Bilingual Research Journal

Critical Perspectives on Chinese-English Bilingual Education in the U.S.: Histories, Politics, and Possibilities

This special issue centers critical scholarship on the discrepancies and inequities within the landscape of Chinese-English bilingual education by tracing its historical foundations and contemporary experiences to reimagine future possibilities. Specifically, we invite scholarship that probes the ethnolinguistic category of “Chinese” bilingual education as a heterogeneous, politically charged construct shaped by different immigration histories, ongoing racialization processes, and regional and inter/generational community-making in the midst of ever-changing geopolitical relations. This issue thereby focuses on the experiences of those who constitute the complex diaspora of “Chinese” communities in the US rather than the experiences of non-diasporic members who partake in language immersion education.

The history of Chinese bilingual education in the US encompasses the landmark Lau v. Nichols case of 1974, which, alongside the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Bilingual Education Act of 1968, established legal foundations for bilingual education and language access programs in U.S. public schools. Cantonese speaking educators, lawyers, and grassroots organizers – many whose grandparents and parents immigrated to the US as laborers – advanced bilingual education not only for Cantonese-speaking plaintiffs but also for other language-minoritized groups, as aptly discussed in BRJ’s 2024 special issue (Jimenez-Castellanos et al., 2024; Morita-Mullaney, 2024). Contemporary Chinese bilingual education also encompasses the boom in Mandarin learning, made particularly desirable through immersion programs. The rise of Mandarin immersion programs, even in spaces serving Cantonese-speaking communities, reflects tripartite developments: the first, shifts in immigration policies in 1965 and in the 1990s that opened doors for highly educated, “skilled” immigrants who spoke primarily Mandarin, complicating the socioeconomic fabric of Chinese heritage societies in the US. Second, the standardization of Mandarin as part of the construction of the Chinese nation-state and its rising geopolitical status on the global stage. Third, the commodification of languages as skills amidst market-oriented reforms like school choice policies in US education that position bilingual language learning as prevalent ways to obtain global capital and attract parents. In process, there has been renewed public interest in select few languages like Mandarin as more marketable, “boutique” programs for heritage language learners and non-heritage learners alike (Flores & García, 2017). Yet, while there is growing scholarship on and critiques of the gentrification of bilingual education writ large (Valdés, 1997; Valdez et al., 2016; Delavan et al., 2022), there is much to be explored on the complex dynamics within Chinese bilingual education across varied contexts and variegated experiences of its “heritage” language learning communities—those with ethnic connections and linguistic variance.

To wit, a wide range of linguistic repertoires, dialects, and sociopolitical identities have often collapsed under a monolithic label of “Chinese” in public discourse and educational policy to perpetuate linguistic hierarchies that privilege Mandarin while diminishing support for other Chinese languages. This issue thus calls for unflattening the category of “Chinese” to explore how histories of different generations of Chinese immigrants amidst ever evolving political, economic, and social contexts have shaped discrepancies and inequities between the bilingual education of Cantonese and Mandarin—the two largest Chinese heritage communities in the U.S.— as well as other dialects of Chinese in formal private or public schools or informal, community-based after-school or weekend programs (see works by Song, 2024; Lu & Tian, 2025). Complex and uneven landscapes of Chinese-English bilingual education create discrepancies at multiple junctures including but not limited to: statewide language policies and initiatives, access to and representation of language programs (Ee & Sung, 2024), public and private funding (Morita-Mullaney, 2024), teacher networks, recruitment, and retention, generational divides between home and school languages under the banner of “heritage” language, as well as everyday experiences of principals, teachers, parents, and students in and out of classrooms (Tian & Wong, 2024).

Given growing tension between societal interest in bilingual learning and federal efforts to curtail support for language-minoritized students, we argue that there is a pressing need to bring together scholarship examining the complex realities of Chinese-English bilingual programs. Foregrounding the heterogeneity of “Chinese” across languages, identities, and sociopolitical contexts, this call aligns closely with BRJ’s mission to publish research that advances bilingual education theory, research, and practice while foregrounding equity, justice, and linguistic diversity. Thus, we invite scholarship that center decolonizing perspectives to critically examine Chinese-English bilingual education across historical, political, sociocultural, and pedagogical dimensions. Possible topics include, but are not limited to:

• Oral and archival histories of Chinese-English bilingual education
• Race, space, and language ideologies in program design and implementation
• Experiences of students, teachers, families, and community stakeholders within the “Chinese” diaspora
• Political economy and policies shaping Chinese-English bilingual education
• Comparative perspectives
• Liminal or underexplored topics in Chinese-English bilingual education that reveal overlooked areas of research

We particularly encourage interdisciplinary approaches—drawing from education, sociolinguistics, anthropology, ethnic studies, and policy analysis—that illuminate complexities and possibilities of Chinese-English bilingual education in the United States. Further, we welcome unique perspectives that may not have been showcased in previous academic journals, including collaborations with community organizers, public historians, K-12 educators, and more.