Invisible Educational Stakeholders In
Language Planning And Policy*
Los invisibles
agentes educativos en la planificación y política lingüística
Andrea
Milena Gallo-Lozano[1]
Abstract
This article aims to present a state-of-the-art
overview of language planning and policy, with particular emphasis on the
implementation of language policies related to English language learning on a
global scale, as well as the stakeholders involved in managing these policies.
This research is grounded in personal experiences as an English teacher in
public schools and various universities in Bogotá, where I have observed the
implementation processes firsthand. Through these experiences, I have
recognized numerous changes, contradictions, successes, and shortcomings in
language policy.
A review of over 60 research articles on
language policies worldwide reveals two significant trends. The first trend
concerns the trajectories of language policies implemented across different
countries over time. The second trend highlights the predominant portrayal of
teachers as the primary educational stakeholders. However, this focus often
leads to the marginalization of other key actors. As a result, there is a
noticeable lack of information about the involvement of other agents in the
implementation process and the dynamics among them, which are essential for
achieving the goals set by language policies.
Keywords: language planning, language policies, educational
stakeholders.
Introduction
Language planning and policy is a complex and
ever-evolving field, continuously shaped and redefined over time. Given that
language policies have been present in every country since the inception of
civilization, it becomes crucial to update the existing knowledge in this area
and to gain a deeper understanding of the current landscape. Additionally, it
is important to identify the underexplored areas within language policies and
propose new avenues for research, particularly those related to the field of
education. This approach is vital to improving the outcomes of initiatives such
as the National Bilingualism Program. For this reason, the first section of
this article is dedicated to exploring the theoretical underpinnings of
language policy. Understanding the evolution of its terminology, objectives,
processes, levels, and the stakeholders involved is essential for
contextualizing the field.
To establish a state-of-the-art overview, a
comprehensive bibliographic review was conducted, examining over 60 research
articles. Two clear trends emerged from this analysis. The first trend shows
that a significant portion of the literature focuses on tracing the
trajectories of language policies implemented in various countries. The second
trend highlights that teachers are frequently portrayed as the sole educational
stakeholders responsible for policy implementation. In the second section of
this review, I present a wide-ranging analysis of laws and regulations
concerning language policies from different countries. This analysis provides
insight into how governmental objectives and historical contexts shape the
formulation of these regulations. Additionally, it examines the introduction of
the English language into different national contexts and identifies the
educational stakeholders mentioned in the literature.
In the third section, I delve into the
evolution of language policies in Colombia, given that this context is most
closely aligned with my own experiences. As in the previous section, particular
attention is given to the role of educational stakeholders involved in the
implementation processes.
This comprehensive analysis enables readers to
compare theoretical frameworks of language policy with their practical
application across different countries, thus fostering a better understanding
of language policy management. It also sheds light on the position and
recognition of various educational stakeholders within these processes.
Language policy and planning overview
When exploring language policies, researchers often encounter a range
of new, evolving, and sometimes confusing terms. For instance, language
planning, language policy, language policy and planning, education policies in
language, and bilingual policy all differ in their focus but share certain
similarities. An analysis of language policy processes reveals terms such as
creation, interpretation, implementation, and evaluation, alongside others like
adoption, adaptation, and appropriation. Additionally, stakeholders operate
across various levels—macro, meso, and micro. Given
the complexity of the field, it is crucial to clarify terminology in alignment
with its historical development.
To begin, it is essential to review the evolution of terminology to
better understand the distinctions between these concepts. The terms
"language planning", "language policy", and "language
policy and planning" belong to the field of sociolinguistics, which
studies language in relation to society. These terms have evolved over time,
often being used interchangeably. According to Kaplan and Baldauf
(1997), "language policies" refer to rules and regulations governing
language use within communities, while "language planning"
encompasses the ideas, policies, beliefs, and practices aimed at effecting
planned changes in language use.
However, García (2015) highlights that the initial term used was
"language planning" which was primarily concerned with state-led
efforts to promote systematic linguistic change. With the advent of poststructuralist
and critical studies, the term shifted to "language policy" which
recognizes the multiple forces influencing language behaviors, such as
practices, beliefs, and regulations. García further notes that the current
terminology, "language policy and planning" encompasses not only the
formal rules set by authoritative bodies but also the behaviors, beliefs, and
attitudes toward language within society.
Years later, Kucukoglu (2012) expanded on
the complexities of language policy by examining historical examples where
different policies influenced stakeholders in varied ways. Building on Corson's
(1999) perspective, Kucukoglu describes language
policy as a set of nationally agreed-upon principles that guide decision-makers
in making informed and balanced language-related decisions. Similarly, Djite (1994) emphasizes the role of governments in shaping
the relationship between language and society, particularly through educational
policies. Liddicoat (2004) further explores how language planning in education
affects the interaction between language and social life, thus underscoring the
significance of education and bilingual policies.
Tollefson provides a critical perspective, suggesting that language
policy serves as a mechanism for positioning language within social structures,
determining access to political power and economic resources, and allowing
dominant groups to establish hegemony in language use (García, 2015). This
perspective highlights the role of power in language policy, influencing the
social, political, and economic development of communities.
More recently, Shohamy (2009) and Spolsky (2004) define language policy as a combination of
planned and unplanned, official and unofficial, overt
and covert interventions that influence language beliefs and usage across
different sociocultural contexts. This broader definition reflects the complex
and dynamic nature of the field, which continues to evolve.
These varying definitions allow us to identify the shifting objectives
of language policy over time, ranging from modernizing a language, adapting to
technological advancements, standardizing linguistic forms, fostering national
unity, or even creating a written form for previously unwritten languages
(Kaplan, 1997). Ricento and Hornberger (1996)
describe language policy as a multifaceted and layered endeavor without a
unified theory, distinguishing between "policy planning"
(form-oriented) and "cultivation planning" (function-oriented). They
categorize the field into three types: status planning, acquisition planning,
and corpus planning, each with specific objectives.
Furthermore, this field is categorized into three types: status
planning, acquisition planning, and corpus planning, each addressing different
objectives based on these approaches. Corpus planning focuses on changes in the
form and structure of a language through processes like standardization. Status
planning, on the other hand, examines shifts in the role and prestige of a
language within a society. Over time, language planning expanded to include the
study of teaching foreign or second languages and the use of a language as a
medium of instruction, with the aim of promoting language maintenance or
language reacquisition. This approach is known as acquisition planning (García,
2015).
These types of planning encompass four primary processes: creation,
interpretation, implementation, and evaluation. Recent studies have identified
three additional processes—adoption, adaptation, and appropriation—that may
occur before the evaluation phase, depending on community contexts.
Numerous agents operate at various levels within the processes of
language policy and planning. Effective collaboration among these stakeholders
is essential to improve policy development and implementation outcomes. As
previously mentioned, language policies are structured across different levels:
macro, meso, and micro. Unfortunately, over the past
twenty years, research has predominantly focused on the macro level, while
exploration at the micro level remains limited. According to Kaplan (1997),
this gap in the literature may be due to a perceived lack of prestige
associated with micro-level analysis (p. 52).
Macro-level policies are typically managed by government agencies such
as Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Commerce, and education authorities at the
national, state, and local levels. Meso-level stakeholders include language
agencies, civil service courts, and secretaries of education. Meanwhile, the
micro level encompasses organizations like schools and educational
institutions. These levels are interconnected throughout the stages of policy
creation, interpretation, implementation, and appropriation, highlighting the
need for a comprehensive approach to language policy planning.
The macro level is responsible for the formulation of language
policies, while the meso level manages their
interpretation, where policies may be altered as they move through various
administrative layers—either through revisions in newly drafted documents or
reinterpretations of existing ones (Ricento &
Hornberger, 1996, p. 417). The micro level, in turn, focuses on the
implementation and appropriation processes. Notably, micro-level agents include
teachers, students, and parents. In practice, these stakeholders often find themselves
in the position of implementing decisions made by "experts" in
government, education boards, or central administration, with their
perspectives and contributions frequently considered only as an afterthought (Ricento & Hornberger, 1996, p. 417).
However, language policy planning also involves other educational
stakeholders who play a complementary role in supporting the implementation and
appropriation processes. As Ricento and Hornberger
(1996) explain, English Language Teaching (ELT) professionals—whether they are
teachers, program developers, materials and textbook writers, administrators,
consultants, or academics—are actively engaged in this endeavor (p. 408). These
stakeholders promote the adoption of language policies by providing resources and
materials that encourage teachers, students, and parents to implement and
appropriate the proposed policies.
Kaplan (1997) provides a clear perspective on this issue, emphasizing
that language policy formulation is a collective responsibility. He argues that,
without the active engagement of both the targeted communities and the broader
public, it is unlikely that a stable language ecology will develop, making
sustained language change a challenging goal to achieve.
This perspective aligns with Ricento and
Hornberger’s (1996) observations that institutions beyond religious
organizations—such as publishers, broadcast media, schools, and
universities—play significant roles as policymakers, evaluators, opinion
leaders, gatekeepers, and, at times, perpetuators of the existing social order
(p. 416). These institutions not only drive the implementation of
government-formulated language policies but also, in some cases, contribute to
the creation of new policies as they address emerging challenges and seek solutions
to problematic situations.
By examining the relationship between stakeholders and the language
policy process, we can assess whether specific management strategies are in
place. Kaplan (1997) suggests that language policy adopts an ecosystem
approach, which serves as a proactive strategy for managing these processes. He
references the model proposed by Trim (1987), which distinguishes between
left-branching (LB) and right-branching (RB) approaches. According to Kaplan,
"LB implies a view of society as a vast, intricate mechanism into which
individuals are inserted" (Kaplan, 1997, p. 304). In this model, language
planners determine what actions should be taken, who should execute them, and
how they should be carried out.
In contrast, "RB seems to view human resource development as
individuals developing their own language resources for their own
purposes" (Kaplan, 1997, p. 304). The LB approach uses society as its
unit, organizing a centralized framework for language policy planning, whereas
the RB approach focuses on the individual, allowing for numerous personal
decisions that lead to decentralized, organic language policy development.
According to Kaplan, LB represents a top-down approach, while RB reflects a
bottom-up strategy.
However, language policy management does not flow exclusively in
top-down or bottom-up directions; rather, it also moves laterally among various
stakeholders. In this context, power relationships can manifest in multiple
ways, resembling a dynamic pyramid where influence flows both from the top down
and vice versa. Often, these relationships are depicted as static branches on
either side, yet the reality is far more complex. The implementation of
language policies involves intricate dynamics, where forces push and resist in
various directions with varying intensities. Moreover, power relations are not
always linear, as "speakers have agency, and language policy interacts
with global, national, and local ideologies" (García, 2015, p. 355).
Thus, the dynamics between stakeholders can be likened to a flexible
branch that moves in various directions with differing intensities, reflecting
the diverse contexts, perspectives, interests, and worldviews of those
involved. The process of language policy implementation can be metaphorically
represented by a climbing plant that is far from static. Like a plant driven by
tropism, it grows in multiple directions, adapting to external stimuli. It
remains flexible, exerting and resisting forces, with numerous agents
contributing throughout this organic and ever-evolving process.
As demonstrated, language planning involves complex organizational
levels, processes, and agents, all of which interact dynamically and play a
crucial role in shaping society. However, in this literature review, the focus
will be specifically on the micro and meso levels,
concentrating on educational stakeholders directly connected to schools. This
includes parents, students, teachers, coordinators, principals, administrative
officers, secretaries of education, and the Ministry of Education.
After clarifying the processes, levels, and
stakeholders involved in language policy, this section provides an overview of
how various countries worldwide have approached the creation, implementation,
and appropriation of language policies, considering their social, religious,
and economic contexts. This analysis focuses particularly on micro-level
agents, examining how the English language became essential and how it was
introduced in each nation.
Language policies have been a global phenomenon
since the beginning of civilization, with each country navigating these
processes differently throughout history. The objectives of language policies
have shifted in response to changing government priorities, whether they be
religious, economic, social, political, or academic. For instance, Kucukoglu (2012) highlights the case of Turkey, noting that
"traditional language policy during the Ottoman Empire was shaped by
Islamic culture. The primary goal of the education policy at that time was to
teach the language and educate religious scholars who could better understand
their faith. Although the official government language was Turkish, foreign
languages such as Arabic and Persian were also taught" (p. 1091).
Subsequently, the Turkish government shifted
its focus from religious objectives to economic and social goals. The
introduction of the English language during the Tanzimat
Period was primarily aimed at enhancing economic relations and promoting the
Westernization of the education system. According to Kucukoglu
(2012), English was introduced as a tool for communication and interaction. It
became a compulsory subject starting in the 4th grade; however, the
instructional approach was predominantly centered on translation and grammar
methods.
However, as noted by Kinsiz,
Ozenici, and Demir (2013), in Turkey, there is a lack
of oversight regarding decisions made at the micro-level, as well as
insufficient support for teachers. Additionally, material resources are
lacking, and there are significant issues within the curriculum. These
challenges hinder the effectiveness of English language teaching and learning.
The literature on Turkey reveals that there is limited information about the
involvement of various educational stakeholders, with teachers often being
portrayed as the sole agents responsible for implementing language policy.
Historically, the focus of language policy and
planning has varied significantly. It has been driven by religious motives, as
in the case of Turkey, or political objectives, as seen in several European
countries. In these European contexts, the political aim was often to unify the
population by imposing a single language, as in France, England, and Spain. For
instance, as Moore (2015) notes, prior to the French Revolution, the country
was fragmented into numerous provinces, each with its own dialects and
traditions. However, in 1794, the French government introduced a language
policy based on the belief that "ignorance of the national language—or
even just 'imperfect knowledge' of it—was a barrier to the liberty and
happiness of citizens, and an impediment to the glory of the Republic" (p.
21). Consequently, all citizens were required to speak only French, as they
were considered to have "the fortune to be French" (National
Convention 1794, as cited in Moore, 2015, p. 21). Other languages and dialects
were systematically suppressed through discrimination and mistreatment. The
decree from the National Convention did not view linguistic diversity as an
asset, but rather as a source of division and potential threat to national
unity.
This language policy led to the discrimination
of regional languages, as reflected in statements like: "Federalism and
superstition speak Breton; emigration and hatred for the Republic speak German;
the counter-revolution speaks Italian, and fanaticism speaks Basque. Let us
break these instruments of damage and error!" (Flaherty, 1987, p. 319, as
cited in Moore, 2015, p. 22). Meanwhile, Pouly (2012)
notes that English was introduced in France primarily by English nurses and
private tutors who served the bourgeoisie and aristocracy, making it accessible
only to select social groups. According to Pouly,
English was initially acquired through natural teaching methods within these
elite circles. However, after 1830, English began to be taught in public
educational institutions, driven by the goal of facilitating international
commerce and business.
A similar situation occurred in Spain, where
languages such as Euskara, Catalan, Gallego, and Castellano coexisted. During
Franco’s regime, however, Castellano was the only officially recognized
language, enforced to unify the nation. Minority languages were actively
persecuted and stigmatized. As for the English language, it was initially
introduced in Spain through private secondary schools. According to Fernández
(2011), "In Madrid, students began to study English in institutions such
as the Real Seminario de Nobles in 1804, the
Colegio de San Mateo (1821-1823), and the Ateneo, founded in
1820" (translated by the author). Fernández (2011) further notes that
interest in learning English grew significantly during the 19th century, as
Spain’s commercial relations with England and the United States expanded. Thus,
the primary motivation for learning English shifted from political interests to
economic objectives, particularly in the context of international business.
After examining the cases of France and Spain,
I turned my attention to the United Kingdom, especially given that English has
become the dominant language taught worldwide. As its name suggests, the United
Kingdom is a union of different regions: Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and England.
However, the formation of this union was neither peaceful nor voluntary; it was
driven by political decisions from England aimed at consolidating power. One of
these political strategies involved the imposition of language policies that
forced the population to adopt English while abandoning their native languages,
such as Scottish Gaelic, Irish, Welsh, and other regional tongues. Initially,
these policies were politically motivated, aimed at strengthening the kingdom’s
unity. Over time, however, the focus of language policies shifted towards
economic objectives.
According to Ceallaigh
(2020), Ireland faced an economic depression that forced many people to seek
work abroad, compelling them to prioritize English over their native language
for economic survival. Additionally, children became increasingly exposed to
the internet and global communication channels dominated by English content,
often spending more time in these environments without the influence of their
native language. Although the government aimed to promote the use of the Irish
language, funding for language education was limited, resulting in insufficient
resources to hire qualified language teachers. This situation highlights how
economic priorities frequently overshadow social and cultural objectives. This
pattern is not unique to Ireland; similar inconsistencies between policy
rhetoric and practical implementation are evident in South America, where a
significant gap exists between the written policies and their execution.
In most South American countries, as in Europe,
language policies ostensibly aim to protect linguistic diversity while
promoting the acquisition of a global business language, such as English.
However, in practice, the necessary conditions to effectively safeguard native
languages or support foreign language learning are often lacking. For instance,
as Terborg and García (2006, as cited in Reyes et al., 2011) observe regarding
English education in Mexico, "the situation is similar to that of
indigenous languages; language policy is more symbolic than substantive"
(p. 186, translated by the author). This indicates a disconnect between policy
intentions and their practical implementation, where language policies often
serve more as formal declarations than as actionable frameworks.
Turning to European countries where language
policies have been driven by political objectives, one of the most complex
cases is that of former Yugoslavia. According to Babic (2010), the role of
language in the process of nationalism can be either politically integrative or
disintegrative. For instance, the use of Spanish in Spain, French in France,
and English in the United Kingdom illustrates how a language can serve to unify
a nation. However, in Yugoslavia, the opposite was true. Babic (2010) notes
that "in the case of Yugoslavia, language has played a very important, if
not a major, role in national self-identification. The linguistically unified
Serbo-Croatian/Croato-Serbian language was used by speakers who identified
themselves, in terms of ethnonationalism, as Serbs, Croats, Muslims, and
Montenegrins" (p. 2). This linguistic unity, instead of fostering
integration, reinforced divisions along ethnic and national lines.
Babic (2010) explains that, following the First
World War, the government's aim was to establish a multinational state to
preserve and foster the national (ethnic, cultural, and linguistic) identities
of its diverse population, wherein Croats, Serbs, and Slovenes were seen as
different tribes within a single nation. However, after the Second World War,
the Novi Sad Agreement of 1954 sought to unify the Serbo-Croatian language by
promoting only two regional variants—Eastern and Western. This initiative was
ultimately dismantled, and Yugoslavia fragmented into five new countries, each
of which had to reconstruct its own language policies (Franklin, 1979), despite
sharing a common cultural background that was now divided by language. Unlike
in other countries where language policies were driven by social or religious
goals, the objective in Yugoslavia was strictly political. Meanwhile, English
was introduced as a foreign language for business purposes and made compulsory
in all schools.
The status of English as the international
language of business spurred a global race among countries to develop language
policies centered on English, aiming for international recognition
and improved economic standing. This shift activated macro-level structures,
supported by international institutions such as the Inter-American Development
Bank (IDB), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the Organization of Ibero-American States (OEI). According to Shohamy (2009), "these linguistic policies are driven
by wishes and aspirations, by political and economic motivations" (p. 47),
similar to what occurred in Yugoslavia with their
native language policies.
In this context, it is essential to recognize
that language policies function as instruments of power, allowing policymakers
to impose their beliefs and ideologies, thereby reinforcing political control
and influence over public perception. As Shohamy
(2009) asserts, "It is clear by now that language policy (LP) is not
neutral, as it represents a significant tool for political power and
manipulation" (p. 21). Language policies are deeply intertwined with
ideology, ecology, and management (Spolsky, 2004, as
cited in Shohamy, 2009). Moreover, there are policy
mechanisms that "serve as mediators between ideology and practice,
effectively creating de facto policies" (Shohamy,
2009, p. 11). These mechanisms include laws, rules, regulations, and language
education policies, which not only shape linguistic landscapes but also
intensify and support the processes of globalization.
Given the situations described above, language
policies gained even greater global significance when UNESCO defined a
"multilingual" individual as someone proficient in their mother
tongue, national language, and a foreign language. UNESCO's recommendations
emphasized the need "to identify the main lines of a language education
system that adapts to the country, facilitates international communication, and
preserves the inalienable linguistic and cultural heritage of each people for
humanity" (UNESCO, Record of the General Conference, 1999, as cited in
Reyes et al., 2011, p. 173, translated by the author). Similarly, the OECD
"estimates that since English is the most widely used language in economic
transactions, it serves as a competitive advantage crucial for launching
businesses" (Reyes et al., 2011, p. 173, translated by the author).
However, while the OECD "recognizes that a lingua franca enhances economic
cooperation and interdependence, it cautions that this should not come at the
expense of cultural and linguistic diversity" (Reyes et al., 2011, p. 174,
translated by the author). Thus, while English may serve as a lingua franca in
many countries, its use should be balanced to avoid solely pursuing economic
objectives at the cost of cultural diversity.
Over time, the creation of the European Union
(EU) emerged as a project that leveraged linguistic diversity as an asset,
encapsulated by its motto, "Unity in Diversity." The focus of EU
language policies gradually shifted from purely political objectives to
economic ones. EU member states officially recognized 24 European languages and
standardized language proficiency using the Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages (CEFR), which categorizes language skills into levels
ranging from A1 to C2. In 2009, the EU Parliament reaffirmed its commitment to
multilingualism by stating that "Europeans should speak their mother
tongue plus two other languages—one for business and one for pleasure" (EurActiv, March 25, 2009, as cited in Moore, 2015, p. 26).
The language designated for business is
predominantly English. This shift can be traced back to the Industrial
Revolution, which elevated the importance of English due to expanding economic
relationships. Following the Second World War, the economic decline of the
United Kingdom and the subsequent rise of the United States as a global
economic superpower further solidified English as the dominant language for
business.
The research articles reviewed on language
policies in Europe provide a comprehensive analysis of their implementation,
which was initially driven by political goals and later shifted toward economic
objectives. However, these studies largely neglect to explore the roles of
stakeholders involved in these processes. Although some articles briefly
reference governmental bodies and teachers, they fall short of detailing their
specific roles and contributions. Furthermore, the involvement of other crucial
agents in language policy implementation remains unexamined.
Interestingly, the Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages (CEFR) has been adopted not only in Europe but also in
regions such as South America, Asia, and Africa, where it serves as a model for
language policy. However, driven by economic interests, governments in these
regions have implemented language policies in ways that reveal striking
similarities across these diverse contexts. Unfortunately, the unique
conditions, cultural backgrounds, and specific needs of each country are often
overlooked in the formulation of these policies, leading to a lack of
contextual relevance in their application.
Policymakers often disregard the realities
faced by students in terms of resources, culture, language, and geographic
diversity. Nunan (2003) highlights that "considerable inequity exists in
terms of access to effective English language instruction. In China, for
instance, there are significant divides between the 'haves' and 'have-nots,' as
well as between urban and rural areas" (p. 605). A similar situation is
observed in Brazil, where "despite theoretical and discursive
transformations in policy, teachers still rely on nothing more than 'board,
saliva, and chalk' to implement these changes" (Pagliarini
& Assis-Peterson, 2008, as cited in Montoya, 2013, translated by the
author). Countries such as Chile, Peru, Venezuela, Mexico, and Colombia face
similar language policies and associated challenges. One major issue is the
reliance on a decontextualized framework that fails to account for the unique
learning processes and cultural contexts of each country, which differ
significantly from those in Europe.
Meanwhile, teachers are classified to work in
various institutions, schools, and universities based on the level of
proficiency they have attained according to the CEFR standards. Simultaneously,
students are required to follow a curriculum aligned with the CEFR, with the
aim of reaching specific proficiency levels through extended hours of English
instruction. However, researchers from the Global North, such as Nunan (2003),
have pointed out that "teacher education and the English language skills
of teachers in public-sector institutions are inadequate" (p. 606). This
critique has led governments in countries like China, Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam,
Taiwan, Hong Kong, and South Korea to argue that many teachers lack the
necessary proficiency in the English language, as well as the pedagogical
expertise needed to effectively teach it.
In response to these challenges, some
governments in Asia, Africa, and South America have adopted a strategy known as
"native-speakerism." Unfortunately, this approach often fosters
social classism and undermines cultural identity. In the Asia-Pacific region,
for instance, some policymakers hold the belief that "investment in
elementary foreign language education may well be worth it, but only if the
teachers are native or native-like speakers and well-trained in the needs of
younger learners" (Marinova-Todd et al., 2000,
as cited in Nunan, 2003, p. 607). This perspective prioritizes native speakers,
perpetuating a bias that disregards the capabilities of local educators and can
have detrimental social implications.
In Latin American countries such as Chile,
Ecuador, Mexico, and Colombia, the practice of bringing native English speakers
to teach reinforces the notion of English language superiority, thereby
perpetuating imperialist influences. This is achieved through teacher training,
imported methodologies, textbooks, materials, and certifications—many of which
ultimately serve commercial interests, particularly benefiting organizations
like the British Council (Le Gal, 2019). For instance, similar rhetoric can be found
across various South American media outlets: in Colombia, "the Colombian
Ministry of Education declared that having native speakers of English as
teachers in public education 'will be vital to achieving President Santos's
target of making Colombia the most educated country in the region by
2015'" (El Tiempo, January 20, 2015, as cited in
González & Llurda, 2016, p. 98). Similarly, in
Mexico, it was stated that "if it is necessary to bring teachers from
other places to substitute them, even from countries with better educational
levels, there should be no doubts" (El Universal, April 17, 2013, as cited
in González & Llurda, 2016, p. 98).
This approach, upon closer examination, reveals
how native-speakerism perpetuates foreign dependency and sustains colonial
mechanisms of control, particularly through the lens of whiteness. It relies on
the rationale that local teachers lack sufficient English proficiency, thereby
justifying the need for foreign educators to achieve better outcomes in the
implementation of language policies.
This literature review does not offer an
exhaustive analysis of language policies in Africa. However, García (2015)
highlights that, during colonial times in Ghana, students who spoke African
languages were forced to wear a shaming sign as punishment. The underlying
political goal of such language policies was to reinforce the power of the
imperialist regime. Over time, this political objective evolved into one driven
by economic and social interests, reflecting the shifting priorities of the
colonial authorities.
Today, English is taught in Ghana as its
official language, despite the existence of approximately 70 indigenous
languages, according to studies by Ramirez and Merino (1990, as cited in Obeng,
2020). As a result, English functions as a lingua franca in the country. The
language policy enforced is English-only, which has led to several challenges.
Most teachers are proficient only in English and one local language, making the
English-only policy more difficult to implement in diverse classroom settings
(Obeng, 2020). Obeng’s study is one of the few that addresses the involvement
of educational stakeholders in the language policy implementation process. He
identifies teachers, students, and parents as key stakeholders, emphasizing the
vital role of teachers as implementers of these policies. Obeng (2020) argues
that it is crucial to involve all stakeholders in the formulation of language
policies to achieve effective outcomes in the nation's educational and
developmental goals.
The English-only language policy, which
originated in the United States, has been applied both domestically and in
parts of Africa. Americans speak English as a result of
colonization, similar to the historical context in Ghana. Today, however, the
U.S. faces challenges related to the languages of its immigrant populations.
For example, states like California, Arizona, and Massachusetts have enacted
laws influenced by the English for the Children Organization, establishing
"English-only" as the default language policy in public schools.
However, the interpretation and implementation of this policy have varied by
state.
In California, the influence of the Civil
Rights Movement led to the continuation of bilingual education programs,
specifically two-way immersion programs. In contrast, Arizona and Massachusetts
chose to adopt anti-bilingual education policies, driven by the belief in the
"popular image of the United States as a nation of immigrants, who have
succeeded economically by learning English and leaving their ethnic roots
behind" (Schmidt, 2000, as cited in De Jong, 2008, p. 352). Consequently,
teachers in these states were required to adhere to language policies as
interpreted by administrators, often regardless of their own beliefs or
preferences.
In this context, teachers are not the sole
educational stakeholders involved in implementing language policies, and the
process extends beyond their direct control. In reality, many
other stakeholders operate behind the scenes, contributing to the implementation
process. Therefore, teachers should not be viewed as the only ones accountable
for the success of language policies. As Ester De Jong (2008) emphasizes:
"In this view, administrators and teachers are not merely executors of
policy but are positioned as active constructors of practices, shaped by their
interpretations of policies within their specific contexts and
experiences" (Cohen & Ball, 1990; Darling-Hammond, 1990; McLaughlin,
1987; Olsen & Kirtman, 2002, p. 353).
In light of this situation, it is important to
recognize that the field of language policy encompasses various processes,
including creation, interpretation, implementation, and appropriation. These
processes involve the active participation of multiple educational
stakeholders. However, most research articles tend to focus almost exclusively
on teachers, often positioning them as the primary agents in these processes.
This narrow focus overlooks the critical roles played by other stakeholders,
such as principals, coordinators, students, and parents, who also significantly
influence language policy outcomes.
Furthermore, teachers are frequently perceived
through an instrumental lens, merely as implementers of policies. This
perspective fails to acknowledge that teachers typically engage with language
policies only toward the end of the process, where their actions are contingent
upon their interpretation of the existing policies. By neglecting the broader
network of stakeholders involved, the literature diminishes the complex,
collaborative nature of language policy implementation.
Following the examination of language policy
trajectories around the world and the involvement of educational stakeholders
in the implementation process, the next step is to expand the literature by
incorporating findings from articles focused on Colombia, where I gained my
professional experience. As is well known, Colombia has not been immune to
global economic pressures and, over the years, has strived to stay at the
forefront of language policy initiatives.
In this section, I provide a historical
overview of language policies in Colombia and their impact on agents of change,
particularly teachers. According to Usma (2009), with
colonization, Castellano was imposed on the population, leading to the
marginalization of indigenous languages and Creole. Initially, the primary
objective of these policies was political, as the Spanish colonizers sought to
communicate their rules and impose their culture and religion. Gómez (2016)
notes that education at that time was exclusively for males, with Latin being
used primarily for religious instruction and recitation.
After Colombia's independence, Gómez (2016)
highlights that egalitarian education was promoted, resulting in the creation
of multiple language policies that were, unfortunately, never fully
implemented. For instance, in 1826, schools were mandated to teach Latin,
Greek, English, French, Spanish, and a regional indigenous language; however,
this initiative never came to fruition. The goals of language policies shifted
from political to social, with a focus on the local context. Latin and Greek
were prioritized due to the government's continued interest in religious
objectives. Usma (2009) explains that the elite sent
their children to Europe, which led to the introduction of English, French, and
German into Colombian education, associating these languages with
intellectualism, while indigenous languages were deemed inferior. After World
War II, the significance of English and French grew, becoming central to
Colombia’s education system until 1993 through "improvised policies
aligned with international political and economic agendas" (Usma, 2009, p. 125).
In 1982, the Ministry of Education, in
collaboration with the British Council and Centro Colombo Americano, introduced
The English Syllabus. However, as Usma (2009) notes,
teachers lacked the oral proficiency necessary to implement a communicative
approach effectively. The complexity of school environments and conflicting
conditions among stakeholders undermined the success of this initiative. The
early 1990s saw the development of the Colombian Framework for English (COFE)
project, aimed at providing guidelines for pre-service teacher programs
emphasizing reflective practice, research, and autonomy in language learning.
However, limited resources, inadequate university structures, and weak
administrative leadership hampered its implementation.
Usma (2009) also points out that the 1991 Colombian
Constitution reorganized the education system, setting specific goals for
foreign language instruction. By 1994, the General Education Law granted
schools autonomy in decision-making but required them to teach at least one
foreign language starting in elementary school. In response, Colombia introduced
Curricular Guidelines for Foreign Languages in 1999, aligning with the General
Law's aims while contradicting the principle of teacher autonomy.
Unfortunately, the education system was unprepared for this change, facing
issues such as difficult working conditions, insufficient resources, a shortage
of qualified teachers, and significant disparities between public and private
schools.
Gómez (2016) observes that, despite years of
English instruction in Colombia, there were no clear objectives or evaluation
criteria until 2005, when Law 1651 was enacted to establish the National
Bilingualism Program (NBP) 2004-2019. Usma (2009) and
Gómez (2016) explain that NBP combines with the formulation of complementary
regulations and different decrees where its objectives of providing indigenous
communities with bilingual education, including flexible language teaching
models for non-formal education called "education to work and human
development" (Law 1064) and improving communicative competence in English
takes place. NBP adopted the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR)-
Decree 3870, the Saber 11 national exam, Saber Pro, and ECAES aligned to CEFR
and productivity needs. Those exams assess students only in some reading
skills, vocabulary, and grammar. In 2006, a booklet titled Basic Standards of
Competences in Foreign Languages English was distributed in public and private
schools.
A second plan was introduced in 2010 under a
new government (Gómez, 2016). This initiative, known as the Program for
Strengthening the Development of Competences in Foreign Languages (2010-2014),
emphasized enhancing teacher training, particularly in methodologies, cascade
training models, and evaluation processes. The program also developed
pedagogical materials tailored to specific student needs, created by Colombian
specialists who provided methodological guidelines for educators. Follow-up and
evaluation were conducted through various assessments specifically designed for
teachers. As a result, "universities and school stakeholders were
inundated with standardized models and tests" (Usma,
2009, p. 129).
Gómez (2016) reports that the third National
Plan of English, titled Colombia Very Well! 2015-2025, continued
efforts to enhance teacher training by increasing English instruction to at
least three additional hours in secondary education and half an hour in primary
education. This plan also aimed to equip schools with technology and align
national exams, such as Saber 5th and 9th, with the Common European Framework
of Reference (CEFR). Subsequently, the fourth initiative, Bilingual
Colombia 2014-2018, reintroduced the concept of "bilingualism"
with a focus on improving teachers' proficiency. This plan required teachers to
reach at least a B1 level, with only those holding a B2 level or higher being
eligible for public school positions. Additionally, native English speakers
were brought in to teach grades 9 through 11. Universities were required to
employ native English-speaking instructors, offer internships abroad, and
ensure that students graduated with a B2 level to achieve accreditation.
Furthermore, Bilingual Colombia published two key booklets: Pedagogical
Principles and Guidelines: Suggested English Curriculum, 6th to 11th Grades
and Basic Learning Rights: English 6th to 11th Grades, both centered
on the communicative approach.
For decades, Colombia has prioritized the
English language in its educational policies, often attempting to implement
these policies without adequately considering teachers' perspectives. Although
teachers are directly responsible for the implementation process, they are
frequently excluded from the decision-making stages. Their local knowledge is
often dismissed as outdated, obsolete, or unreliable, leading to its neglect or
outright disregard (Méndez et al., 2019; Gómez, 2016). Regarding the National
Bilingualism Program (NBP), Gómez (2016) asserts that "few contributions
from Colombian teachers, professors, and educational researchers have been
taken into account when planning and evaluating the bilingualism plans"
(Bonilla et al., 2016; Correa & Usma, 2013, p.
151). Teachers are thus relegated to the role of technicians or clerks, merely
following predetermined rules and standards. This marginalization devalues
their expertise, rendering them invisible in the policy-making process
(Guerrero, 2010). In a similar vein, Méndez (2019) observes that "English
teachers' reactions to this treatment led them to realize that the NBP rules
positioned them as mere technicians, whose mission was to uncritically comply
with the program without altering its conditions" (p. 70).
Usma (2009), Gómez (2016), and Le Gal (2018) concur
that the concept of "bilingualism" has been widely misunderstood in
Colombia, where it is predominantly equated with English, leading to a narrow
interpretation of its true meaning. This limited perspective results in the
marginalization and silencing of indigenous and Creole languages. Such
misconceptions stem from the adoption of European discourses on bilingualism,
where language policies are imported, adapted, and at times resisted locally (Usma, 2009). The implementation of foreign models and
assessments, such as the CEFR, ICELT (teaching model), TOEFL, TKT, QPT,
MELICET, and MET, has proven largely ineffective in the Colombian context due
to their lack of contextual relevance. These models fail to account for factors
like limited resources, overcrowded classrooms, diverse student populations,
insufficient instructional time, teacher qualifications, and barriers to
international mobility (Gómez, 2016).
Teachers in Colombia face significant
challenges, including "juvenile crime, gang activity, members of guerrilla
and paramilitary groups, drug trafficking, young parents, displaced children,
and students with mental health issues, among others living in similar
conditions" (Guerrero & Quintero, 2016, p. 55, translated by the
author). Usma (2009) argues that by prioritizing
foreign methodologies, bilingualism has been transformed into a profitable
business, where costly materials, training, and certifications contribute to
processes of internalization, instrumentalization, marketization,
standardization, and language stratification, ultimately leading to systematic
exclusion.
Although each subsequent plan has been more
realistic in its approach, "the constant changes have undermined the
continuity, consistency, and coherence of strategies, leading to a slower work
pace and fostering a sense of low achievement and frustration" (Gómez,
2016, p. 148). Despite these challenges, teachers often find ways to adapt and
respond positively to language policies. They act as active and creative
agents, capable of negotiating external pressures and implementing policies in
innovative ways (Cruz, 2018).
In the Colombian rural sector, quality
education and healthcare systems have been neglected, resulting in economic
marginalization, deprivation, lack of support, insufficient resources, and a
lack of recognition. This suggests that policymakers are largely disconnected
from the realities of rural contexts. According to Cruz (2018), "Colombian
educational policies do not seek in any way to benefit teachers and students
but rather to advance economic agendas, improve the country's competitiveness,
and enhance its position in the global market" (p. 14, translated by the
author).
The literature review reveals that while most
research studies describe the evolution of language policies in different
countries, they also identify teachers as the primary agents responsible for
translating governmental rules and regulations into practice. Ricento and Hornberger (1996) note that "the teacher
is an unwitting reproducer of social reality; several researchers have
described how teachers can transform classrooms, thereby promoting
institutional change that can lead to political and, ultimately, broader social
change" (p. 418). This is why they position
teachers at the "center of the onion" model (Hornberger, 2007, p.
148). Interestingly, studies from various countries consistently highlight that
"teachers are not included in the process of planning those language
policies, even though, in the end, they are the ones tasked with implementing
them" (Shohamy, 2009, p. 55).
It is crucial to emphasize that all
stakeholders play essential roles and have distinct functions that contribute
to the effective implementation of language policies. Among the meso-level
agents are administrative officers, principals, and coordinators; however,
there is limited research detailing their specific roles in the implementation
process. These stakeholders are responsible for managing economic, social, and
educational resources, as well as facilitating communication to optimize the
execution of language policies. In the context of Colombia, Bermúdez
(2014) highlights:
"It is vitally important to
recognize that part of the success of the implementation of the National
Bilingualism Program depends not only on the decisions and actions of the
District Education Secretary and the principals but also on the effort,
interest, support, and work of all members of the educational community to
understand, assume, and commit to the reasons and purposes that justify the
implementation of pilot projects for bilingualism or the intensification of
English" (p. 158, translated by the author).
Unfortunately,
this recommendation is challenging to implement, as these agents often lack
confidence in the projects, viewing them as temporary initiatives. At times,
they may also lack the necessary knowledge to effectively implement the
policies or may prioritize their own interests (Bermúdez
et al., 2014). Additionally, there is a notable lack of information on
students, who are the ultimate focus of these policies. In fact, students are
critical agents who respond to the decisions, interpretations, and processes
involved in language policy implementation. The continuity of these policies
shapes students' attitudes toward their native and foreign languages,
influencing their perspectives, thought processes, and ideologies. As Montoya
(2013) highlights, "policies and institutional planning ultimately
influence the attitudes that students express towards languages" (Ndlangamandla, 2010, p. 244, translated by the author).
It is also essential to understand how parents'
involvement influences the implementation of language policies, as their attitudes
and ideologies can significantly impact students' ability to meet the
objectives of the teaching-learning process. Unfortunately, there is limited
information on the role of parents in language policy, and it is possible that
their participation has been relatively minimal or even non-existent. While
their involvement is recognized as important in the educational process, there
remains a lack of clarity on how they can effectively contribute (Flaborea et al., 2013).
After examining language policies in various
countries, including Colombia, several critical questions arise: What is the
role of the agents responsible for implementing these policies? To what extent
do they participate in the process? What impact does their involvement have on
achieving policy objectives? How do communication and collaboration occur among
the different educational stakeholders to ensure the success of language
policies? The literature predominantly focuses on the evolution of language
policies in different contexts, often aligned with government objectives.
However, most studies tend to overlook the role of educational stakeholders
beyond teachers, as if they were the sole agents accountable for policy
implementation. Given these challenges, it is crucial to investigate the
dynamics among multiple stakeholders and to clarify the specific roles and
contributions of each agent in the implementation process of language policies.
This literature review reveals that most
reports on language policies focus predominantly on the laws and regulations
proposed by governments, rather than on the agents responsible for creating,
interpreting, and implementing these policies. Most research highlights how the
objectives of language policies have historically been driven by religious,
social, political, or economic interests, and how these priorities have shifted
over time in different countries. In the current global context, economic
interests primarily dictate language policy and planning, as evidenced by the
widespread adoption of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
(CEFR) in numerous countries.
The reports suggest that the adoption of the
CEFR is often motivated by the desire to improve living conditions, secure
better employment opportunities, and facilitate academic or professional
mobility, despite diverse traditions, cultures, and local realities. A
recurring theme in the literature is that teachers are considered the most
critical agents in the implementation of language policies, as they bring these
policies to life in educational settings. However, teachers' voices remain
largely unheard. In many countries, their expertise and contextual knowledge
are undervalued, with teachers often reduced to the role of mere technicians or
clerks. This exclusion from the policy-making process is paradoxical, as
teachers possess a deep understanding of students' actual contexts and are
therefore best positioned to inform effective policy design.
Additionally, there often appears to be a lack
of communication among the various educational agents involved in language
planning and policy. Similarly, there is limited information regarding the
experiences of other stakeholders, such as students and parents at the
micro-level, as well as coordinators, principals, and administrative officers
at the meso-level. It is crucial to examine the impact of language policies on
these diverse stakeholders across all levels, as teachers are not the only
participants in the planning process. Each stakeholder plays a significant
role, and recognizing their contributions is essential for fostering effective
collaboration among educational agents. By promoting more heterarchical
relationships, we can enhance the outcomes of language policy decisions and
ensure a more cohesive implementation process.
References
Babic, M. (2010). Language and political destruction: The case of
Yugoslavia. In L. T. Barbara, H. Pułaczewska, &
M. Babic (Eds.), Language and political disintegration: The case of Yugoslavia.
Bermúdez,
J., Fandiño, Y. & Ramírez, A. (2014). Percepciones de directivos y docentes
de instituciones educativas distritales sobre la implementación del Programa
Bogotá Bilingüe. Voces y Silencios: Revista Latinoamericana de Educación, Vol.
5, No. 2, 135-171
Bonilla, C. A., & Tejada-Sánchez, I. (2016). Unanswered questions in
Colombia's language education policy. PROFILE Issues in Teachers' Professional
Development, 18 (1), 185-201. http://dx.doi.org/10.15446/profile.v18n1.51996.
Ceallaigh, B.
(2020). Neoliberal globalisation and language minoritisation: Lessons from Ireland 2008-18. Language & communication, pp. 75,
103–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2020.09.004
Corson, D. (1999). Language
policy in schools: A resource for teachers and administrators. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers.
Cruz, F. (2018). The wisdom of teachers' theories: Creative ELT
practices from Colombian rural schools. Profile: Issues in Teachers'
Professional Development, 20 (2), 65-78.
https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v20n2.67142.
De Jong, E. (2008). Contextualising Policy
Appropriation: Teachers' Perspectives, Local Responses, and English-only Ballot
Initiatives. Urban Rev (2008) 40:350–370. DOI: 10.1007/s11256-008-0085-y
DJité, P. G. (1994). From Language Policy to
Language Planning: An Overview of Languages Other Than English in Australian
Education. National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia Ltd.,
Level 2, 6 Campion Street, Deakin, Australian Capital Territory 2600,
Australia.
Fernández,
M. (2011). Métodos para la enseñanza del inglés durante el siglo XIX y primera
mitad del siglo XX. Revista electrónica de estudios filológicos, 21.
Flaborea, M. Gómez, H. Roldán, M. Rodríguez M. (2013).
Concepciones sobre la relación familia-colegio: fortaleciendo el aprendizaje
del inglés. Voces y Silencios: Revista Latinoamericana de Educación, Vol. 4,
No. 2, 30-46.
Franklin,
B. (1979). Language policy and language planning in Yugoslavia
with special reference to Croatian and Macedonian. Lingua 51. La Sorbonne.
Paris.
García, O. (2015). Language Policy. International Encyclopedia of the
social and behavioral sciences, Vol. 13, 353-359.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.52008-X
Gómez, M. (2016). Review and analysis of the Colombian foreign language
bilingualism policies and plans. HOW, 24(1), 139-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.19183/how.24.1.343.
González, A. & Llurda, E. (2016).
Bilingualism and globalization in Latin America: Fertile ground for
native-speakerism. In F. Copland, S. Garton and S. Mann (eds) LETs and NESTs:
Voices, views and vignettes, pp. 103-121. British Council.
Guerrero, C. (2016). Las voces de los maestros frente a las políticas
educativas: ¿la ilusión de la democracia? Universidad Distrital
Francisco José de Caldas.
Guerrero,
C. (2010). The portrayal of EFL teachers in official discourse: the
perpetuation of disdain. PROFILE Vol. 12, No. 2, October, pp. 33-49
Hornberger, N. and Cassels, D. (2007). Slicing the Onion
Ethnographically: Layers and Spaces in Multilingual Language Education Policy
and Practice. TESOL. Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 3, 509–532. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40264383
Kaplan, R. and Baldauf, R. (1997). Language
planning from practice to theory. Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Kinsiz, M., Özenici, S. & Demir, K. (2013). The barrier to Turkey's
foreign language teaching is foreign language policy: Macro-and micro-level
planning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1144-1151
Kucukoglu, B.
(2012). The history of foreign language policies in Turkey. Akdeniz
Language Studies Conference. Procedia,
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1090-1094.
Le Gal, D. (2018). English Language Teaching in Colombia: A Necessary
Paradigm Shift. Matices en Lenguas Extranjeras, (12), 154–187.
https://doi.org/10.15446/male.n12.73267
Liddicoat, A. (2004). Language policy and
methodology. International Journal of English Studies. 4(1), 153-171.
https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes.4.1.48221.
Mendez, P., Garzón, E. & Noriega-Borja, R. (2019). English
Teachers' Subjectivities: Contesting and Resisting Must-be Discourses. English Language Teaching; Vol. 12, No.
3. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n3p65
Montoya,
A. (2013). La incidencia de las políticas y la planeación lingüísticas en las
actitudes lingüísticas de los estudiantes colombianos. Forma y Función, 26, nº1 enero-junio,
237-260.
Moore, R. (2015). From revolutionary monolingualism to reactionary
multilingualism: Top-down discourses of linguistic diversity in Europe,
1794-present. Language & communication, pp. 44,
19–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2014.10.014
Nunan, D. (2003). The Impact of English as a
Global Language on Educational Policies and Practices in the Asia-Pacific
Region. TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 37, No. 4, 589-612
Obeng, P. (2020). Some stakeholders’ position of the language policy of
Ghana. International Journal of Social Sciences and Human Research. Vol. 3, p.
449-458. DOI: 10.47191/ijsshr/v3-i12-12
Pouly, M. P. (2012). The Social
Distinction Achieved through Learning English in 19th-Century France. Histoire de leducation, 133(1),
5-41.
Reyes,
M., Murrieta, G. & Hernández, E. (2011). Políticas lingüísticas nacionales
e internacionales sobre la enseñanza del inglés en escuelas primarias. Revista
Pueblos y fronteras digital, Volumen 6 número 12, 167-197.
Ricento, T. and Hornberger, N.
(1996). Unpeeling the Onion: Language Planning and Policy and
the ELT Professional. TESOL Quarterly, Autumn, 1996, Vol. 30, No. 3, Language
Planning and Policy 401-427. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3587691
Shohamy, E.
(2009). Language Teachers as Partners in Crafting Educational Language
Policies? Íkala, revista de lenguaje y cultura, Vol. 14, N.º 22,
45-67.
Usma,
J. (2009). Education and language policy in Colombia: exploring
processes of inclusion, exclusion, and stratification in times of global
reform. PROFILE
11, 123-141.
[1] PhD
Candidate in the Interinstitutional Doctorate in Education with a focus on
English Language Teaching (ELT). Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas,
Bogotá, Colombia. email: amgallol@udistrital.edu.co ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0003-4222-6630
* Review Article.
Implementation processes: creation, interpretation, implementation, and
appropriation processes.
Fecha
de recibo: 29 de junio de
2024
Fecha
de aceptación: 7 de agosto
de 2024
Fecha
de publicación: 18 de febrero
de 2025