Tensions Between Education Policies and Standards and Educators’ Multilingual Practices: Two Case Studies from India and the United States

Abstract

Through two case studies from India and the United States, we explore how educational policies and standards focused on multilingualism are interpreted and enacted within early childhood education classrooms. Recent education policies in both contexts are aimed at fostering culturally responsive and linguistically inclusive pedagogy for greater academic success for students whose home language(s) differs from the language of instruction. However, the policy implementation varies significantly based on educators’ language ideologies and cultural beliefs. We examine a critical gap between policy intentions and classroom realities. Our findings suggest that while broad educational policies provide important frameworks, their effectiveness relies upon educators’ interpretation and beliefs, highlighting a need for clearer guidelines to better implement policy to enhance emergent multilingual learners’ language acquisition.

1. Introduction

Globally, emergent multilingual learners (EMLs), or students who are learning more than one language at the same time, are a large, diverse, and growing population of students with linguistic, cultural, social, and cognitive strengths that often go unacknowledged or untapped (Park et al., 2017). Estimates suggest that 40% of the student population around the world does not have access to an education in a language they speak at home or fully understand (UNESCO, 2016). For EMLs to achieve high-quality education, instruction should be delivered in a language students speak at home. Multilingual education for EML students improves access to and inclusion in education, particularly for those students who do not speak the dominant language within a country or region (Skutnabb-Kangas & Heugh, 2013). Prioritizing the societal dominant language, while failing to support and build upon the home language or mother tongueused by EMLs can result in personal, familial, and cultural tensions, but also in the loss of the potential cognitive, socio-emotional, and academic benefits of multilingualism (National Academies of Sciences & Medicine, 2017).

Policies and standards lay the foundation for how multilingual education is approached within early childhood education (ECE) classrooms that serve EMLs (Hornberger & Johnson, 2007). As such, policies and standards incorporate the expectations for whether schools promote and support multilingualism and how educators implement multilingual pedagogies, which are uniquely important for EMLs’ academic and socio-emotional outcomes (Henderson, 2017). Yet, within ECE classrooms, there is often a glaring disconnect between the ECE policies, standards, and the practices educators must implement—often centering White, middle-class cultural norms—and the diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds of the EMLs served in ECE programs (García & Kleifgen, 2018). Educators are the drivers of culturally responsive practices in schools and classrooms (Gay, 2015). However, without clear policies and standards that articulate how educators should utilize EMLs in multiple languages in the classroom, even the most well-meaning educators can inadvertently provide instruction that is irrelevant, ineffective, and even antagonistic to the needs of EMLs.

This article and its analysis illuminate the contours of education policy from a cross-cultural and global perspective. Examining and comparing examples drawn from two case studies addressing multilingual education policy in Maharashtra, India, and from New York City (NYC) in the United States (US) offers compelling insights into the slippages between policy writing, intention, and implementation due to the shared yet distinct challenges present in both contexts. India and New York are both characterized by high levels of linguistic diversity with recent policy focusing on addressing linguistic diversity through multilingual pedagogy in education (Giang & Park, 2022; Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner of India, 2011). In such settings, the need for linguistically inclusive education and pedagogical methodologies to mediate gaps between home languages and the language of instruction presents complex pedagogical landscapes (García, 2009).

Recently, both regions have experienced a heightened focus on multilingualism in education as both research contexts are notable for profound linguistic diversity. In India, recent policy at the national level has addressed challenges in multilingual education through the overhaul of the 1968 National Policy on Education (NPE) for the 2020 National Education Policy (NEP). The 2020 NEP builds upon the principles of the older Three-Language Formula (TLF), outlining recommendations for systematically teaching three languages in education, to emphasize the importance, cognitive benefits, and social significance of mother tongue instruction and linguistic diversity (Government of India, 1968, 2020). In NYC, evolving demographics and a renewed commitment to supporting a diverse population of multilingual learners drive continuous scrutiny and renewal of education policy at the national, state, city, and district levels (New York State Department of Education, 2019). Yet, in the extant literature, there is still a focus on understanding policy implementation within official bilingual classrooms, which serve only a minority of EMLs in New York and India (Freire & Delavan, 2021). As such, a glaring gap emerges in our understanding of EMLs’ experiences of multilingual pedagogy within the most common ECE classrooms, which do not follow an official bilingual model (i.e., 50-50), and the educational policies and standards that govern these classrooms. The overarching research aim driving this study is to explore the policies specifically related to the instruction of EMLs and to examine how they are implemented within English-medium ECE classrooms. NYC and Maharashtra, India, were selected as case studies because both explicitly face high linguistic diversity, but differ in governance, policy specificity, and implementation infrastructure. As such, we can explore why policy-practice gaps may emerge, like, for instance, whether gaps are driven by ambiguous national guidance, by lack of localized support, or individual educators’ language ideologies.

2. Theoretical Frameworks

This paper draws upon Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2007), which articulates the nested sets of systems, environments, and settings impacting students’ learning and development. The most distal system, and a focus of this study, is the macrosystem, which encompasses the broad cultural context, including societal values, customs, and policy, which influence all other levels. That is, the macrosystem is the overarching cultural and societal framework, including educational policies, that shape how individuals, in this case, educators perceive the world and drive a multilingual pedagogy between them and EMLs in the classroom (Connors, 2016). However, this model posits that the most influential setting for EMLs’ learning is the microsystem, which includes the family, school, and community where EMLs spend most of their time interacting (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2007). In this study, the microsystem is represented by the interactions between educators and EMLs within their classrooms as a primary driver of their learning and development. However, the interactions that occur within the microsystem are influenced by the more distal systems. Taken together, the bioecological model provides a helpful framework for conceptualizing how culture and educational policies (the macrosystem) filter down to impact what occurs within the classroom between educators and EMLs (the student’s microsystem).

We also draw upon asset-based, culturally informed pedagogies to highlight the critical importance of cultural background, heritage, and home language practices on EMLs’ learning processes (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Paris, 2012). Several frameworks outlining various culturally responsive approaches exist, including culturally responsive education, culturally sustaining pedagogy, and funds of knowledge. Together, these pedagogies center the culture and language of EMLs as resources and assets for learning and teaching. Through culturally responsive pedagogies, educators become cultural translators between a student’s prior cultural knowledge (e.g., home and heritage languages) and what is being taught in the classroom (Ladson-Billings, 1995). We use these frameworks to inform our understanding of the kinds of policies and standards that are needed to provide culturally and linguistically responsive supports, including multilingual pedagogy to educate EMLs.

2.1. Emergent Multilingual Learners in the United States and India

There are many terms used across the United States and India to label students who are learning multiple languages, such as dual language learners and English-language learners. We chose to use the term emergent multilingual learners because it is the most inclusive term, which emphasizes the linguistic assets of students who speak more than one language. In fact, emergent multilingual learners are a growing and diverse population. Within the US, EMLs comprise one-third of all children ages nine and under nationwide and number more than 10.8 million (Park et al., 2017). New York state has the third-largest population of EMLs, with over 800,000 (New York State Education Department, 2019a). Approximately 60% of EMLs speak Spanish at home with their families, with Mandarin as the second most prevalent language spoken by EMLs and their parents (Park et al., 2017). Although Spanish and Mandarin are the most common languages spoken within EMLs’ households, EML students in the US speak more than 400 languages (National Center for Education Statistics, 2024).

With a population of just over 1.4 billion, India’s vast linguistic diversity offers a unique perspective into multilingual education. The country’s most recent census, completed in 2011, recorded 121 languages as the first languages of speakers, known as mother tongues within Indian social and educational contexts (Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner of India, 2011). According to the 2011 census, 26% of India’s population is bilingual, and 7% are trilingual. However, these numbers shift across urban and rural contexts. Twenty-two percent of rural residents are bilingual and 5% trilingual, whereas in urban areas, 44% of residents are bilingual and 15% are trilingual (Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner of India, 2011).

2.2. Polices and Standards in Education and Their Connection to Educator Practice

In this paper, we use the term policy to refer to the range of national-, federal-, state-, and local-level policies, guidelines, and standards. The policies and standards that are the focus of this paper are those primarily concerned with ECE pedagogy and student outcomes. Policies and standards can also have a developmental function, being tools for self-evaluation by individual educators or forming part of a systemwide strategy for professional learning (Kleinhenz & Ingvarson, 2007). These include, for example, those that define the high-quality teaching practices expected to support students’ learning; outline expectations for the skills students should develop; and articulate the cognitive benefits of multilingual pedagogy, fostering students’ building of a positive sense of self and identity. Terms such as heritage language, home language, first language, and mother tongue are used in education policy documents to describe the languages students are most comfortable speaking and are most familiar with. Both the US and India also use the term home language, while Indian education policy also includes the terms first language and mother tongue.

Education policy varies across countries and regions, in response to institutionalized beliefs and practices, and across time, as demands and expectations on schools and students shift. Although there was no official language in the US until March 2025, English has long been the de facto national language, with most of the population speaking only English at home (78%) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2022). The emphasis on EMLs learning English is reflected in the educational policies, which require that all students, including EMLs, show continual progress on academic content assessments administered in English as well as on English language proficiency assessments (National Academies of Sciences & Medicine, 2017). As such, the educational aim for EMLs is fluency in English with no stated aim for intentionally promoting multilingualism.

Within India, the diversity of mother tongues is often mediated by a common language of instruction in schools. Like the US, up until recent policy changes, India has had no official national language. Hindi and English both act as de facto lingua francas in much of the country (Mohanty, 2018). Additionally, sixteen states have designated official state languages as the language most of the population speaks, apart from Hindi or English (Mitchell, 2009). In Maharashtra, the official state language is Marathi, and the government school curriculum is provided in Marathi unless the school’s medium of instruction is otherwise determined, usually as Hindi or English. Unlike the US, the goal of policy documents that offer guidance for multilingual pedagogy is to make all Indian citizens multilingual, specifically trilingual, and this effort begins formally in ECE classrooms (Bhattacharya, 2017; Jayadeva, 2018).

While policies and standards set the tone for the practices that occur within classrooms, educators are the active implementers of policies as they enact them in practice (Johnson & Johnson, 2015). A growing body of research describes how educators interpret policies and act as policy actors, or people who are enacting policies on a local level (Ball et al., 2011). That is, educators play a critical and central role in how educational policies for EMLs are interpreted, negotiated, adapted, and resisted (Zuniga et al., 2018). Extant research suggests that when acting as a policy actor, educators sometimes draw on their identities, language ideologies, and past experiences as guides to adapt and modify policy as they instruct in their classrooms (Rojas et al., 2023, 2025; Varghese & Snyder, 2018).

2.3. Current Study

This study examines a critical gap between policy intentions and classroom realities through two informative cases: NYC and Maharashtra, India. Both contexts explicitly value EMLs home languages and serve students with high levels of linguistic diversity, making them suitable cases for investigating policies that support EMLs, yet they differ sharply in their policies, implementation infrastructure, allowing us to examine how policies shape practices. The overarching research aim driving this study is to explore the policies specifically related to the instruction of EMLs and to examine how they are implemented within classrooms. The following questions guided our paper: (R1) What are the policies and standards related to the education of EMLs in NYC and Maharashtra? (R2) In what ways are education policies for EML students implemented in NYC and Maharashtra? (R3) What may account for the alignment or misalignment between policies and implementation? Our research questions were exploratory and, thus, our hypothesis remained broad. We hypothesized that educators’ implementation of multilingual policies would reflect the policy mandates specific to each educational context, yet exhibit varied alignment in their treatment of languages of power and the perceived stakes of cultural and linguistic assimilation. Drawing upon Bronfenbrenner and Morris’s (2007) bioecological model and culturally responsive theories (e.g., Paris, 2012), we recognized that educators’ practices are shaped not only by policy directives but also by broader sociopolitical ideologies, their interactions with students and families, and their own beliefs and knowledge regarding culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogies. Specifically, we posited that despite the presence of broad, multilingual policies, educators would predominantly enact practices privileging the dominant societal language (Groff, 2017). We further anticipated that this mixed divergence between policies and practices would be shaped by educators’ underlying language ideologies and their own formative experiences as students within these systems. Together, the findings from this study provide critical insight into how policies and standards are being implemented on the ground by educators and what must be done to ensure that we design educational systems that allow for culturally and linguistically responsive policies to be taken up as intended.

3. Methods

To address our research questions, we draw upon two case studies. In the US, many of the critical ECE policies are set at the state level; as such, we focus on the policies and standards regulating NYC ECE programs for one of our case studies. In India, three national-level policy documents inform multilingual teaching practices for EMLs, and policies impact students in English language schools differently than in schools with vernacular instruction. Thus, the second case study evidences this by comparing how English and vernacular instruction policies are implemented in rural and urban school settings within the western Indian state of Maharashtra, where English language instruction is much more common in urban areas while vernacular instruction in rural schools often does not adequately address the linguistic diversity of EMLs in those regions. Our analysis draws upon qualitative data collected in each case study. Both case study projects relied on qualitative interviews with educators and observational data collected about classroom practices. Due to differences in the contexts, methods for each case study used a different set of qualitative observational methods in classrooms (recordings in NYC and participant observation in Maharashtra); despite differences in observational procedures, we can make direct comparisons in this article between specific points of analysis in each study. In our analysis here, we focus on how educators’ policy implementation manifest in comparable ways across both contexts, which allows for us to identify and explore commonalities and differences in pedagogical practices.

3.1. Case Study 1: New York City

3.1.1. Case Study 1: Participants

This case study draws upon qualitative and quantitative data collected from six ECE programs and 20 classrooms. To be eligible for the study, ECE programs needed to predominately serve EML children who come from households that spoke Spanish. Educators were eligible if they taught three-to-five-year-olds in participating ECE programs. Educators all considered themselves Latina, and their teaching experience ranged from 1 to 25 years (M = 9.73, SD = 8.11). All educators reported some Spanish language ability: 8% of educators reported speaking simple Spanish, 46% spoke conversational Spanish, and 46% were native Spanish speakers (see

Table 1. Characteristics of Case Studies Participants.

Participant ID	Sex	Racial-Ethnic or Caste/Community Match with EMLs	Type of School	Language Proficiency	Role
NY104	Female	Yes	Urban, English medium	Carry Conversation in Spanish	Educator
NY202	Female	Yes	Urban, English medium	Carry Conversation in Spanish	Educator
NY203	Female	Yes	Urban, English medium	Spanish mother tongue	Educator
NY305	Female	Yes	Urban, English medium	Spanish mother tongue	Educator
NY401	Female	No	Urban, English medium	Simple sentences in Spanish	Educator
NY602	Female	No	Urban, English medium	Simple sentences in Spanish	Educator
NY702	Female	Yes	Urban, English medium	Spanish mother tongue	Educator
NY703	Female	Yes	Urban, English medium	Spanish mother tongue	Educator
MRE1	Male	No	Rural, Marathi medium	Kannada mother tongue	Principal
MRE2	Male	Yes	Rural, Marathi medium	Banjari mother tongue	Educator
MRE3	Male	No	Rural, Marathi medium	Marathi mother tongue	Educator
MRE4	Male	No	Rural, Marathi medium	Marathi mother tongue	Educator
MRE5	Male	No	Rural, Marathi medium	Urdu mother tongue	Educator
MRE6	Male	No	Rural, Marathi medium	Marathi mother tongue	Principal
MUE1	Female	Yes	Urban, Marathi medium	Marathi mother tongue	Educator
MUE2	Female	Yes	Urban, English medium	Marathi mother tongue	Educator
MUE3	Female	No	Urban, English medium	Odia mother tongue	Educator

for additional details about educators). EML children were eligible to participate if they came from household that spoke Spanish. Seventy-one EMLs were observed interacting with educators in their classroom. All EMLs identified as Latino or Latina. Forty-three percent of parents reported speaking only Spanish at home with the EML student, 36% spoke mainly Spanish and some English, 13% spoke equal English and Spanish, and 7% spoke mainly English and some Spanish. On average, EMLs were 46.78 months old (range = 36–56 months).

3.1.2. Case Study 1: Procedures

Semi-structured interviews with educators were conducted over a virtual video platform. The interviews lasted approximately 45 min to 1 h and were conducted in English. The interviews explored educators’ language ideologies, or the beliefs about language that motivate behavior, including the role of educational policies, and their use of culturally and linguistically responsive practices with EMLs. Two research assistants transcribed the audio recordings of the interviews. The lead author reviewed all transcripts for accuracy and edited when needed. A hybrid deductive-inductive thematic analysis approach was used to analyze the transcripts (Braun & Clarke, 2019). A deductive codebook was created based on the interview protocols and a random selection of 3 transcripts. After pilot testing the codebook and making edits, the transcripts were double-coded. Similar codes were combined to develop subthemes, and conceptually related subthemes were combined to form main themes.

Observational data were collected from audio-recordings devices worn for the whole day by 71 Spanish-English speaking EMLs at three times throughout the ECE year (Fall, Winter, and Spring).

3.1.3. Case Study 1: Data Analysis

Two research assistants transcribed the audio recordings of the educator interviews. The lead author reviewed all transcripts for accuracy and edited when needed. A hybrid deductive-inductive thematic analysis approach was used to analyze the transcripts (Braun & Clarke, 2019). A deductive codebook was created based on the interview protocols and a random selection of three transcripts. After pilot testing the codebook and making edits, the transcripts were double-coded. Similar codes were combined to develop subthemes, and conceptually related subthemes were combined to form main themes.

Several variables were created using the audio recordings of EMLs in their classrooms: (a) proportion of Spanish used by educators; (b) following EMLs language lead; and (c) English to Spanish translations. The proportion of Spanish used by educators was calculated based on a systematic sampling of the first minute of speech for each five-minute segment (Choi et al., 2021; Wood et al., 2016). Educators’ speech was coded as Spanish only, English only, or a mix of Spanish and English. The proportion of Spanish variables was calculated by dividing the total number of segments where Spanish was used by the total number of segments. To determine when educators followed the EML’s language lead and English to Spanish translations, 5 min clips were systematically sampled. Research assistants coded instances where educators aligned their language use with EML’s language preferences, translating words and/or sentences from English to Spanish or vice versa. All three variables were double-coded by the lead author and research assistants.

3.2. Case Study 2: Maharashtra, India

3.2.1. Case Study 2: Participants

Data for the Indian case study examined in this analysis were collected using qualitative ethnographic methods of interviews and classroom observations from two distinct data collection periods: One in urban schools from 2016–2017, when the TLF policy was the most prevalent and followed a multilingual policy, and one in rural schools from 2022–2023, after the release of the 2020 NEP. We explore data collected in four classrooms in three rural primary schools and three classrooms in two urban pre-K to 10th-grade schools, the highest grade in the Indian secondary education system. Participants who we interviewed included eight educators in the rural setting and ten in the urban setting. Researchers in the two data collection periods used snowball sampling based on permission from collaborators and networks of known educators and schools. Each school involved met criteria to have multiple languages used, informally or formally, for instruction and interactions among students and educators. Observations included between 20 and 40 participants (educators and students) at a time in each classroom where observational data was collected. The sample set of data from observations and interview responses analyzed here are drawn from ECE classrooms with students aged three to seven, and interviews focus on responses from six primary school educators and administrators across the urban and rural setting, identified as “Maharashtra Rural or Urban Educator” or “Student” or MRE/MUE and MRS/MUS and a participant # (see Table 1 for additional details on educators and administrators).

3.2.2. Case Study 2: Procedures

Data in both settings were collected through semi-structured interviews with educators, parents, students, and administrators. The urban school data were collected independently by a linguistic anthropologist. In rural India, the data were collected in 2022–2023 by a small research team of four individuals, in addition to the linguistic anthropologist, who included a curriculum designer, a learning scientist, and a linguist research assistant. Interviews in both settings were conducted in either English or Marathi—whichever language was a lingua franca in the region or context of data collection, and interviews spanned fifteen minutes to two hours in length.

Classroom observations were conducted in the 2016–2017 data collection period in urban Maharashtra individually by the linguistic anthropologist and rural Maharashtra from 2022–2023. The research team followed various configurations for collaborative classroom observations. In the examples explored here, we draw upon qualitative data collected in classrooms with formal Marathi instruction, referred to as the medium of instruction, and English medium classrooms in the western Indian state of Maharashtra. Both sets of classroom observations amount to over 100 h of observations and around 300 pages of fieldnotes describing classroom interactions and language pedagogy.

3.2.3. Case Study 2: Data Analysis

Drawing upon this complete body of data, including translated and transcribed interview data, a first order of analysis was completed by the linguistic anthropologist to open code data for emerging themes and patterns (Howell, 2018; Seligmann & Estes, 2019). For the analysis made in this article, the codes which emerged as themes and patterns from the body of data from India, and the examples from data that most closely correspond to them, were coded a second time by reviewing them against the policies in three Indian policy documents upon which multilingual pedagogy in Indian schools is based: the TLF, NEP, and NCF. The data sets best illuminate the linguistic pedagogical techniques educators develop to employ with students from different mother tongue language backgrounds in relation to the medium of instruction. The analysis, therefore, examines the alignment or misalignment of policy and practices.

4. Results

4.1. Case Study 1: Policies and Standards Within New York

In the US, states are primarily responsible for school operations, curriculum and academic standards, educator qualifications, and funding. In contrast, the federal government provides financial assistance to states and school districts as well as outlines a set of broad educational goals and standards. To better understand how policies are implemented in the “real world”, we are focusing on a state with a large population of EMLs—New York. New York is a moderately pro-multilingualism context—at least on paper—as reflected in its mandate for the provision of bilingual education in public schools as one of its educational options for EMLs (Reyes-Carrasquillo et al., 2014). It is important to note that in New York, some public ECE programs offer a dual language classroom and/or bilingual model, which explicitly requires educators to teach in two languages to develop EMLs’ proficiency in both languages. However, the vast majority of EMLs are served in mainstream English-instruction classrooms, leaving educators, who are not teaching in official bilingual or dual language programs, with the task of supporting EMLs who are in their classrooms without clear guidance on how to utilize their multiple languages. As such, we focus on the policies and standards governing these English-instruction classrooms and the practices of educators working in those classrooms, instead of official dual language or bilingual classrooms. Below, we highlight three critical standards and policies specifically focused on educators and instruction for EMLs in these English-instruction ECE classrooms.

The New York State Prekindergarten Learning Standards (NYSPLS) are a set of expectations of what children can learn and do because of instruction throughout the ECE year (New York State Education Department, 2019b). It articulates the end-of-year expectations for students’ skills. However, it is flexible in allowing schools to design, deliver, modify, and adapt curricula and instruction to meet the individual students. Schools are expected to use the NYSPLS as a framework for teaching all students. The NYSPLS specifically articulates that English fluency is not a prerequisite for meeting each standard. Instead, students can demonstrate their knowledge of different topics in their home language:

Children can demonstrate mastery of many of the skills outlined in the standards bilingually or using their home languages. Children can demonstrate they are building background knowledge (PK.AC.2) in their home language.

Moreover, it explicitly states that educators should intentionally use students’ home language to support their learning:

Intentional, strategic use of children’s home languages in the prekindergarten classroom can, for example, enhance student engagement, scaffold comprehension, support authentic assessment, and promote family involvement.

Within NYC, where this case study takes place, the NYC Pre-K for All Program Quality Standards (Quality Standards) define the New York City Public Schools’ vision for high-quality Pre-K for All programs in NYC (New York City Department of Education, 2025b). Leaders and educators use this set of standards to understand and advance program quality and positive outcomes for students. Unlike the NYSPLS, which has a section devoted specifically to outlining its vision for how standards may be modified for EMLs, the Quality Standards were developed with the viewpoint that all standards apply to programs serving EMLs. However, they embed modifications within the standards for EMLs when deemed necessary. One such adaptation is found within the Equity and Individualization in Education standard, which describes how educators should tailor instruction to meet the needs of each student, reflecting high expectations. A program is considered to have fully implemented this standard when it communicates high expectations for all students, including those from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Specifically, the standard articulates the following:

The program embraces and supports the cultural and linguistic diversity of all children and families, working with families to appropriately tailor practices and resources at both the classroom and program level.

The Quality Standards also describe how program staff should build their skills to support EMLs by participating in professional learning:

Developing staff capacity to support the needs of all children and families, including children with IEPs, children whose native language is not English, or children with any other specific considerations for their learning and development.

Finally, the Early Childhood Framework for Quality (EFQ) communicates NYC’s vision for high-quality ECE programming (New York City Department of Education, 2025a). This document is intended to be a resource that guides the practices of ECE programs. This framework only mentions EMLs in one of its six overarching elements—high-quality programs respect and value differences. Specifically, it states the following:

Program leadership teams and teaching teams build trust by creating a community in which all children, families, and staff feel welcome and included, embracing diversity in many forms—including, but not limited to: race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, home language, country of origin, immigration status, ability, special needs, religion, gender, gender expression, sexual orientation, housing status, and cultural background and experience.

Taken together, these policies and frameworks guiding the expectations for programs and educators articulate three main points explicitly related to how to support EMLs: (1) educators should participate in professional learning experiences that support their knowledge and practices with EMLs; (2) educators should use EMLs home language as a strategy for individualizing instruction; and (3) high expectations should be maintained for EML students. Using qualitative and quantitative data from interviews and surveys with educators, as well as audio recordings of individual EML students in ECE classrooms using a mainstream English-instruction model, we describe the alignment and misalignment of educators’ practices and beliefs with the three main dimensions specifically articulated in the standards and policies for EMLs.

Table 2. Results from Case 1: New York—Alignment of Policy and Practice.

Policy Dimension Focused on EML	Observed Educator Practices in Case Study	Educator Interview Findings	Potential Reasons for Alignment/Misalignment
Professional Learning: Require educators to engage in professional learning on teaching EMLs	57% completed 0–2 pre-service courses; 64% attended ≥3 workshops/	Only two educators’ handful felt workshops influenced their teaching; about one-third held misconceptions (e.g., using Spanish prevents English learning; EMLs cannot be strong in both languages), signaling uneven uptake of evidence-based approaches.	Limited awareness of standards; reliance on language ideologies; variability in professional learning quality.
Use of Home Language for Instruction: Encourage intentional use of students’ home language to scaffold comprehension and individualize instruction.	Educators spoke Spanish 47% of classroom time (range 3–91%); followed student language leads ~3 times per three-hour block; translated English-Spanish 57% of utterances on average	Many teachers described translating back and forth to support comprehension, build vocabulary, and meet students’ dominant language needs—yet frequency and strategic use of EMLs’ home language varied widely across classrooms.	Educator personal Spanish language ability; misconceptions about bilingualism; pressure from parents to focus on building EMLs’ English language skills.
High Expectations across Languages: Maintain high academic expectations and accept demonstrations of content knowledge in any language	Numerous educators accepted student responses in English or Spanish as valid evidence of learning; some still required English-only answers.	Several bilingual teachers explicitly valued cross-language demonstrations of mastery; others still judged students’ skills solely by their English output, revealing inconsistent application of the standard	Low explicit reference to policy; educators’ own beliefs about language and competence; lack of shared understanding of standards.

summarizes the findings.

4.1.1. Education Policies Related to EMLs and Their Implementation in NYC

Educator Professional Learning

In surveys conducted with educators in NYC, they reported the amount of professional learning and coursework they received, specifically focused on teaching EMLs. Most educators reported having minimal pre-service training related to how best to work with EMLs, with 57% of educators indicating that they had completed zero to two courses specifically on best practices for teaching EMLs. However, many educators reported participating in professional learning focused on best practices for teaching EMLs, with 64% indicating that they had completed three or more workshops on this topic.

Within our interviews, only two educators described professional learning experiences influencing their knowledge and practices. One educator described how a particular workshop taught her that using EMLs’ home language is necessary to create equitable educational experiences:

NY202: “I know we did a workshop about working with children and bias so that was helpful because we, you know, we learned that we have to be fair to all of the students. Yeah, you know, and have them exposed to everything the same way we would with the English student. So, if we did everything in English, then those that speak Spanish are left out and they’re not getting the full educational experience.”

Despite the modest amount of professional learning educators have received regarding teaching EMLs, some educators shared viewpoints during our interviews that illustrated misconceptions about bilingualism, suggesting a need for additional professional development. About a third of educators, including native speakers and educators who only spoke simple Spanish, stated that EMLs would not learn English if educators used Spanish in the classroom. Moreover, educators talked about how EMLs cannot be “dominant” in both languages. Therefore, these educators believed it was better to speak to the EMLs in English since they were exposed to Spanish at home. For instance, an educator who spoke minimal Spanish shared her belief that speaking Spanish may result in EMLs never learning English.

NY602: “I want them to understand, but I feel like it, like you talk to them in, like the language that they speak at home, I feel like they will never learn like English.”

Educators’ Use of Home Language in the Classroom to Individualize Instruction

Using systematic sampling of audio-recordings of EMLs in their classrooms, we estimated the proportion of time in the classroom where Spanish is spoken. Across the school year, the proportion of Spanish used by educators was 47% (range = 3–91%). The average rate of Spanish used by educators across the school year shifted, with educators using Spanish 54% of the time in the fall, 55% in the winter, and 37% in the spring. This data demonstrates that educators are adhering to the standards, allowing them to use the home language of EMLs in the classroom. Moreover, the reduction in the use of Spanish at the end of the school year suggests that they may be decreasing their use of Spanish as their English language skills improve, particularly as the year progresses.

In addition to using the home language of EMLs, standards and policies in New York also articulates that educators should individualize instruction for all children (New York City Department of Education, 2025a). For EMLs, individualizing instruction extends beyond modifying the content of instruction; educators may also need to consider adapting the language of instruction to meet the unique language needs (expressive and receptive) of each EML across their languages. That is, educators should not speak Spanish or English, but instead use each language intentionally based on the needs of EMLs. One way to determine whether educators are individualizing the language of their instruction to meet the needs of each EML is to examine whether they are aligning their language with the language spoken by EMLs in their classroom. As such, using systematic sampling of the audio recordings, we examined whether educators were following the language lead of EMLs in their classrooms. We found that, on average, educators followed the language lead of EMLs almost three times throughout the first three hours of the school day (range = 0–12).

In interviews, educators described translating in Spanish and English to individualize instruction for EMLs. They explained that the purpose behind translating was to help EMLs: (a) understand one another; (b) understand the content of the lesson or the directions; and (c) build vocabulary and skills in both languages by hearing what was said in English and Spanish. Here is an educator describing how she uses translation as a tool for individualizing instruction:

NY203: “I will say it in English, but it depends because if I feel that the person speaks more Spanish, I will say it first in English and then translate it, I mean in Spanish and then I will translate it in English so they know both. And if the person speaks more English, most likely I will just say it in English, and if anything, I’ll just like just translate in Spanish very, very simple you know. I’m not too much focus on that because I know that they actually get it, but I would love for them to also, you know, gain there’s the Spanish back, right.”

Using the audio recordings, we also explored educators’ translations from English to Spanish, which are typically implemented to support EMLs’ language and literacy skills. On average, when educators translated for EMLs, they translated words/phrases from English to Spanish 57% of the time (range 0–87%). By translating content from English to Spanish, educators are likely using the practice of translation to ensure that EMLs understand the content in their native language. Taken together, educators frequently use the home language of EMLs in their classrooms to support their individualization of instruction for EMLs with varying levels of proficiency in Spanish and English. Notably, however, there is quite a range in educators’ use of these practices, with some educators adhering to the policy more frequently than others.

High Expectations for EMLs

The policies and standards also all describe how educators and ECE programs should have high expectations for EMLs and that educators should allow EMLs to demonstrate their content knowledge across languages. Aligning with New York policies and standards, many educators described their practice of accepting EMLs’ answers in English or Spanish as a demonstration of understanding or mastery of the concept. That is, EMLs may have a conceptual understanding or an underlying skill, but they may not have the English language skills to verbalize that knowledge. For example, a native Spanish-speaking educator described how a vocabulary word might be different across languages, but its definition remained the same across languages.

NY702: “Like if it’s a cat the cat didn’t change. The cat is still a cat, the name changed, but the cat is still exactly the cat, the numbers are still the same numbers. Everything we do, the items are still the same item, just what we call them change…they just have a different name in Spanish, but the shape didn’t change, it’s just the names that change.”

Similarly, educators described how if EMLs understood a question or a concept, they should be allowed to answer educators’ questions or complete tasks in either language. Educators who were also bilingual in Spanish and English felt more capable of allowing EMLs to demonstrate their knowledge in either English or Spanish. A conversational Spanish-speaking educator expressed her thoughts on accepting answers in both languages.

NY104: “I don’t think some children are able to respond [to] that answer in Spanish. Similarly, some are not able to respond in English, but I do say I do make sure that they understand the concept…This is how you say it in English. But this is how you say it in Spanish and both answers are correct. …Oh house is Casa and it’s the same thing.”

This belief that EMLs can demonstrate their skills across languages was expressed by many educators, aligning with the policy outlined in the NYSPLS. However, all the educators in our interviews who described accepting EMLs’ answers in either language as a demonstration of their knowledge, rather than as a personal belief that is explicitly stated in the educational standard. Markedly, this belief is not always shared by all educators. In the example below, one educator compares this belief and practice to other educators who think that an EML does not have the skill if they cannot demonstrate it in English:

NY401: “It’s just like do they have this skill, regardless of the language? Do they have the skill? That’s my bottom line. Whether they speak in Spanish, or they speak in English. That doesn’t mean they can’t do it, and I think a lot of people, they say that. Oh well, can you speak to me in English? And if they can’t speak in English and they don’t know it, because you don’t know.”

In sum, educators rarely discussed having high expectations for EMLs specifically. However, many educators did describe their beliefs and practices regarding assessing the knowledge and skills of EMLs across both of their languages.

Potential Reasons for Alignment or Misalignment Between Policies and Practices in Case Study 1

There are several reasons for the potential alignment and misalignment between policies and standards, and educators’ classroom practices. First, educators never acknowledged or referenced the standards or policies as a reason for implementing a practice. This suggests that educators have a limited understanding of the policies and standards that should guide their practices in the classroom. Similarly, educators rarely mentioned workshops, trainings, or evidence-based practices as a motivation for their classroom practices. Instead, educators often referred to their language ideologies and personal experiences as justification for their practices. For a few educators, all of whom are native Spanish speakers, their beliefs about using the home language of EMLs in the classroom were shaped by their background and experiences as immigrant students in US schools. Some educators who had negative experiences as bilingual students believed it was necessary to use the home language of EMLs in the classroom. In contrast, for other educators, their negative experiences led them to focus instead on developing the English language skills of EMLs. The native Spanish educator below described the trauma she experienced when she moved from a bilingual classroom to an English-only classroom in first grade, encouraging her to allow EMLs in her classroom to express themselves in any language:

NY305: “So, I did half of my first grade as bilingual and then half of my first grade was full English… Now I’m not able to express myself, you know how I feel like whatever I wanted to say I can’t even say because it has to be said in a certain way you know so now, you’re limited, limiting me in an aspect so I feel like I guess I have that trauma.”

Many educators reported that they focused on developing the English language skills of EMLs rather than Spanish, due to the expectations of parents in their classrooms. They described how parents were concerned that their children would struggle to speak English when they started elementary school. As such, they hoped schools would teach their child English. Thus, educators often would use less Spanish because they saw their job as supporting EMLs’ English language skills. The educator below describes parents’ emphasis on the development of their child’s English skills:

NY703: “And there are some parents where they are like they worry about that. They worry a lot about their kids, they be like you know I’m scared he’s only speaking Spanish why is he only speaking Spanish…I had one child who… her mother only wanted one thing, she didn’t care about anything else but to learn English that’s all she wanted, like how’s her English how’s her English how’s her English?”

4.2. Case Study 2: Policies and Standards Within Maharashtra

Three education policies in India address language and language learning in classrooms: The 1968 Three-Language Formula (TLF), the 2020 National Education Policy (NEP), and the 2023 National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCF). The TLF policy was considered the standard for multilingual education for five decades. It stipulates that students should initially learn and learn in a local mother tongue or regional language, then a second language (Hindi, another modern Indian language, or English), and finally a third language (English or an additional modern Indian language). The TLF reflects nationalist ideologies of tri-lingual citizens who speak a mother tongue (often defined as the official language of one’s state of residence or origin), Hindi (as a de facto national lingua franca), and English. English was initially seen as a transitional language in the country after British colonial rule. However, it has since been formalized as a language of power in education due to its enduring national and global value. Updated in 2020, the NEP extends the TLF to focus on the cognitive benefits children gain by learning in their mother tongue. The document recommends that children learn in a language most familiar to them throughout the first 5 to 8 years of schooling:

It is well understood that young children learn and grasp nontrivial concepts more quickly in their home language/mother tongue. […] Wherever possible, the medium of instruction until at least Grade 5, but preferably till Grade 8 and beyond, will be the home language/mother tongue/local language/regional language. Thereafter, the home/local language shall continue to be taught as a language wherever possible. […] High-quality textbooks, including in science, will be made available in home languages/mother tongues. All efforts will be made early on to ensure that any gaps that exist between the language spoken by the child and the medium of teaching are bridged. In cases where home language/mother tongue textbook material is not available, the language of transaction between educators and students will remain the home language/mother tongue wherever possible (Section 4.1.1).

While advising that “the home/local language shall continue to be taught as a language wherever possible,” the policy’s language remains vague (Government of India, 2020). Specific implementation strategies are decided upon at the discretion of states, one of India’s three school boards, and schools themselves.

The NCF, finalized three years after the NEP, builds upon the NEP’s recommendations about mother tongue medium instruction in classrooms. Compared to the NEP, the NCF more directly articulates a foundation in the TLF for the purpose of “promoting multilingualism and national unity” (National Council of Educational Research and Training, 2023). The document introduces more flexibility to the TLF in that “no language will be imposed on any State […] so long as at least two of the three languages are native to India” (National Council of Educational Research and Training, 2005). In addition to the cognitive benefits of mother tongue education in the NEP, the NCF recognizes, “The mother tongue or home language is more than just a mode of communication for the child, but also relates closely with the child’s personal, social, and cultural identity.” It therefore elaborates on the importance of mother tongue instruction in pre-primary and primary grades for cultivating a sense of self. Reasons for this are explained in more detail in the NEP:

Children come to a preschool or school after the age of three years, by which time they have already accumulated significant competence in the home language to enable them to listen, comprehend, and empathize with others, speak, and express their feelings and thoughts, and successfully interact with others meaningfully. Over these three years children have, along with ‘picking up the language’, also simultaneously been able to develop a host of other essential skills, particularly in communication, information processing, and social interaction as well as skills and concepts foundational to creativity, critical thinking, literacy, and numeracy. The children take these foundational skills with them into preschool and school; these serve as essential building blocks that get built upon further, to enhance the child’s cognitive and socio-emotional competence, when the child’s home language or mother tongue is used to teach other subjects all through the Foundational Stage and beyond. Thus, the home language serves as a facilitator for all learning and enables children to form connections with prior learning and home learning.

While the NEP and NCF recognize that in some cases students begin school in a language other than their home language, each document provides no further instruction for administrators and educators about how to bridge home and school languages other than the following in the NEP:

Educators will be encouraged to use a bilingual approach, including bilingual teaching-learning materials, with those students whose home language may be different from the medium of instruction (Section 4.1.1).

Concluding this section of the NEP, the document states, “a language does not need to be the medium of instruction for it to be taught and learned well” (Section 4.1.1). The process by which educators should incorporate their students’ home languages or mother tongues into instruction when these languages are not the primary language of instruction is not clearly defined, particularly when educators do not speak those languages themselves.

Each of these policies is largely put into practice in unofficial ways, as there are no strict mandates or uniform laws for states, districts, or schools to enact suggestions in the NEP and NCF. The languages of instruction are usually guided by the language of curriculum materials, which is often an official state language, Hindi, or English. When curriculum materials are not available in students’ mother tongues and when educators do not know their students’ mother tongue, it is up to individual educators to decide how to use students’ mother tongues and apply the suggestions from the NEP and NCF.

Maharashtra is one of many Indian states which designates a language other than Hindi as an official state language to be used for bureaucratic and education purposes. In the examples examined here, it is often assumed that the official state language, Marathi, is the students’ mother tongue (Chandras et al., 2025). However, facilitating learning in students’ mother tongues becomes more complicated in classrooms where Marathi is the medium of instruction, but students come from diverse linguistic backgrounds or socially and linguistically marginalized communities whose mother tongues are undervalued in educational contexts. In the next section, we describe how educational policies related to EMLs were implemented in ECE classrooms, and what were factors that drove the alignment or misalignment of practices with ECE policies.

Table 3. Results from Case Study 2: Maharashtra—Alignment of Policy and Practice.

Policy Dimension Focused on EML	Findings from Interviews and Observations in Case Study	Potential Reasons for Alignment/Misalignment
Professional Learning: Require educators to engage in formal training and professional learning for teaching EMLs and teaching in a language other than students (shared or unique) mother tongues	Educators created personal or school-based policies for teaching EMLs with a focus on assimilation to the language of instruction rather than policy suggestions	Variability in training and awareness of policies and the cognitive reasons and benefits backing the policy suggestions, misunderstanding where and how policies apply
Use of Home Language for Instruction: Educators learn students’ home language(s)/mother tongues for formal use in instruction while leveraging linguistic diversity in their classrooms to scaffold assimilation to a language of instruction	Mother tongues introduced into pedagogy for discipline, refocusing, or joking. Four educators (MRE1, MRE3, MRE4, MRE5) describe learning, understanding, or a desire to learn/understand students from diverse linguistic backgrounds to facilitate learning and foster assimilation to educational culture	Numerous mother tongues in classrooms without educators’ knowledge of those languages for comprehension or instruction, school-based policy to eliminate/decrease the use of non-instructional languages, familial pressure for EMLs to assimilate to the language of education
High Expectations across Languages: Examine language ideologies and social biases related to students’ linguistic backgrounds to diminish unequal values placed on languages in pedagogy	Negative perceptions of EMLs based on their mother tongues permeate pedagogy and orientations toward EMLs and their families to exclude certain languages from pedagogical practice	Gaps in social and linguistic capital tied to MLSs mother tongues, gaps across rural and urban education and educational standards

summarizes the findings.

4.2.1. Education Policies Related to Mother Tongue Instruction and Implementation in India

Formal Educator Learning and Adaptation

In India, one challenge arises in classrooms when the language of instruction is not English but an Indian language that students are also not familiar with as a home or mother tongue language. Students may come from multiple different mother tongue communities in linguistically diverse classroom settings, further complicating how instruction should be delivered. Across each of India’s three working education policy documents, there is little to no mention of how policies are to be applied when classrooms are composed of students from multiple mother tongue language communities, and ones that may be different from the languages educators know. Some insight is provided into this challenge from a retiring principal in rural Maharashtra who presided over a small Marathi medium school for the duration of his career. His school had served a majority of Banjara students, members of a Denotified Tribe and oppressed caste community who speak Banjari as their mother tongue—a mutually unintelligible language from the language of instruction, Marathi.

MRE1: When I was first appointed [as a teacher here], in this language community, I felt that I should learn the language from the students. Then I can teach them in their language.

While not directly referencing policy, his reflection at the end of his career indicated a preference for educators to be trained in the predominant languages used by the students they teach. He elaborated on his perspective as a teacher and principal and how educators often do not have direction for teaching in linguistically diverse classrooms:

MRE1: It is easy to publish a textbook in Banjari but educators are trained to teach and we don’t have any training in languages. How would that work? […] This is not how it is done.

Educators in India do not receive specific training in multilingual education, though they may draw upon multiple languages in their daily lessons. It is up to individual educators to decide how to use a language they may have in common with students when that language is not the language of instruction.

In the absence of explicit directions about how to implement the multilingual education policies stated in the NEP and NCF, as the prevailing contemporary documents regarding language in education, educators may informally learn from other educators. In an urban Marathi medium school, where the majority of students were from Marathi mother tongue backgrounds, the school hosted periodic teacher training sessions by inviting a pedagogical expert to teach certain classes. In one such session, a former administrator at the school (MUE1) was invited to teach an English lesson that the other educators could observe. During the lesson, around nine of the fifteen educators in the primary section of the school observed the lesson and took notes. They later thanked the pedagogical trainer (MUE1) for clarifying grammatical points and demonstrating how to teach complex grammatical structures. She had taught the English lesson mostly through Marathi, the common language and mother tongue of the students and educators in attendance. While this example adhered closely to the prevailing education policies suggesting educators instruct using a common language or mother tongue shared with students, the method the pedagogical expert used was developed through her own experience and trial and error. The invitation for her to teach the lesson was also extended via an expressed need from educators at the school and not any district or school board policy mandate.

In another urban school setting where the language of instruction was English, the school explicitly worked to admit students to their prekindergarten program who would have some exposure to English before starting school. This again was not a policy mandate, but an attempt at easing the workload of the pre-primary school educators who struggled to teach their students English while teaching them in English. The new admission policy was handed down by the school principal based on a need she observed and was made aware of by educators at her school. For their applications to be considered during the admittance process, the two-and-a-half-year-olds were asked to attend an “interview” where they needed to state their names, addresses, colors of shapes in a provided image, and recite a song or poem. They were first asked to do so in English. If comprehension failed, they were then asked in Marathi, their presumed mother tongue. However, the prospective toddlers who could only answer the Marathi prompts were less likely to be admitted, evidencing a shifting school culture around the medium of instruction (English) and the expectations placed on incoming students and educators at this particular school.

Educators’ Use of Mother Tongues for Instruction

While educators are not provided or required to have any formal pedagogical training to teach students who need to learn the language of instruction, they often develop their own methods and pedagogical techniques for doing so, usually along the lines of their colleagues at the same school. Two of the school educators at the two rural schools included in this study came from mother tongue communities different from the medium of instruction at the schools where they were employed. The data for this study was collected by a small research team at rural Marathi-medium schools. These schools were either entirely composed of Banjara students or had a significant population of students from Banjari-speaking backgrounds. These educators, one who was Banjara himself, reflected on learning Marathi just as their students do—with informal help from educators and friends, and through as much exposure to the language as possible using “immersion” monolingual pedagogical techniques. The only government schoolteacher from a Banjara background at the collection of government schools included in this study detailed his methods for facilitating Marathi learning for a specific Banjara student:

MRE2: I try [only speaking Marathi] so that she will hear as much Marathi vocabulary as possible. I keep her away from students of her community and keep her in the company of the [Marathi-speaking] students from the village so she learns in the future by listening.

As a Banjara speaker, his measures may be necessary due to the significant pressure students face to quickly assimilate to the language of education, which is often seen as crucial for social and economic mobility in this region. He (MRE2) told us, “It is useful that I understand Banjari so I know what they are saying amongst themselves, however, in the classroom I do not speak in any other language than Marathi. They know I am Banjara, but they [students] do not try to talk with me in Banjari. Just in Marathi.” He therefore may prefer to lead by example, hoping that Banjara students will pick up on his exclusive use of Marathi in the classroom and follow. This is also how many in his generation learned Marathi as students themselves.

These educators’ efforts are done with the intention to hasten and facilitate students learning the language of instruction—a language of power in the region for greater success in and beyond education. Educators, as influential and trusted figures in Indian society, have immense power and influence over students and their families. In both the urban and rural school settings, there are some educators who see it as acceptable to use students’ mother tongues in the classroom. In either setting, the mother tongue is often used for only basic instructions such as ‘come here, sit there,’ and discipline, or when using the language of instruction first fails to render their desired results. Rarely did we see a language other than the school’s medium of instruction used for formal instruction or in curriculum.

To elaborate on this further, two educators (MRE3 and MRE4) at one rural school explained how they use a little Banjari with their Banjari-speaking students. This was only after being adamant that they only use and allow Marathi, the medium of instruction, in their classrooms. Though as our interview with each educator continued, they both explained that they use Banjari from time to time and had learned a little Banjari to use explicitly with students, but each did so in different ways and with different motivations. One new educator (MRE5) talked about his effort to learn some Banjari words from his students. His use of Banjari was well-received and built a strong rapport with students. He explained how learning and using some Banjari helped him to conduct basic interactions with his students when they need assistance or have questions about material.

MRE5: When we start teaching a new lesson for the first time or we try to give [the Banjara students] instructions, they don’t understand instantly. It takes time for them to understand so we try to speak to them in the same language, repeatedly explain new concepts like science in Marathi, and be versatile to tell them things in a joyful manner. We try to crack a joke or say something that grabs their attention while explaining directions or concepts. While keeping this clear emphasis on teaching subjects in Marathi, [the Banjara] students respond less than the regular Marathi speaking students when we explain concepts in Marathi.

This educator’s practical efforts at integrating Banjari into his lessons somewhat contrasts with his colleague’s efforts at the same school. His colleague (MRE4) was a seasoned educator who claimed to use a few Banjari words and phrases to “be funny.” It is unexpected that educators from non-Banjara backgrounds will use Banjari, so it is striking when this teacher does so. At an urban English medium school, another educator (MUE2) related to her students by mockingly using a student’s mother tongue. In a Kindergarten class, the educator addressed a student whose mother tongue language was Bengali—a language the teacher did not speak. She (MUE2) imitated a few sounds associated with Bengali and made the student laugh at her efforts. This break in instruction worked to refocus students back to the content of their lesson and build a rapport not just with the Bengali mother tongue student, but also with the other students through her joking demeanor.

Despite these concessions, educators at the rural schools repeated how often they implore their students to only use Marathi, the language of instruction, both inside and outside of school. It is important to note that these educators mentioned contradicting practices in how they said they treat their students’ mother tongue language in the classroom and how they make efforts to integrate their students’ mother tongue into education in limited ways and with different impacting benefits. To mix students’ mother tongue with the language of instruction, some educators rely on translanguaging or drawing upon linguistic resources beyond the boundary of distinct languages. In practice, this may look like how the educator (MUE2) at the urban English medium school, in a lively classroom discussion, integrated both Marathi and English into her lesson by both making students aware of the distinct boundaries between languages while allowing students to draw upon their full communication repertoires. The teacher prompted her students to think about how their mothers store items in a kitchen at home. When a student correctly identified that water is kept in a math (a clay vessel in Marathi) the teacher (MUE2) laughed and translated the word to “clay pot,” leading the students to agree that water is stored in the kitchen. She continued by asking, “What other rooms are in your houses?” (MUE2). One student (MUS1) listed “bedroom, hall, and kitchen.” The teacher gently corrected the Indian English use of “hall,” explaining that it is a word used in Marathi but not in the same way as in English while redirecting their attention to a picture of a bedroom. Pointing to a specific item, another student excitedly shouted, “There is a kangua! (comb)” (MUS2). Prompted by the teacher asking in English, “Kangua? What is a kangua?” (MUE2), the entire class eagerly translated it in chorus to “comb.” This exchange demonstrates a teaching and learning process where educators address how students integrate multiple languages into pedagogical exchanges while correcting students’ by guiding their language use. When learning the language of instruction using this kind of instructional dialogue, students often learn objects and nouns first and continue speaking in Marathi. Over time, educators may begin to scold them for using Marathi and they are guided to increase their use of English through repetition, correction, and translation.

Due to the individualized nature of how multilingual policies are implemented, the degree to which an educator integrates a student’s home language into the classroom is shaped by their own training, attitudes, and perceptions or dispositions towards their students and their language(s). Ultimately, it is dependent upon each individual educator’s cultural competencies and willingness to allow students to use their mother tongues. As students’ progress through their educations, they learn that at least in school if not elsewhere in public, the medium of instruction is a language of power. They use other languages, like their mother tongues, less and less throughout their educational careers.

Educator Expectations and EMLs Language Use

In India, where not all languages are treated equally in education, greater value is often attributed to some languages over others. These beliefs about languages which motivate behavior, or language ideologies, are also resources that inform educators’ use, if at all, of mother tongues in their classrooms and pedagogy. Language ideologies are based on and formed upon an intersection of identity categories (Woolard, 2016). For example, the low social status of Banjara students intensifies an urgency for learning Marathi in the rural education context explored in examples here. The principal of another rural school with an entire student population of Banjara students expressed his preference for students to come from educated families (with the implication that he believes Banjara students largely hail from uneducated families), because only then “can they understand what their child has done at school during the day, or whether he has done anything at school at all” (MRE6). This principal further described his opinion of his students’ parents:

MRE6: Most of the time, [Banjara] parents do not pay attention to their children’s schooling. What happens with this community is that most of the time children are taken with their parents for [sugarcane] work and while working at these locations they remain out of their homes and school.

He is not alone in viewing the migratory sugarcane harvesting labor that many Banjara community members engage in within this region of India as a major barrier to their students’ educations. His colleagues at the same school, MRE3 and MRE4, described what they believe parents could do to help prepare their children for school.

MRE3: We urged the parent attendees [in the orientation meeting] to speak in Marathi whenever we had meetings. We urged them to do a little bit of it with their children at home to prepare their children to know more of the Marathi language. They [Banjara] only get to speak Marathi if they come across Marathi speakers outside their community. Among themselves, they obviously speak their own mother tongue. This also causes their children to continue in a similar fashion—speaking and continuing to use their mother tongue even outside of their house. So, we are overall trying our best to make these children speak in Marathi.

One educator at the same school (MRE4) echoed the sentiment that parents disregard the teacher’s advice to use more Marathi to prepare their children for school, stating, “If [parents] were to do preliminary preparations for their children, they would do it in their own mother tongue, which would be of no use to us [educators]” (MRE4). These educators’ attitudes reflect notions that even if Banjara parents are invested in their children’s education, their mother tongue presents an impediment upon their ability to adequately prepare their children for school.

In an example from an urban English medium school, one educator (MUE3) became frustrated with her preschool students in an instance where they failed to follow her directions to follow along with the lesson in their workbooks. She resorted to then speaking in Marathi as she knew it was the students’ mother tongue although it was not her own. She proceeded to also tell the student that she was “stupid” in Marathi because she could not follow along in English, demonstrating the language ideology that if the student failed to comprehend English, she only could comprehend a language inferior to English in the classroom, making her less intellectually capable than her peers who could follow the lesson in English.

When such language ideologies surface, they color educators’ perceptions of their students’ identities and backgrounds. They also disregard the following suggestions in the NEP education policy:

Wherever possible, the medium of instruction until at least Grade 5, but preferably till Grade 8 and beyond, will be the home language/mother tongue/local language/regional language. Thereafter, the home/local language shall continue to be taught as a language wherever possible (Section 4.1.1).

Therefore, it is not only the educators’ competencies and abilities to comprehend their students’ mother tongues and language backgrounds which inhibit or facilitate a multilingual pedagogical approach, but also the attitudes they hold about those languages and their speakers, and the value of their languages in education.

Potential Reasons for Alignment or Misalignment Between Policies and Practices in Case Study 2

Several structural factors within the Indian education system contribute to the misalignment between language policies and actual pedagogical practices. Policies intended to support cultivating multilingualism broadly are limited in their ability to account for the many diverse and vastly different educational and linguistic contexts across the nation. Furthermore, significant social disparities exist between communities sometimes defined by their language throughout India. A gap in educational linguistic capital is especially apparent between English and other Indian languages.

Many students enter school with diverse linguistic backgrounds that complicate their educational experiences. Some students speak a regional language as their mother tongue, while others speak minoritized, stigmatized, or oral languages. Additionally, some students have migrated to new areas where their mother tongue, easily accessible in their home region, may no longer be supported or accessible through curriculum or pedagogy in their current locations. There are critiques that the NEP and NCF policies collapse mother tongues, home languages, and first languages into the same category without clarifying nuances between these three terms (Groff, 2017; Sridhar, 1996). The ambiguous use of “mother tongue/home language/first language” in recent policy reflects significant complexities in India’s diverse educational settings. This challenge is further complicated when (1) a medium of instruction is not English, but rather a mother tongue spoken by a majority of students, but not all, (2) classrooms or schools are composed of students from various linguistic backgrounds, which are either not considered to be equally valuable or leveraged equitably in instructional approaches, and (3) educators cannot be reasonably expected to know all of their students’ languages.

Educators creatively make ambiguous policies work to assist their students directly when they struggle with comprehension. Or rather, they take the actions they feel are needed in the moment in terms of language use and feel supported in doing so enabled by the broad strokes of policy. Their teaching practices respond to what students’ families express that they want for their children’s education. In many cases, what families and students themselves desire most is to assimilate to the medium of education, considered a language of power, as quickly as possible (Jayadeva, 2018). At times, this effort is at odds with policy suggestions that benefit students’ learning, which are informed by best practices in childhood cognitive development. In other words, families understandably want their children to learn languages of power for greater social and economic opportunities, and they believe that maximizing the use of a language of power, usually the medium of instruction, is a way to achieve this. This particular form of immersion (or submersion) pedagogy and translanguaging is intended to minimize the use of mother tongues in education, if students’ mother tongues are different from the medium of instruction—but not to erase students’ mother tongues entirely (Mahapatra & Anderson, 2023). In an overwhelmingly multilingual nation, languages are often marked off for certain domains of use and purposes in daily life, such as a mother tongue for conversing at home with relatives, a language of power in business dealings or education, and a broader lingua franca with friends and in casual conversation in public. This way, we see how language in education both produces and reproduces distinct domains of language use in a multilingual society.

Finally, there is a disjuncture between urban and rural education in India. Language ideologies around a perceived value of a language not only circulate about particular mother tongue communities, but also around rural students and their languages and dialects. There is an assumption that rural students lag behind urban ones and must close a gap with students are learning in urban settings (Agrawal, 2014; Diwan, 2015). There is the notion that students in rural areas need additional assistance from their urban peers if they are to continue into jobs and higher education that will often bring require them to move to urban areas, at least temporarily if not for their entire futures (Arjun et al., 2024). Multilingual education policies often have an unspoken connection to English-medium education, from which students from rural areas are frequently excluded. There is a prevailing belief that policymakers and curriculum developers create policies and educational materials from an urban perspective, which then apply mostly to an urban education setting (Batra, 2021; Vasavi, 2020). Pedagogical practices and curriculum materials and their underlying goals misunderstand, overlook, or exclude the experiences and everyday lives of rural students. This suggests that policy applies only to English medium schools and urban areas, which excludes rural students and educators from these discussions and, consequently, perhaps believing that multilingual education policies like the NEP and NCF are not intended for them.

5. Discussion

This paper explores two case studies from distinct cultural and linguistic contexts to understand better how multilingual policies intended to support EMLs are implemented on the ground. Despite the differences in the policy initiatives, which shape education in each context, a significant similarity emerges in the pervasive lack of detailed guidance, broad sweeping descriptions, and the uneven implementation of policies, which frequently fail to adequately center the nuanced and context-specific linguistic needs of students in urban and rural Maharashtra, India, and NYC. Thus, in the absence of strict guidance, and instead the use of broad polices, we found great heterogeneity in how languages were used in classrooms and the reasons for how educators decided upon which languages to use. It is also not lost on us that the focus and structure of education in both contexts, however distant, have a common foundation in British Colonial education and education standards due to a similarly shared colonial history and past (Rampal & Madrid Akpovo, 2025). By gaining a deeper understanding of how education policies and standards are interpreted and implemented, we can identify areas where they may need modification to achieve their intended goals.

5.1. Research Question 1: Policies and Standards Regarding EML Students in NYC and Maharashtra

In both settings, the policies and standards position home languages as educational assets and call for educator capacity-building. A difference in the overarching objective for EMLs’ multilingualism emerged. To answer RQ1, we note that in India, there is an explicit goal of multilingualism, with the intention for EMLs to be able to communicate in a shared language while also maintaining their mother tongue. In contrast, in NYC, the overarching aim of educational policies and standards was to honor and use EMLs’ home language to support their learning, but not to build towards multilingualism among EMLs necessarily. In this way, India’s policies are more ambitious than New York’s policies in terms of the aims towards multilingualism. Yet, our findings illustrate that although educational policies and standards might articulate a particular vision that values multilingualism at the macro level, that vision is not deeply embedded into the viewpoint of those expected to be policy implementers at the micro level (Bhattacharya, 2017). In fact, although the educational policies and standards in both contexts were similarly broad, they differ in the degree of prescriptiveness and the mechanisms available to translate policy into practice. NYC’s standards and programmatic supports offer more actionable guidance for educators, while India’s national policies establish a strong ideological commitment to mother-tongue instruction but leave implementation largely decentralized and under-specified. These contrasts help explain variation in how teachers navigate languages of power and negotiate assimilation pressures in classroom practice.

5.2. Research Question 2 and 3: Implementation of EML Policies and Factors Influencing the Alignment or Misalignment of Policies and Practices

In fact, as posited by Bronfenbrenner and Morris (2007) educational policies and standards in both contexts exhibited mirrored expectations of the culture and values of education for upward social and economic mobility (Jayadeva, 2018). Despite the differences in overall objectives of the educational policies and standards in India and NYC, in answering RQ2, we found that how educators implemented multilingual education often reflected their attitudes and beliefs towards the various languages. Our findings speak to the growing field exploring the role that educators’ language ideologies play in the practices they use in their classrooms (Flores & Rosa, 2015; Pak & Hiramoto, 2023). In both contexts, educators expressed the belief that fluency in the societal dominant language was the main goal. For example, in rural India, educators believed that EMLs should use the dominant languages and discourage use of minoritized languages in classrooms (Groff, 2017). Consequently, educators in rural, Marathi medium schools described how they predominantly used Marathi in the classroom for instruction, rather than Banjari, to hasten and facilitate EMLs’ understanding of Marathi. Similarly, in NYC, sometimes educators described the expectation that EMLs need to speak English in later grades as a justification for focusing on building their English language skills in their ECE classrooms. For many educators, despite what is articulated in educational polices and standards, they considered the societal language expectations for EMLs and adjusted their instruction accordingly. That is, educators are often engaging in a sensemaking process to understand and implement policies situated within their own social and organizational contexts (Spillane et al., 2019).

Influences at the meso level, such as parents’ language ideologies also play a role in how educational policies and standards are implemented in ECE classrooms (Jang, 2020). In NYC, educators described how immigrant-origin parents of EMLs in their classrooms were fearful that their children would not learn English, and their anxiety over their children’s English language skills was linked to their hopes of upward mobility for their children. This desire among parents for educators to focus on developing EMLs’ English language skills resulted in many educators prioritizing English in their classrooms, as seen in other studies (Rojas et al., 2023). In contrast, in India, educators expressed frustration that parents were not using more Marathi with their children, instead continuing to use their mother tongue at home, as they believed it was the educators’ and schools’ responsibility to teach their children the dominant societal language. Educators viewed this practice on behalf of Indian parents as a reflection of their lack of investment in their children’s education. As such, it seems the fear among educators and parents that EMLs may not learn the societal language overrides their understanding of the numerous benefits of multilingualism, suggesting the potency of racism, caste stigma, and anti-immigrant beliefs even when education policies aim to counter them (Chávez-Moreno, 2022).

As articulated among theories of asset-based, culturally informed pedagogies, empirical research, and policy recommendations, building an educator workforce with a shared cultural and linguistic background as the students they teach is necessary (Esteban-Guitart & Moll, 2014; Moll et al., 1992). While a culturally and linguistically diverse workforce is a promising and effective approach, it may not be sufficient to achieve the desired goals of multilingualism in India and the US. Our findings related to RQ3 illustrated how educators’ backgrounds and prior experience, particularly as EMLs themselves, influenced how they interpreted policies and standards and used languages in their classrooms For example, NYC educators described how their own experiences as a young EML student shaped how they support EMLs. In India, one Banjara educator was especially strict about not introducing his students’ shared mother tongue into his teaching due to his intimate knowledge of the high stakes of education for marginalized communities and the role language plays in educational and societal advancement. Nonetheless, getting multilingual individuals to join the education workforce is a good first step; however, our findings suggest that without sufficient training, their multilingual pedagogies in the classroom may reflect their language ideologies and outdated teaching methodologies.

A few differences emerged between the two case studies which also answer RQ3. In India, formal and informal learning took place between educators, enabling them to support one another in English medium classrooms where English, the language of instruction, was not the mother tongue of either educators or students. As outlined in culturally informed pedagogies, learning in a language different from one’s mother tongue allowed for shared experiences and more open lines of communication and understanding between students and educators, as well as among educators themselves (Esteban-Guitart & Moll, 2014; Moll et al., 1992). This was not the case within New York City. Except for educators who did not speak the home language of students, and, thus, relied upon other educators to help translate, other educators rarely described leaning upon their educator colleagues to learn how to support EMLs in their classrooms best. As such, even within an ECE program, different classrooms had vastly different approaches to their implementation of the language policies, with some using EMLs’ home language frequently and others not as often (Rojas et al., 2020). In rural Indian classrooms, despite policy stating otherwise, we saw that the use of students’ mother tongues, when not the language of instruction, was often actively discouraged for students and parents (Groff, 2017; Mohanty, 2018). Such strong discouragement can stall any efforts educators may take to learn from each other as well.

Additionally, reflecting on RQ2 and RQ3, the educational policies and standards in NYC had an explicit focus on individualization of instruction for EMLs, which was missing from India’s policies. This emphasis on educators’ individualizing instruction, including the way that they use languages, EML’s home languages and English, does make it challenging to provide more explicit guidance within educational policies on how to provide multilingual pedagogy across a classroom. As such, a tension emerges between the decisions educators make to use multiple languages to meet long-term goals like fostering multilingualism, assimilation, and educational advancement or for the immediate need of student comprehension.

5.3. Policy and Practice Implications

A few policy and practice implications can be drawn from these case studies. To ensure policies are both flexible and effective to address the needs of diverse EML populations, policymakers should be informed of the complex contexts where the policies are intended to be applied. Detailed demographic data related to EML populations as well as longitudinal data should be collected to provide policymakers with the information needed to make informed policies. This data can provide a more full understanding of the EML population, facilitating a better connection of policy goals to classroom practices. Moreover, assessing EML students in their home language and language of instruction would provide critical data on the effectiveness of policies for advancing EMLs multilingual development. Monitoring and accountability systems should also include specific indicators that reflect the overarching goal of policies. For instance, indicators ensuring EML populations are receiving formal exposure to their home language, and the language of instruction could be explicitly included in accountability systems. Including indicators specifically related to EML policies into accountability and monitoring systems would help signal to educators the importance of developing EMLs’ skills in their multiple languages. Finally, fostering strong relationships and greater understanding between educators, policymakers, students, and their communities and families through culturally responsive family partnership practices will strengthen and limit gaps in meeting the diverse needs of EMLs in ECE classrooms.

Policies related to the education workforce would also be beneficial. Policymakers could revise workforce credentialing and licensing standards to include requirements related to working with EML populations such as preservice education on multilingual instruction. Moreover, policies that provide professional development requiring educators to examine their language ideologies and to learn multilingual pedagogies could foster classroom practices that meet the goals of educational policies. Because of their role as policy implementers, educators could also benefit from pre-service learning and on-going communities of learning to better understand the relevant policies, the role they may face in navigating oppositional views to the implementation of multilingual polices, and to develop a shared implementation practice grounded in the populations they serve. Developing and requiring the use of curricula that are available in multiple languages and culturally relevant to the student population may be another way to alleviate the challenge many educators may face in trying to deliver a multilingual pedagogy. Finally, providing opportunities for parents to share their beliefs about the education of their children, as well as convenings to build the critical consciousness of parents in terms of the purpose behind multilingual education, could also be useful.

6. Conclusions

Despite characterizing a large proportion of the school-aged population, young EMLs in the US and India face persistent social and educational inequities (Mohanty, 2018; National Academies of Sciences & Medicine, 2017). Educational policies and standards are a primary way to disrupt these inequitable learning environments by requiring the implementation of multilingual and culturally responsive practices, which seek to create antiracist, critical, and affirming educational opportunities for EMLs. However, our case studies illustrate that while the evidence of the value of multilingualism has made its way to educational policymakers, that message still needs to make its way to educators and parents. These findings shed light on how personal language ideologies often shape multilingual pedagogies and, in many cases, the predominantly monolingual practices used in ECE classrooms, even with pro-multilingual policies in place. As such, our findings highlight the challenge for policymakers to prevent policies from being overly rigid or broad while offering clear frameworks for policymakers and educators. Similarly, there is a need for educators to receive ongoing support to implement educational polices and standards as intended. Without such support, even the most ambitious educational policies and standards will fail to achieve their goals.