). Ethnicity, race and nationalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 21–42. Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A dynamic model
Carini, P. (2000). Prospect’s descriptive processes. In M. of multilingualism: Perspectives of change in psy-
Himley & P. Carini (Eds.), From another angle (pp. cholinguistics. Clevedon, England: Multilingual
8–20). New York: Teachers College Press. Matters.
400 The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011)
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. Beverly Hills, Menken, K., & Garcı́a, O. (2010). Negotiating lan-
CA: Laredo. guage policies in schools: Educators as policymakers.
Lambert, W. E. (1974). Culture and language as fac- Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
tors in learning and education. In F. E. Aboud Mignolo, W. D. (2000). Local histories/global designs:
& R. D. Meade (Eds.), Cultural factors in learning Coloniality, subaltern knowledges, and border think-
and education (pp. 91–122). Bellingham: Western ing . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Washington State College. Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gen-
Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, R. (1972). The bilingual edu- der, ethnicity and educational change. London:
cation of children. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Longman.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex sys- Ortiz, F. (1995). Cuban counterpoint: Tobacco and sugar.
tems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford Uni- Durham, NC: Duke University Press. (Original
versity Press. work published 1940)
López, L. E. (2006). Cultural diversity, multilingual- Peal, E., & Lambert, W. (1962). The relation of bilin-
ism and indigenous education. In O. Garcı́a, T. gualism to intelligence. Psychological Monographs,
Skutnabb-Kangas, & M. Torres-Guzmán (Eds.), 76 , 1–23. (Reprinted from Attitudes and motiva-
Imagining multilingual schools: Languages in edu- tion in second language learning , pp. 247–255 by R.
cation and glocalization (pp. 238–261). Clevedon, Gardner & W. Lambert, Eds., 1972, Rowley, MA:
England: Multilingual Matters. Newbury House.)
López, L. E. (2008). Top–down and bottom–up: Coun- Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a local practice.
terpoised visions of bilingual bicultural education London: Routledge.
in Latin America. In N. Hornberger (Ed.), Can Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas
schools save indigenous languages? Policy and prac- and new approaches. London: Routledge.
tice in four continents (pp. 42–65). Houndmills, Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice.
England: Macmillan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Makoni, S., Makoni, B., Abdelhay, A., & Mashiri, P. Swain, M. (1996). Integrating language and content
(in press). Colonial and postcolonial language in immersion classrooms: Research perspectives.
policies in Africa: Historical and emerging land- Canadian Modern Language Review, 52, 529–548.
scapes. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), Handbook of lan- Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and be-
guage policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University yond: Mediating acquisition through collabora-
Press. tive dialogue. In P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural
Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (2007). Disinventing and theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114).
reconstituting languages. Clevedon, England: Mul- Oxford: Oxford University Press.
tilingual Matters. Sylvan, C., & Romero, M. (2002). Reversing lan-
Marschark, M. (2009). Raising and educating a deaf child: guage loss in a multilingual setting: A native lan-
A comprehensive guide to the choices, controversies and guage enhancement program and its impact. In
decisions faced by parents and educators. Oxford: T. Osborn (Ed.), The future of foreign language edu-
Oxford University Press. cation in the United States (pp. 139–166). New York:
Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. (1987). The tree of knowledge: Greenwood.
The biological roots of human understanding. Boston: van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-
New Science Library. interactive learning from an ecological perspec-
May, S. (2004). Medium of instruction policy in tive. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and
New Zealand. In J. Tollefson & A. Tsui (Eds.), second language learning: Recent advances (pp. 140–
Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda? Whose 164). London: Continuum.
agenda? (pp. 21–41). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language
May, S. (2010). New Zealand. In J. A. Fishman & learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston: Kluwer
O. Garcı́a (Eds.), Handbook of language and ethnic Academic.
identity: Disciplinary and regional perspectives (Vol. Walqui, A., & van Lier, L. (2010). Scaffolding the academic
1, 2nd ed., pp. 501–518). Oxford: Oxford Univer- success of adolescent ELLs: A pedagogy of promise.
sity Press. San Francisco: West Ed.