Introduction to Comparative Bilingual Education Research: Sustaining Classroom Practices for Migrant Learners

In an era defined by unprecedented global mobility, educational systems worldwide face the profound imperative of effectively integrating and educating migrant learners. These students, often arriving with diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, present both significant challenges and unique opportunities for schools. Bilingual education, broadly understood as the strategic use of two languages in instruction, has emerged as a critical pedagogical approach to address the multifaceted needs of these learners, fostering not only academic achievement but also crucial linguistic and cultural identity development. This research embarks on an in-depth exploration of bilingual education models specifically designed for migrant learners, with a central aim: to identify and understand classroom-level practices that demonstrate genuine sustainability and effectiveness, persisting far beyond the initial, often resource-intensive and enthusiastic, pilot phases. How can we ensure that bilingual education for migrant learners is not merely a fleeting “pilot enthusiasm” but truly integrates into the classroom fabric, offering lasting benefits? This is the core question driving our inquiry.

The significance of robust bilingual education for migrant learners cannot be overstated. For many, the ability to maintain and develop their home language alongside the language of their new host country is fundamental for cognitive development, emotional well-being, and a sustained connection to their cultural heritage. Seminal research, such as Jim Cummins’ interdependence hypothesis, consistently demonstrates that strong foundational skills in a student’s first language (L1) significantly facilitate the acquisition of a second language (L2) and enhance overall academic performance. Moreover, in an increasingly interconnected world, bilingualism is recognized as a valuable asset, conferring cognitive advantages, fostering improved cross-cultural understanding, and enhancing future employment prospects. However, the successful implementation of bilingual education programs is inherently complex, often plagued by practical “pain points” such as resource scarcity, insufficient teacher training, policy instability, and low community engagement. These factors frequently undermine the longevity of promising initiatives. This study seeks to move beyond theoretical discussions to pinpoint concrete, replicable classroom practices that genuinely support migrant learners’ bilingual development and academic success over the long term, addressing the critical challenge of how to embed these practices sustainably within educational systems.

To address this complex challenge, the research adopts a sophisticated comparative education methodology, examining the experiences of Germany, the United States, and Japan. These three nations, while geographically and culturally distinct, share commonalities in their recent histories of significant migration flows and their ongoing efforts to adapt educational policies and practices to accommodate increasingly diverse student populations. Germany, with its long history of “guest worker” programs and more recent large-scale influx of refugees, has grappled with integrating diverse linguistic groups into its often highly stratified education system. The United States, a traditional melting pot, possesses a rich and often contentious history of bilingual education, marked by varying policy approaches ranging from assimilationist to additive models. Japan, traditionally a more homogenous society, has recently experienced a notable increase in migrant learners, prompting a re-evaluation of its educational provisions for non-native Japanese speakers. By juxtaposing these diverse contexts, this comparative approach allows for a deeper understanding of how different national policies, societal attitudes, and educational structures influence the implementation and, crucially, the sustainability of bilingual education practices at the classroom level. It provides a unique lens through which to identify both universal principles and context-specific adaptations that contribute to effective, enduring bilingual learning environments.

This study is firmly grounded in a historical appreciation of comparative education research methodologies. Historically, the field has evolved from early 19th-century attempts by scholars like Marc-Antoine Jullien de Paris to systematically “borrow” best practices from one national system, to more sophisticated approaches in the mid-20th century by figures such as Isaac Kandel and George Bereday, who emphasized the critical importance of context and rigorous analytical comparison. More contemporary approaches, influenced by critical theory and post-structuralism, acknowledge the complexities of power dynamics, cultural hegemony, and the nuanced local adaptations inherent in educational transfer. This research aligns with these more nuanced perspectives, recognizing that while certain classroom practices may hold universal appeal, their effectiveness and, most importantly, their sustainability are intrinsically linked to the specific national and local contexts in which they are embedded. The goal is not simply to identify “what works” in one country and suggest its transplantation, but rather to understand how and why certain practices persist within particular socio-educational ecosystems, thereby informing more contextually sensitive and robust policy and practice recommendations. This study, therefore, aims to transcend simple “best practice” transplantation, delving into the deeper mechanisms that enable bilingual education practices to endure in specific sociocultural contexts across Germany, the US, and Japan.

The challenges inherent in examining bilingual education across these three distinct national contexts are considerable. These include significant variations in linguistic diversity among migrant populations, differing policy frameworks for language education, diverse teacher training programs, and varying levels of societal acceptance and integration of migrant communities. For instance, the very concept of “bilingualism” may be understood and supported differently in each country, ranging from full additive bilingualism to transitional models aimed at rapid assimilation. Furthermore, data collection across different educational systems presents methodological hurdles, including language barriers, cultural sensitivities, navigating diverse ethical review processes, and ensuring the comparability of curricula and pedagogical terminology. However, these challenges are precisely what make the comparative endeavor so valuable. By confronting these differences, the study can illuminate the underlying principles that contribute to effective bilingual education, irrespective of specific policy nuances, and identify adaptable strategies that transcend national borders.

Conversely, the opportunities presented by this comparative study are immense. By juxtaposing Germany, the US, and Japan, the research can identify innovative practices that might not be apparent when examining a single system in isolation. It allows for the identification of successful strategies for integrating home languages into the curriculum, fostering cultural responsiveness, and supporting teachers in diverse linguistic classrooms. Furthermore, by focusing on “persistence beyond pilot enthusiasm,” the study addresses a critical gap in educational research. Many promising educational initiatives are launched with great fanfare but often fade due to a lack of sustained support, insufficient integration into routine practice, or a failure to secure genuine teacher and student buy-in. This research aims to uncover the factors that enable practices to become embedded in the daily fabric of the classroom, moving from temporary interventions to lasting components of effective bilingual education. Our core breakthrough lies not just in identifying “what works,” but more profoundly, in exploring “what can work sustainably” and “why it can work sustainably.” The findings will be meticulously analyzed to provide actionable, replicable, and “school-friendly” recommendations that directly guide educational practice.

This introductory section sets the stage for a comprehensive investigation into how classroom-level practices in bilingual models for migrant learners can be identified and sustained beyond initial pilot enthusiasm in Germany, the United States, and Japan. It outlines the critical importance of this inquiry, frames it within the established methodologies of comparative education, and highlights the unique complexities and rich insights that can be gleaned from a cross-national examination of these three distinct yet relevant contexts. The subsequent sections will elaborate on the theoretical foundations, country-specific contexts, research design, and detailed lines of inquiry necessary to answer this overarching research question, providing a robust framework for understanding and promoting sustainable bilingual education for migrant learners globally.

Conceptual Framework and Theoretical Foundations

This research is anchored by a comprehensive conceptual framework that integrates insights from four interconnected theoretical domains: bilingualism, second language acquisition (SLA), migration studies, and educational policy. This framework is designed not merely as a theoretical review but as a multi-faceted analytical lens, providing a structured approach to understand why certain classroom-level practices in bilingual education for migrant learners persist beyond initial pilot enthusiasm and how they contribute to effective and equitable educational outcomes. By weaving together these distinct yet complementary perspectives, this framework enables a nuanced investigation into the complex interplay of linguistic, pedagogical, socio-cultural, and institutional factors that shape the sustainability of educational interventions.

At the core of this study lies the concept of bilingualism, a multifaceted and dynamic construct. Historically, understandings of bilingualism have evolved from a deficit-oriented view, where the presence of two languages was seen as a cognitive burden, to an asset-based perspective, recognizing the cognitive, social, and cultural advantages of multilingualism. Key theories within this domain include:

• Additive Bilingualism: Coined by Wallace Lambert, this theory posits that a second language is added to a well-developed first language, resulting in enhanced linguistic and cognitive abilities without detriment to either language. This approach values and promotes the continued development of the home language alongside the acquisition of the target language. For migrant learners, additive bilingualism is particularly relevant as it advocates for educational environments that support the maintenance and development of their L1 (first language) while acquiring the L2 (second language of schooling), thereby fostering a stronger sense of identity and academic success. This framework informs our inquiry into specific classroom practices—such as the strategic use of L1 for content clarification, the integration of L1 texts, or the promotion of L1 literacy—that actively integrate and value students’ home languages, making them more likely to be adopted and sustained due to their demonstrable positive impact on learning and identity.
• Subtractive Bilingualism: In contrast, subtractive bilingualism occurs when the acquisition of a second language leads to the erosion or loss of the first language. This often happens in educational settings that prioritize L2 acquisition to the exclusion of L1 development, implicitly or explicitly devaluing the home language. Understanding this concept is critical for identifying practices that may inadvertently lead to language loss and for advocating for pedagogies that prevent it. Our research will examine whether classroom practices inadvertently contribute to subtractive outcomes by neglecting the home language, or if they actively work to mitigate this, thereby contributing to their long-term efficacy and persistence.
• Dynamic Bilingualism (Translanguaging): More recently, scholars like Ofelia García have proposed dynamic bilingualism, emphasizing the fluid and integrated nature of bilingual individuals’ linguistic repertoires. This perspective views bilinguals not as two monolinguals in one, but as individuals who strategically draw upon all their linguistic resources to make meaning. Translanguaging, a pedagogical application of dynamic bilingualism, encourages the flexible use of both languages in the classroom to facilitate understanding, deepen learning, and empower students. This theory is particularly pertinent to our investigation of “classroom-level practices” as it encourages us to look for evidence of flexible language use, code-switching, and the strategic deployment of students’ full linguistic repertoires by both teachers and students. It challenges traditional views of strict language separation and opens avenues for exploring innovative pedagogical approaches—such as allowing students to discuss complex topics in their L1 before presenting in L2, or using multilingual resources—that leverage students’ existing linguistic strengths, making them highly effective and thus more likely to become routine.

Complementing bilingualism theories, Second Language Acquisition (SLA) theories provide insights into the cognitive and social processes by which migrant learners acquire the language of instruction. These theories directly inform the design and implementation of effective language-supportive pedagogies at the classroom level. Key SLA theories that inform this study include:

• Input Hypothesis (Krashen): Stephen Krashen’s theory emphasizes the importance of comprehensible input – language that is slightly beyond a learner’s current level but still understandable – for language acquisition. This theory guides our analysis of how teachers provide accessible language and content in bilingual classrooms through strategies like simplified language, visual aids, and repetition, ensuring that migrant learners receive sufficient comprehensible input to progress in their L2. Practices rooted in this theory, such as sheltered instruction or content and language integrated learning (CLIL), are likely to persist because they directly address a fundamental need for language learners.
• Interaction Hypothesis (Long): Building on Krashen, Michael Long’s Interaction Hypothesis posits that interaction, particularly negotiation of meaning during communication, is crucial for SLA. This involves clarification requests, comprehension checks, and repetitions that prompt learners to produce more comprehensible output. This theory directs our attention to classroom practices that promote meaningful interaction among students and between students and teachers, fostering opportunities for negotiation of meaning and collaborative language learning. Collaborative learning activities, peer tutoring, and structured group work are examples of practices informed by this theory that, due to their effectiveness in promoting language development, tend to become embedded in classroom routines.
• Sociocultural Theory (Vygotsky, Lantolf): Rooted in Vygotsky’s work, sociocultural theory highlights the role of social interaction and cultural tools (including language) in cognitive development and learning. In SLA, this means that language learning is not merely an individual cognitive process but a socially mediated activity. This perspective is vital for examining how classroom practices create supportive learning communities, scaffold learning through peer and teacher interaction, and integrate cultural contexts into language and content instruction. It underscores the importance of the learning environment and the social dynamics within the classroom. Practices such as scaffolding, zone of proximal development (ZPD) application, and the creation of culturally relevant learning materials are sustained because they align with how learning naturally occurs within a social context.

Migration studies offer a crucial macro-level perspective, acknowledging that migrant learners are not a homogenous group and their educational experiences are profoundly shaped by broader socio-political and economic contexts. This field helps us understand the external forces that influence the educational landscape and the specific needs of migrant learners, thereby providing context for the observed classroom practices. This includes understanding:

• Push and Pull Factors: The reasons for migration (e.g., conflict, economic opportunity, family reunification) profoundly impact learners’ prior educational experiences, potential trauma, and adaptation processes. While not directly observable in classroom practices, these factors inform the necessity for culturally responsive and trauma-informed pedagogies, which, when effective, are more likely to be sustained.
• Integration vs. Assimilation: Different national approaches to migrant integration (e.g., multiculturalism, assimilationist policies) directly influence educational policies and practices. Germany, the US, and Japan each have distinct histories and current approaches to migrant integration, which will be central to our comparative analysis. Understanding these national philosophies helps explain why certain types of bilingual models and classroom practices are promoted or suppressed, influencing their potential for persistence.
• Transnationalism: Many migrant learners maintain strong ties to their home countries and cultures. Recognizing transnational identities helps us understand the importance of home language maintenance and culturally responsive pedagogy. This lens informs our investigation into how classroom practices acknowledge and leverage students’ transnational identities and experiences, fostering a sense of belonging and relevance that contributes to sustained engagement and learning.

Finally, educational policy provides the overarching framework within which bilingual education operates. Policies at national, regional, and local levels dictate funding, curriculum guidelines, teacher training, and assessment practices. Understanding the policy landscape in Germany, the US, and Japan is essential for interpreting why certain classroom practices are adopted, sustained, or abandoned. This includes examining:

• Language-in-education policies: Explicit and implicit policies regarding the role of home languages and the language of instruction. Supportive policies that recognize and fund bilingual education are crucial for the institutionalization and sustainability of classroom practices.
• Teacher professional development policies: Provisions for training teachers to work with linguistically diverse learners. Sustained practices often depend on teachers’ ongoing professional learning and their capacity to implement complex pedagogies.
• Curriculum mandates: How national or regional curricula accommodate or neglect the needs of migrant learners. Curricula that offer flexibility and guidance for integrating linguistic and cultural diversity are more likely to foster sustainable classroom practices.
• Funding mechanisms: How resources are allocated for bilingual programs and support services. Stable and adequate funding is a prerequisite for the long-term viability of any educational innovation, directly impacting the ability of schools and teachers to maintain effective practices.

These theoretical domains collectively inform our investigation into sustainable classroom practices. Sustainability, in this context, refers to practices that endure beyond initial enthusiasm, becoming embedded in the daily routine of the classroom and demonstrating consistent positive outcomes for migrant learners. To further understand this persistence, we draw upon concepts from:

• Organizational Learning Theory: This theory suggests that practices become sustained when they are integrated into the organization’s routines, shared knowledge, and collective memory, rather than relying on individual champions. This implies that practices that are clearly articulated, regularly reviewed, and supported by school-wide systems are more likely to persist.
• Innovation Diffusion Theory: This theory explains how new ideas and practices spread through a social system. Practices that are perceived as having a clear relative advantage, compatibility with existing values, low complexity, and high observability of results are more likely to be adopted and sustained by a critical mass of educators.
• Teacher Professional Development Theories: These theories emphasize that sustained changes in teaching practice require ongoing, context-specific professional learning that addresses teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and skills, moving beyond one-off workshops to continuous collaborative inquiry and reflection. Practices that are well-supported by professional development and foster teacher agency are more likely to become routine.

These perspectives help explain why some practices transcend the initial “pilot enthusiasm”—they are either deeply aligned with effective learning principles (bilingualism, SLA), supported by a conducive macro-environment (migration studies, educational policy), or are successfully integrated into the school’s organizational fabric and teachers’ professional identities.

Definition of Key Terms:

To ensure clarity and precision throughout this research, the following key terms are defined within the specific context of this study:

• Bilingual Models: This term refers to structured educational approaches that utilize two languages for instruction, aiming to develop proficiency in both the students’ home language(s) and the language of the host country’s education system. This can encompass a spectrum of models, including transitional bilingual education, dual language immersion, heritage language programs, and content and language integrated learning (CLIL) approaches. The specific model implemented may vary significantly across and within countries, influenced by policy, resources, and pedagogical philosophy. For this study, “bilingual models” are broadly understood as any educational provision that explicitly acknowledges and incorporates two or more languages in the learning process for migrant learners, with the goal of fostering biliteracy and biculturalism.
• Migrant Learners: This term broadly encompasses students who have moved from their country of origin to a new host country, either permanently or temporarily, and whose primary language or cultural background differs from that of the dominant population in the host country’s educational system. This includes, but is not limited to, children of economic migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and international students. We acknowledge the diversity within this group, including variations in prior educational experiences, trauma history, socioeconomic status, and legal status, all of which can impact their educational journey. The focus is on their linguistic and cultural needs within the educational context, recognizing their unique strengths and challenges.
• Classroom-Level Practices: These are the specific, observable pedagogical strategies, instructional activities, classroom management techniques, and teacher-student/student-student interactions that occur within the physical and social space of the classroom. This includes, but is not limited to, how teachers deliver content, facilitate language development, manage linguistic diversity, assess learning, and foster a supportive learning environment. Our investigation will focus on the practical, day-to-day realities of teaching and learning in bilingual contexts, moving beyond policy or curriculum documents to examine what actually happens in the classroom and how these actions contribute to student outcomes.
• Pilot Enthusiasm: This refers to the initial period of heightened interest, innovation, and often increased resources and attention that accompanies the launch of a new educational initiative or program. During this phase, stakeholders (teachers, administrators, policymakers) may be highly motivated, and external support (e.g., grants, specialized training) may be more readily available. However, “pilot enthusiasm” often wanes as initial funding expires, staff turnover occurs, or the novelty wears off, leading to the discontinuation of promising initiatives. This study aims to identify practices that have transcended this initial phase and become integrated into the routine, sustained fabric of the educational setting, rather than remaining isolated, short-term experiments, thereby demonstrating their resilience and embeddedness.

By delineating these theoretical foundations and defining key terms, this conceptual framework provides a robust lens through which to analyze the complex phenomenon of sustainable bilingual education practices for migrant learners across diverse national contexts. It guides our lines of inquiry, ensuring that our data collection and analysis are theoretically informed and contribute meaningfully to the understanding of how effective and equitable educational outcomes can be achieved and maintained for this vital student population.

Country-Specific Educational Contexts and Bilingual Policies: Paving the Way for Persistent Practices

The efficacy and sustainability of bilingual education models for migrant learners are inextricably linked to the specific educational, socio-political, and historical contexts of the host countries. Germany, the United States, and Japan, while all grappling with increasing migration, present distinct landscapes regarding their educational systems, policy frameworks for linguistic diversity, and societal attitudes towards migrant integration. A detailed examination of these country-specific contexts is crucial for understanding the challenges and opportunities that shape classroom-level practices and their potential for persistence, laying the groundwork for meaningful comparative analysis.

Germany: Navigating a Complex Tapestry of Integration and Linguistic Diversity

Germany’s journey with migrant learners is characterized by a complex history, evolving from a “guest worker” model to a more conscious effort towards integration, particularly accelerated by recent refugee movements. Its federal structure, where education policy is largely the purview of the 16 individual Länder (states), results in a diverse and sometimes fragmented approach to bilingual education and migrant integration. This decentralized system, while allowing for regional adaptation, also presents inherent challenges to policy consistency and the institutionalization of sustainable practices, a key aspect when considering persistence.

Historical Developments: Post-World War II, Germany actively recruited “guest workers” (Gastarbeiter) from countries like Turkey, Italy, Greece, and Yugoslavia to address labor shortages. The initial assumption was that these workers would eventually return to their home countries, leading to a policy of minimal integration efforts for their children within the German school system. Home language instruction, if provided, was often seen as a tool to facilitate re-integration into their countries of origin, rather than as a means to foster bilingualism within Germany. This “repatriation model” persisted for decades, contributing to educational disparities for second and third-generation migrants. The influx of ethnic German “re-settlers” (Aussiedler) from Eastern Europe in the late 20th century, and more recently, the significant arrival of refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, and other conflict zones since 2015, have fundamentally shifted Germany’s approach, necessitating more robust and systematic integration strategies. These historical waves have left a legacy of diverse language communities, varying levels of educational attainment among migrant families, and ongoing debates about German identity and multiculturalism, all of which influence the receptiveness to and stability of bilingual educational initiatives.

Current Legislative Frameworks and Policies: Education in Germany is primarily governed by the Basic Law (Grundgesetz) and specific education acts within each Land. While there is no overarching federal law mandating bilingual education, the Länder have developed diverse strategies to address the linguistic needs of migrant learners. The implementation of these policies at the local school level often varies significantly, reflecting the “last mile” challenge of policy execution. Common approaches include:

• Preparatory/Welcome Classes (Vorbereitungsklassen/Willkommensklassen): Many Länder offer intensive German as a Second Language (GSL) instruction in separate classes for newly arrived migrant students, often for six months to two years, before transitioning them into mainstream classrooms. While intended to provide rapid language acquisition, the effectiveness of these classes varies, with concerns about potential social and academic segregation, which can delay full integration into the regular school environment and hinder the development of sustained, inclusive classroom practices.
• Language Support in Mainstream Classes: Once integrated, ongoing language support is often provided through pull-out programs, in-class support by specialized GSL teachers, or differentiated instruction by mainstream teachers. The degree to which these supports are consistently applied and integrated into daily pedagogical routines rather than remaining ad-hoc interventions is a critical indicator of their persistence.
• Home Language Instruction (Herkunftssprachlicher Unterricht - HSU): HSU is offered in some Länder, often in cooperation with consulates or cultural associations, primarily for maintenance of the home language and cultural identity. However, HSU is typically an extracurricular offering and not systematically integrated into the core curriculum, limiting its impact on academic bilingualism and its potential to become a truly persistent, institutionally embedded practice. Its long-standing presence in certain regions, however, suggests a degree of societal acceptance for home language maintenance, albeit often outside the mainstream.
• Intercultural Education (Interkulturelle Bildung): This concept promotes valuing diversity and aims to equip all students with intercultural competencies. While not directly bilingual education, it provides a philosophical underpinning for inclusive practices. Its integration into teacher training and curriculum development can foster a more receptive environment for bilingual approaches, contributing to their long-term viability.
• Framework Regulations: The Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs (KMK) issues recommendations and framework regulations that influence Länder policies, though implementation varies. Recent KMK recommendations emphasize language support for all students with a migration background and the recognition of multilingualism as a resource. The extent to which these recommendations are translated into concrete, well-resourced, and consistently applied classroom practices is key to their persistence.

Funding Models: Funding for education in Germany comes primarily from the respective Land budgets and municipal funds. Specific funding for migrant education and language support is often allocated through special programs or additional teacher positions, but it can be inconsistent across Länder and schools. The decentralized nature means that resource allocation is highly dependent on local political will and demographic pressures. Schools in areas with high concentrations of migrant learners often face significant resource constraints, directly impacting the ability to recruit and retain specialized bilingual teachers, acquire culturally relevant materials, or implement comprehensive bilingual programs. The precariousness of funding streams can undermine the sustainability of even promising pilot initiatives.

General Socio-Political Context: German society has been engaged in a continuous debate about its identity as an immigration country. While there has been a growing acceptance of multiculturalism, particularly after the 2015 refugee crisis highlighted the need for integration, assimilationist tendencies still persist. The concept of “Leitkultur” (leading culture) occasionally resurfaces, suggesting an expectation for migrants to adopt German cultural norms. Public discourse often oscillates between acknowledging the economic benefits of migration and expressing concerns about social cohesion and the strain on public services. This socio-political climate directly influences educational policies, teacher attitudes towards linguistic diversity, parental expectations regarding language use and cultural identity in schools, and ultimately, the institutional support for and longevity of bilingual education practices. The deeply ingrained nature of these societal attitudes can create structural barriers to the widespread and sustained adoption of additive bilingual approaches.

Challenges Unique to Germany:

• Federalism and Disparity: The decentralized educational system leads to significant variations in policies, resources, and educational outcomes for migrant learners across Länder, making consistent, high-quality bilingual provision difficult. This contrasts with the more centralized approach in Japan, and shares some parallels with the U.S. state-level variations, but with a distinct historical and political foundation. This structural challenge is a persistent barrier to uniform and sustainable practices.
• Segregation in Preparatory Classes: While intended to provide intensive language support, the prolonged use of separate preparatory classes can lead to social and academic segregation, hindering full integration and the development of inclusive classroom practices in mainstream settings.
• Limited Integration of Home Languages: Despite rhetorical recognition of multilingualism, home languages are often marginalized in mainstream schooling, not systematically integrated into the curriculum, and primarily seen as a private family matter rather than an academic asset. This structural marginalization prevents home language support from becoming a deeply embedded, persistent practice.
• Teacher Training Gaps: Many mainstream teachers lack adequate training in German as a Second Language (GSL) pedagogy, intercultural competence, and strategies for working with linguistically diverse classrooms. This systemic gap in professional development is a long-term obstacle to the widespread adoption of effective bilingual practices.
• Data Collection and Monitoring: Consistent, comparable data on the educational progress of migrant learners and the effectiveness of different language support models across all Länder is often lacking, hindering evidence-based policy development and the identification of truly persistent and effective practices. This lack of robust data infrastructure can mask the success or failure of initiatives, making it harder to institutionalize what works.

Opportunities Unique to Germany:

• Strong Vocational Training System: Germany’s dual vocational training system (Berufsausbildung) offers a valuable pathway for migrant youth, combining theoretical learning with practical work experience, potentially facilitating smoother transitions into the labor market. This established pathway could be leveraged to integrate language support and intercultural training, fostering long-term success for migrant learners.
• Growing Awareness of Multilingualism: There is increasing recognition within educational discourse and some policy circles of the value of multilingualism as a societal resource and a pedagogical asset, creating potential for more integrated bilingual approaches. This shift in discourse, if translated into concrete policy and resource allocation, could lead to more persistent and widespread bilingual practices.
• Civil Society Engagement: Numerous NGOs and community organizations play a vital role in supporting migrant learners and their families, often filling gaps left by formal educational provisions and advocating for more inclusive policies. These grassroots efforts can serve as models for bottom-up innovation and can provide crucial support networks that contribute to the resilience and persistence of certain practices.
• Recent Policy Shifts: The experiences of 2015-2016 led to a more urgent focus on integration, prompting some Länder to invest more in language support and teacher training, potentially laying the groundwork for more sustained practices. The long-term commitment to these shifts will be indicative of their persistence.

The United States: A History of Flux in Bilingual Education

The United States, a nation built on immigration, has a long, often contentious, and cyclical history with bilingual education. Its approach has varied wildly from assimilationist “English-only” policies to periods of supporting linguistic diversity, reflecting broader societal debates about national identity, immigration, and civil rights. This “pendulum swing” of policy is a critical factor in understanding the inherent instability and challenges to the persistence of bilingual education models in the U.S., contrasting sharply with the more consistent, albeit assimilationist, historical trajectory in Japan.

Historical Developments: Early American history saw various language groups maintaining their mother tongues, with some German- and Spanish-language schools thriving. However, anti-immigrant sentiments, particularly during World War I and the Cold War, led to widespread “English-only” movements, effectively suppressing non-English languages in schools. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s brought about a crucial shift. The Bilingual Education Act of 1968 (Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) marked the first federal recognition of the needs of limited English proficient (LEP) students, providing funding for bilingual programs. This act, however, was primarily compensatory and transitional, aiming to move students into English-only classrooms as quickly as possible. The landmark Supreme Court case Lau v. Nichols (1974) ruled that providing the same instruction to students who do not understand English as to those who do is not equal education, mandating that schools take affirmative steps to overcome language barriers. Subsequent decades saw a pendulum swing, with strong opposition to bilingual education in the 1990s leading to “English-only” propositions in states like California, Arizona, and Massachusetts, effectively dismantling many bilingual programs. The early 21st century has witnessed a resurgence of interest in dual language immersion (DLI) programs, which aim for bilingualism and biliteracy for both English speakers and emergent bilinguals, reflecting a more additive view of bilingualism. This historical volatility underscores the difficulty in establishing consistently persistent practices nationwide.

Current Legislative Frameworks and Policies: Education in the U.S. is primarily a state and local responsibility, leading to significant diversity in approaches. While there’s no federal mandate for specific bilingual education models, federal laws influence how states and districts address the needs of English Language Learners (ELLs) or Emergent Bilinguals (EBs). The flexibility afforded to states means that the “last mile” of policy implementation varies dramatically, impacting the institutionalization of practices.

• Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015): This federal law replaced No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and requires states to hold schools accountable for the academic achievement and English language proficiency of ELLs. It provides federal funding (Title III) to states to help districts implement language instruction educational programs. ESSA gives states more flexibility in designing their accountability systems and supporting ELLs, but it does not mandate specific program models. The lack of prescriptive federal mandates means that the persistence of specific classroom practices is highly dependent on state and local commitment.
• State-Level Policies: States vary widely. Some states, like California and Massachusetts, have reversed their “English-only” laws and are actively promoting bilingual education. Others, like Texas and New York, have long-standing policies supporting various forms of bilingual education. State departments of education issue guidelines, curriculum frameworks, and certification requirements for bilingual teachers. The degree of state-level institutionalization (e.g., dedicated funding, teacher certification pathways) is a key factor in the persistence of specific bilingual models and classroom practices.
• Program Models: Common models include:
  • Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE): Instruction in the native language is phased out as students gain English proficiency. While often effective for rapid English acquisition, its transitional nature inherently limits the long-term persistence of home language use in the classroom.
  • Dual Language Immersion (DLI): Students are taught in two languages (e.g., 50/50 or 90/10 English/Spanish) with the goal of full bilingualism and biliteracy. These programs are popular for their additive approach and often attract both native English speakers and emergent bilinguals. DLI programs, by their very design, aim for sustained bilingualism and thus represent a model with higher potential for persistent classroom practices that value both languages.
  • English as a Second Language (ESL) or English Language Development (ELD): Focuses solely on English language acquisition, often through pull-out or sheltered instruction in mainstream classrooms. While crucial for language development, these models typically do not foster sustained home language use in the classroom.
  • Newcomer Programs: Specialized programs for recently arrived immigrant students, often providing intensive English instruction and acculturation support. The persistence of these programs often depends on sustained funding and community need.

Funding Models: Federal funding for ELLs primarily comes through ESSA’s Title III, which is allocated to states based on their ELL population. States and local districts provide the bulk of educational funding. Funding for bilingual programs can be precarious, often relying on specific grants, state appropriations, or local district priorities. The lack of dedicated, stable funding streams can hinder the sustainability of programs, especially those that require specialized staff and resources. This financial instability is a major impediment to the institutionalization and persistence of effective bilingual practices, often leading to the discontinuation of promising pilot programs once initial funding expires.

General Socio-Political Context: The U.S. remains a nation of immigrants, with ongoing debates about immigration policy, border security, and the integration of new arrivals. While there is a strong rhetoric of the “American Dream” and opportunity, anxieties about cultural assimilation and linguistic diversity persist. The concept of “English as the common language” is deeply ingrained, often leading to resistance against policies that promote multilingualism. This “English-only” ideology, while not always codified in law, can subtly influence school cultures, teacher attitudes, and parental choices, creating an environment where additive bilingual practices struggle to gain widespread and persistent traction. However, there is also a growing recognition of the economic and cognitive benefits of bilingualism in a globalized world, particularly among parents seeking DLI programs for their children. This dual perspective creates a dynamic and often contradictory environment for bilingual education, where persistence is often a battle against prevailing ideologies.

Challenges Unique to the U.S.:

• Policy Volatility: The history of policy swings, from support to suppression of bilingual education, creates instability and makes long-term program planning and sustained implementation challenging. This “pendulum effect” is a fundamental structural barrier to the persistence of any specific bilingual model or practice.
• Teacher Shortages: There is a persistent national shortage of qualified bilingual and ESL teachers, particularly in critical languages and in rural areas. This lack of human capital directly limits the ability of schools to implement and sustain high-quality bilingual programs.
• Assessment Challenges: Standardized testing in English often fails to accurately assess the content knowledge of emergent bilinguals, leading to misclassification and pressure for rapid English acquisition at the expense of deeper learning and sustained bilingual development. This can inadvertently undermine efforts to foster persistent additive bilingual practices.
• “English-Only” Ideology: Despite the growth of DLI, a strong “English-only” ideology among some policymakers and segments of the public can lead to political pressure against bilingual programs, making their institutionalization and persistence an ongoing struggle. This societal resistance is a more pervasive challenge than in Germany, where federalism creates regional variations, or Japan, where the challenge is more about adapting a historically homogenous system.
• Diverse Linguistic Needs: The U.S. hosts an extraordinary diversity of languages (over 400 spoken in homes), making it challenging to provide robust home language support for all linguistic groups. This linguistic fragmentation can make it difficult to scale up specific bilingual practices across diverse student populations.

Opportunities Unique to the U.S.:

• Strong Advocacy Networks: Powerful advocacy groups (e.g., NABE, TESOL, UnidosUS) and civil rights organizations continuously champion the rights and educational needs of emergent bilinguals, influencing policy and practice. These networks provide a crucial counter-balance to “English-only” pressures and contribute to the resilience of bilingual education efforts.
• Growth of Dual Language Immersion: The increasing popularity and demonstrated success of DLI programs represent a significant opportunity for additive bilingualism, fostering biliteracy and cross-cultural understanding among diverse student populations. DLI’s emphasis on long-term bilingual development makes it a prime candidate for identifying persistent classroom practices.
• Research Infrastructure: The U.S. has a robust research infrastructure in SLA, bilingualism, and educational equity, providing a strong evidence base for effective practices. This research can inform policy and practice, contributing to the identification and dissemination of persistent strategies.
• Decentralized Innovation: While federalism poses challenges, it also allows for innovation at the state and local levels. Successful models can emerge from specific districts or schools and then be scaled up, demonstrating how persistent practices can take root and spread.
• Recognition of Global Competence: Growing awareness of the importance of global competence and multilingualism in the 21st century workforce creates a more favorable environment for valuing bilingual skills, potentially leading to greater societal and institutional support for sustained bilingual education.

Japan: Adapting to a New Era of Diversity

Japan, traditionally characterized by its relative linguistic and cultural homogeneity and a strong national identity built around the Japanese language, has experienced a significant increase in its foreign resident population since the 1980s, driven by economic needs and, more recently, by shifts in immigration policies. This demographic change has compelled a re-evaluation of its educational system, which was historically designed for a linguistically uniform population. The deeply entrenched “mono-ethnic nation-state building” ideology presents a fundamental structural barrier to the widespread adoption and persistence of additive bilingual education models, contrasting with the more varied and often contested approaches in Germany and the U.S.

Historical Developments: Japan’s post-war economic boom led to a demand for labor, initially met by returning Japanese Brazilians (Nikkei Brazilians) in the 1980s and 1990s. These individuals, often speaking Portuguese, presented the first significant challenge to the monolingual school system. Subsequent waves of migration from other Asian countries (e.g., China, Korea, Philippines, Vietnam) and, more recently, from various parts of the world, have further diversified the student population. Historically, the Japanese education system emphasized assimilation, with little official support for home language maintenance. Foreign students were expected to quickly acquire Japanese. This approach largely neglected their linguistic and cultural backgrounds, leading to educational disparities and social isolation for many. The concept of “kokugo” (national language) as solely Japanese has been deeply entrenched, shaping pedagogical practices and curriculum, and making any shift towards bilingualism a significant ideological and systemic challenge. This historical trajectory has created a context where “pilot enthusiasm” for bilingual models is rare, and any persistent practice must overcome deeply ingrained systemic and cultural norms.

Current Legislative Frameworks and Policies: Japan has a highly centralized education system controlled by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). While MEXT has traditionally focused on standardized curricula and national unity, it has slowly begun to acknowledge the needs of foreign students. However, the centralized nature means that policy shifts are slow and their implementation at the school level often lacks the flexibility seen in federal systems.

• Japanese Language Instruction: The primary focus for migrant learners (referred to as “foreign children” or “children with foreign roots”) is intensive Japanese language instruction. This is often provided through “Japanese language classes” (Nihongo Gakkyu) or by “Japanese language instruction teachers” (Nihongo Shidoin) who work with students individually or in small groups, sometimes pulling them out of mainstream classes. These programs represent the most institutionalized and thus persistent form of support, but they are primarily assimilationist in nature, focusing solely on L2 acquisition.
• Support for School Enrollment: MEXT and local boards of education provide some support for school enrollment and adaptation, including producing multilingual guides for parents and assigning school social workers. These are largely logistical supports rather than pedagogical ones, and their persistence is tied to the administrative necessity of integrating new students.
• Limited Home Language Support: There is very little systematic provision for home language instruction within the public school system. Some non-profit organizations or community groups run supplementary classes, but these are not integrated into the formal curriculum. This lack of institutionalization means that home language support is rarely a persistent classroom practice within the mainstream system.
• Intercultural Understanding: More recently, there has been a growing emphasis on promoting “intercultural understanding” (ibunka rikai) within the curriculum, aiming to foster respect for diversity among all students. However, this often remains at a superficial level and does not translate into robust bilingual pedagogy or deeply embedded culturally responsive practices. Its persistence is more rhetorical than practical.
• Teacher Training: MEXT has initiated some training programs for teachers to better support foreign students, but the scale and scope are often insufficient given the growing demand. The lack of comprehensive, mandatory training in bilingual pedagogy is a significant barrier to the development and persistence of effective classroom practices.

Funding Models: Education in Japan is primarily funded by national and local government taxes. MEXT provides subsidies to local boards of education for the education of foreign students, including funds for Japanese language instruction teachers. However, these funds are often insufficient to cover the comprehensive needs of migrant learners, and local boards of education face pressure to manage tight budgets. The lack of dedicated, substantial funding for comprehensive bilingual support or culturally responsive pedagogy limits the scope of interventions and prevents promising initiatives from becoming persistent, institutionalized practices.

General Socio-Political Context: Japanese society is grappling with the implications of increasing diversity. While there is an economic imperative for immigration, societal attitudes toward non-Japanese residents can be complex, ranging from hospitality to subtle forms of exclusion. The concept of “nihonjinron” (theories of Japaneseness), which emphasizes cultural and ethnic homogeneity, has historically influenced policies and public perceptions. While this is slowly changing, the idea of integration often leans towards assimilation, with an expectation that foreign residents will adapt to Japanese customs and language. This socio-political context means that proposals for robust bilingual education or strong home language maintenance often face resistance, as they challenge the traditional monolingual and monocultural educational paradigm. This deeply ingrained societal mindset is perhaps the most significant structural barrier to the persistence of additive bilingual practices in Japan.

Challenges Unique to Japan:

• Monolingual Mindset: The deeply ingrained belief in Japan as a linguistically and culturally homogeneous nation poses a significant barrier to the widespread adoption of bilingual education models. This ideological challenge is more profound than in Germany or the U.S., where multilingualism, though contested, is a more recognized societal reality. This fundamental mindset makes the institutionalization of bilingual practices exceptionally difficult.
• Lack of Home Language Recognition: Home languages are rarely seen as educational assets and are largely ignored or even discouraged in formal schooling, leading to subtractive bilingualism for many migrant learners. This systemic neglect means that classroom practices supporting home languages are almost non-existent in mainstream settings, preventing their persistence.
• Teacher Preparedness: Most Japanese teachers are trained within a monolingual framework and lack specific pedagogical skills, resources, and confidence to effectively teach linguistically and culturally diverse students. This widespread lack of training is a major structural impediment to the emergence and persistence of effective bilingual classroom practices.
• Limited Program Diversity: The range of educational programs for migrant learners is narrow, primarily focusing on Japanese language acquisition, with few options for content instruction in home languages or dual language models. This limited programmatic landscape means there are fewer avenues for innovative bilingual practices to take root and persist.
• Social and Emotional Integration: Beyond language, migrant learners often face challenges in social integration due to cultural differences and the emphasis on conformity in Japanese schools, which can impact their well-being and academic performance. This broader social context influences how welcoming and supportive classrooms can be for diverse learners, impacting the persistence of inclusive practices.
• Invisible Minorities: Students from non-East Asian backgrounds, particularly those from African, Middle Eastern, or South American countries, may face additional challenges due to limited support materials in their languages and less familiarity with their cultural backgrounds among educators. This further complicates the development of culturally responsive and persistent practices.

Opportunities Unique to Japan:

• High Value on Education: Japan has a strong national commitment to education and high educational standards, which, if adapted, could be leveraged to provide high-quality support for migrant learners. This foundational commitment to educational excellence could, in time, be redirected to include linguistic and cultural diversity.
• Growing Awareness: As the number of foreign residents increases, there is a growing awareness among policymakers and educators of the need to adapt the educational system, leading to more discussions about diversity and inclusion. This nascent shift in awareness is a prerequisite for any future persistent policy or practice changes.
• Internationalization Efforts: Japan’s broader push for internationalization (e.g., increasing foreign tourism, attracting skilled labor) could create a more favorable environment for valuing multilingualism and intercultural competence. This macro-level trend might slowly erode the monolingual mindset, creating space for more persistent bilingual practices.
• Community Initiatives: Various grassroots organizations and NGOs are actively working to support migrant children, providing supplementary education, language support, and advocating for policy changes, offering models for bottom-up innovation. These initiatives, though often outside the formal system, demonstrate persistent efforts to address migrant learners’ needs and could inspire future institutional changes.
• Technological Adoption: Japan’s technological prowess could be harnessed to develop innovative digital tools and resources for language learning and culturally responsive instruction. Technology could potentially overcome some barriers related to teacher training and resource scarcity, facilitating the emergence of new, persistent practices.

In summary, while Germany, the U.S., and Japan all face the imperative of educating migrant learners, their historical trajectories, policy landscapes, funding mechanisms, and socio-political contexts create vastly different environments for bilingual education. Germany grapples with federalism and the legacy of “guest worker” policies, leading to regional disparities in policy and practice; the U.S. navigates a cyclical history of policy swings and a diverse linguistic landscape, creating inherent instability for program longevity; and Japan is slowly moving away from a deeply ingrained monolingual and monocultural paradigm, facing significant ideological and structural barriers to additive bilingualism. Understanding these unique challenges and opportunities, particularly the degree of institutionalization and the influence of prevailing societal ideologies, is fundamental for identifying which classroom-level practices have the potential to persist and thrive in each context, and for drawing meaningful comparative insights into sustainable bilingual education. The persistence of practices will be directly linked to their ability to navigate and, in some cases, transform these deeply embedded national contexts.

Research Design and Methodological Approach

This study employs a comparative case study approach to investigate classroom-level practices in bilingual models for migrant learners across Germany, the United States, and Japan. This design is particularly well-suited for exploring complex educational phenomena within their real-life contexts, allowing for in-depth understanding of specific cases while also facilitating cross-national comparison to identify patterns, commonalities, and unique contextual influences. The rationale for selecting these three countries stems from their distinct yet relevant socio-historical trajectories regarding migration, their varied policy responses to linguistic diversity in education, and their ongoing efforts to integrate migrant learners, offering a rich tapestry for comparative analysis.

As previously discussed, Germany represents a federal system grappling with a legacy of “guest worker” policies and recent refugee integration, with significant variations across its 16 Länder in educational philosophy, teacher training, and community engagement. The U.S. embodies a long history of immigration with cyclical policy shifts in bilingual education, marked by a dynamic interplay between federal guidelines and diverse state-level legislation, alongside a robust research infrastructure and advocacy networks. Japan, traditionally more homogenous, is confronting increasing diversity and adapting its centralized educational structure, with a cautious approach to foreign language education and a strong emphasis on assimilation. These nations were chosen not only for their differences but also for their complementarity, as they collectively represent a spectrum of approaches to migrant integration and bilingual education, from established multicultural policies to emerging strategies in historically monolingual contexts. This comparative lens will illuminate how different national contexts, educational philosophies, and systemic structures shape the implementation and sustainability of classroom practices, moving beyond mere description to analytical insight.

The core research aim is to identify classroom-level practices that persist beyond initial pilot enthusiasm and contribute to sustainable bilingual models for migrant learners. To achieve this, a qualitative research methodology will be predominantly utilized, drawing upon a combination of document analysis and semi-structured interviews. This qualitative approach is chosen for its capacity to capture the nuanced, context-dependent nature of classroom practices, allowing researchers to delve into the “how” and “why” behind the observed phenomena, rather than merely quantifying them. While qualitative research may not offer broad generalizability, its strength lies in providing rich, in-depth understanding. This potential limitation is mitigated through the use of multiple data sources and triangulation, enhancing the validity and reliability of findings by cross-referencing information from curricula, teacher perspectives, and student experiences. This approach provides the depth necessary to understand the experiences and perspectives of teachers and students, and to interpret the implicit and explicit messages embedded in educational documents.

Qualitative Research Methods and Data Collection

1. Curriculum and Lesson Plan Analysis

The analysis of curricula and lesson plans will serve as a foundational step, providing insight into the officially sanctioned or recommended approaches to bilingual education and migrant learner support in each country. These documents represent the formal intentions and policies that guide educational practice. The analysis will not be limited to official state or national curricula but will also include school-specific lesson plans, teacher-developed materials, and any supplementary resources explicitly designed for bilingual or migrant learners. This dual-level analysis (macro-level curriculum and micro-level lesson plans) allows for an understanding of both policy intent and its translation into pedagogical design.

Data Collection Protocols:

• Identification and Sourcing: Relevant curricula will be identified through official government education websites (e.g., MEXT in Japan, state departments of education in the US, Länder ministries in Germany) and direct contact with selected schools and districts. Lesson plans will be collected from participating teachers, ensuring they represent a range of subjects and grade levels relevant to migrant learners. To ensure school-friendliness, requests for documents will be flexible, accepting existing digital formats (e.g., PDFs, Word documents) or scanned hardcopies, minimizing additional work for school staff. We will aim to collect a representative sample of approximately 10-15 lesson plans per participating teacher, focusing on those used consistently over time rather than one-off experimental lessons, to better capture typical practice.
• Scope: The focus will be on curricula and lesson plans specifically addressing language arts (both target language and, if applicable, home languages), content subjects (e.g., mathematics, science, social studies) as they relate to language integration, and any materials designed for specific support programs (e.g., intensive language classes, newcomer programs).
• Digital and Hardcopy Collection: Documents will be obtained in their original format, whether digital PDFs or scanned hardcopies, ensuring fidelity to the original design and content.

2. Semi-Structured Interviews with Teachers

Interviews with teachers are critical for understanding the practical realities of classroom implementation, teachers’ pedagogical decisions, their beliefs about bilingualism, and the challenges and successes they experience. Teachers are key agents in translating policy into practice, and their perspectives are invaluable for identifying “persistent practices” – those that are consistently applied, adapted, and sustained despite contextual pressures.

Sampling Strategy:

• Purposeful Sampling: Teachers will be purposefully selected from schools identified as implementing bilingual models or providing significant support for migrant learners. The aim is to achieve maximum variation in terms of years of experience, subject taught, grade level, and the specific type of bilingual program (e.g., dual language, transitional bilingual, sheltered instruction, CLIL). This will ensure representation of diverse pedagogical approaches and experiences with migrant learners.
• School Selection: Schools will be selected based on their reputation for supporting migrant learners, their willingness to participate, and their representation of different socio-economic and demographic contexts within each country. A target of 5-7 schools per country will be aimed for, with 3-5 teachers per school, ensuring a diverse cross-section of teaching environments.
• Recruitment: Initial contact will be made with school administrators to gain institutional approval, followed by direct invitations to teachers. Clear explanations of the study’s purpose, confidentiality measures, and time commitment will be provided. To enhance school-friendliness, teachers will be offered flexible interview scheduling options (e.g., during planning periods, after school, or virtually at their convenience) and will be provided with a brief overview of the interview topics in advance, allowing them to reflect and prepare.

Data Collection Protocols:

• Interview Setting: Interviews will be conducted in a quiet, private setting at the school or a mutually agreed-upon location, or virtually if necessary, to ensure privacy and minimize distractions.
• Duration: Each interview is expected to last approximately 60-90 minutes.
• Recording: With informed consent, interviews will be audio-recorded to ensure accuracy of transcription and to allow the interviewer to focus fully on the conversation.
• Interview Guide: A semi-structured interview guide will be used to ensure consistency across interviews while allowing flexibility for follow-up questions and exploration of emergent themes. The guide will cover areas such as teacher beliefs, classroom practices, curriculum implementation, professional development, and perceived student outcomes. Questions will be framed to elicit narratives about daily routines and sustained practices, rather than theoretical knowledge, making them more “school-friendly” and relevant to their lived experience.

3. Semi-Structured Interviews with Students

Student interviews provide a unique and essential perspective on their learning experiences, their perceptions of language use, their social integration, and what strategies they find effective or challenging. Their voices are crucial for understanding the impact of classroom practices and identifying those that genuinely resonate and support their learning and well-being. Focusing on their experiences will help validate whether practices are truly “school-friendly” and effective from the learner’s perspective.

Sampling Strategy:

• Purposeful Sampling: Students will be purposefully selected from the same participating schools, ensuring representation across different grade levels (e.g., upper elementary, middle, and high school, typically ages 9-18) and diverse linguistic backgrounds. This will allow for insights into how practices evolve or are perceived differently across developmental stages.
• Informed Consent and Assent: Given the age of the participants, a multi-layered consent process will be implemented. Parental/guardian informed consent will be obtained first, followed by student assent (their agreement to participate) appropriate to their age and understanding.
• Teacher Recommendation: Teachers may assist in identifying students who are articulate and willing to share their experiences, while ensuring a diversity of academic performance and social integration. A target of 5-7 students per school will be aimed for.
• Age-Specific Adjustments: For younger students (upper elementary), interviews will be shorter, more interactive, and may incorporate visual aids or drawing activities. For older students (middle and high school), interviews will be more conversational, allowing for deeper reflection.

Data Collection Protocols:

• Interview Setting: Interviews will be conducted in a private, comfortable space within the school (e.g., a quiet classroom, library corner), ensuring student privacy and comfort.
• Duration: Interviews are expected to last 30-45 minutes for older students and 20-30 minutes for younger students, adjusted for age appropriateness.
• Language: Interviews will be conducted in the language(s) in which students feel most comfortable expressing themselves (e.g., English, German, Japanese, or their home language with the assistance of a qualified, professional interpreter, if necessary and feasible). The use of interpreters will be carefully managed to ensure accuracy and cultural sensitivity, and interpreters will be briefed on the study’s ethical guidelines. This ensures authentic responses and reduces linguistic barriers, making the process truly school-friendly for the students.
• Recording: With informed consent and assent, interviews will be audio-recorded.
• Age-Appropriate Interview Guide: A semi-structured interview guide will be developed with age-appropriate language and questions, focusing on their daily experiences in school, language use, interactions with teachers and peers, and their perceptions of support. Questions will be open-ended and non-leading, designed to encourage students to share their genuine experiences.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical conduct is paramount in this research, particularly when working with vulnerable populations such as migrant learners and their educators.

• Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval: Full ethical approval will be sought from the relevant IRBs or ethics committees at the researcher’s institution and, where required, from educational authorities or school boards in each participating country. This includes navigating potentially different ethical guidelines across national contexts, which may require submitting separate applications and adhering to specific local requirements.
• Informed Consent: Comprehensive informed consent will be obtained from all adult participants (teachers, administrators) prior to their involvement. For student participants, parental/guardian informed consent will be secured, along with age-appropriate student assent. Consent forms will clearly outline the study’s purpose, procedures, potential risks and benefits, confidentiality measures, and the voluntary nature of participation. Participants will be explicitly informed of their right to withdraw at any time without penalty, and a clear “safe exit” mechanism will be communicated, allowing them to pause or stop the interview at any point without needing to provide a reason.
• Confidentiality and Anonymity: All identifiable information will be kept strictly confidential. Transcripts will be anonymized, and pseudonyms will be used for all participants and institutions in any reports or publications. Data will be stored securely on password-protected servers, accessible only to the research team. Audio recordings will be deleted upon transcription and verification.
• Minimizing Harm: The research design will be sensitive to the potential for distress, particularly for students who may have experienced trauma related to migration. Interview questions will be carefully phrased to avoid sensitive topics unless raised by the participant, and interviewers will be trained in trauma-informed approaches to identify and respond appropriately to any signs of discomfort. Interviewers will have backgrounds in education or social sciences, with training in active listening and empathetic communication. Access to counseling or support services will be made available if needed, though this is not anticipated to be a primary outcome of the research.
• Cultural Sensitivity: The research team will be mindful of cultural norms and communication styles in Germany, the U.S., and Japan during all stages of the research, from recruitment and interviewing to data interpretation. This includes, where possible, involving researchers or research assistants with language proficiency and cultural understanding relevant to each context, or collaborating with local researchers. Furthermore, during data analysis and interpretation, the research team will seek feedback from local educators or community representatives to ensure that findings are culturally appropriate and accurately reflect the nuances of the local context.

Justification for Identifying “Persistent Practices”

The combination of curriculum/lesson plan analysis and interviews with teachers and students provides a robust framework for identifying “persistent practices” and addressing the core research aim. The concept of “persistence” will be operationalized through several key indicators across the data sources, allowing for a nuanced understanding that moves beyond mere “pilot enthusiasm.”

• Triangulation of Data Sources: Analyzing official documents (curricula/lesson plans) alongside the lived experiences and perceptions of practitioners (teachers) and beneficiaries (students) allows for triangulation. This means cross-referencing information from multiple sources to enhance the validity and reliability of findings. A practice identified in a curriculum, described by a teacher as routine, and experienced positively by a student as consistently helpful, is more likely to be a “persistent practice” than one mentioned in only one data source or as a one-off event.
• Policy-Practice Gap Analysis: Comparing what is mandated or recommended in curricula with what teachers actually do and what students experience can highlight the gap between policy and practice. Persistent practices are those that transcend this gap, becoming embedded in routine despite potential policy limitations or resource constraints. This analysis will specifically look for evidence of teachers adapting or innovating beyond official mandates, and how these adaptations become standard practice.
• Multiple Perspectives on Sustainability:
  • Teacher Interviews: Provide insights into why certain practices are maintained (e.g., perceived effectiveness, alignment with beliefs, manageable workload, integration into daily routine, teacher buy-in) and the challenges encountered in sustaining them. Teachers can articulate how practices have evolved from initial pilot phases into standard procedures, and whether they continue to use them even after external support or funding for a pilot program has ceased.
  • Student Interviews: Offer a critical perspective on the impact and relevance of practices. Practices that are consistently reported by students as helpful, engaging, or supportive are strong indicators of persistence and effectiveness from the learner’s viewpoint. Their experiences can reveal whether a practice is merely performative or deeply integrated into the learning environment and genuinely contributes to their learning and well-being.
  • Curriculum/Lesson Plans: Reveal whether certain pedagogical approaches or linguistic integration strategies are formally endorsed, consistently planned, and perhaps even institutionalized through explicit resource allocation or training suggestions. The presence of specific strategies (e.g., translanguaging prompts, differentiated materials) across multiple lesson plans over time, and their consistent inclusion in updated curriculum documents, can indicate institutional persistence.
• Focus on Routine and Embeddedness: The lines of inquiry are designed to elicit information about routine practices, not just one-off initiatives. Questions will probe how practices are integrated into daily lessons, how they are adapted over time, and what resources (human, material, institutional) support their ongoing implementation. This moves beyond the “pilot enthusiasm” phase to uncover what truly sticks. “Persistence” will be characterized by:
  • Time Dimension: Practices consistently observed or reported over an extended period (e.g., across multiple school years, or by teachers with varying years of experience).
  • Breadth Dimension: Practices that are not isolated to a single teacher or classroom but are adopted by multiple teachers within a school or across different schools in the study.
  • Depth Dimension: Practices that are deeply integrated into the instructional philosophy and daily pedagogical repertoire, rather than being superficial additions.
  • Resilience: Practices that continue even when initial external support or funding for a pilot program has been withdrawn.
• Contextual Understanding: The comparative case study design, with its in-depth exploration of each country’s context, allows for a nuanced understanding of why certain practices persist in one setting but not another. This contextualization is vital for developing recommendations that are both relevant and actionable. The study will also explicitly seek to differentiate between practices driven by initial “pilot enthusiasm” (e.g., those heavily reliant on temporary funding or external consultants) and those that have become genuinely embedded and sustained through teacher buy-in, institutional support, and demonstrated effectiveness.

In essence, this research design is meticulously crafted to move beyond superficial observations, seeking to unearth the deeply embedded, sustainable classroom practices that genuinely support migrant learners in their bilingual development. By combining macro-level policy analysis through documents with micro-level lived experiences captured through interviews, this study aims to provide a comprehensive and robust answer to the overarching research question.

Lines of Inquiry for Data Collection

This section details the specific lines of inquiry that will guide the analysis of collected data, including curricula and lesson plans, and interviews with teachers and students. These inquiries are meticulously designed to pinpoint classroom-level practices that demonstrate sustainability beyond initial pilot enthusiasm, focusing on their practical application, impact, and the underlying factors contributing to their persistence. Crucially, the design of these inquiries aims to uncover not just the presence of practices, but also the mechanisms of their institutionalization, the depth of teacher buy-in, and the consistent positive experiences of students, all of which are vital indicators of long-term viability and persistence.

Curriculum and Lesson Plan Analysis: Identifying Formal Intentions and Designed Practices

The analysis of curricula and lesson plans will provide a foundational understanding of the intended pedagogical approaches, linguistic strategies, and cultural considerations formally endorsed within each educational system and at the school level. This document analysis will reveal the explicit provisions and implicit assumptions about bilingual education for migrant learners, serving as a baseline against which teacher and student experiences can be compared. It is crucial to note that while these documents reflect official intentions, the true persistence of practices often emerges from their dynamic interpretation and adaptation by educators in real classroom settings, which will be further explored through interviews.

• Linguistic Integration Strategies: This inquiry examines how target languages (e.g., German, English, Japanese) and students’ home languages are explicitly integrated into learning objectives, instructional activities, and assessment methods.

  • Potential Indicators/Criteria for Analysis:
    • Presence of L1 (Home Language) Support: Look for specific mentions of using students’ home languages for instruction, scaffolding, or communication (e.g., glossaries in multiple languages, L1-supported explanations, translanguaging prompts).
    • Target Language Scaffolding: Identify strategies designed to make the target language comprehensible for emergent bilinguals (e.g., simplified language, visual aids, graphic organizers, sentence starters, explicit vocabulary instruction, pre-teaching key concepts).
    • Explicit Language Objectives: Are language objectives (e.g., related to speaking, listening, reading, writing in the target language) clearly articulated alongside content objectives?
    • Bilingual Materials: Presence and nature of bilingual texts, dual-language books, or materials translated into home languages.
    • Translanguaging Pedagogy: Evidence of activities encouraging students to draw upon their full linguistic repertoire, moving fluidly between languages for meaning-making, not just translation.
    • Assessment in L1/Target Language: Are assessments designed to accommodate different language proficiencies? Is there any provision for assessing content knowledge in the home language, or through multimodal means?
    • Differentiation for Language Levels: Explicit strategies for differentiating instruction based on varying levels of target language proficiency.

• Cultural Responsiveness: This line of inquiry explores the extent to which curricula and lesson plans acknowledge, value, and leverage the cultural backgrounds, experiences, and prior knowledge of migrant learners.

  • Potential Indicators/Criteria for Analysis:
    • Inclusion of Diverse Perspectives: Representation of diverse cultures, histories, and contributions (beyond the dominant culture) in content materials (e.g., literature, historical events, scientific discoveries).
    • Culturally Relevant Content: Connection of learning content to students’ lived experiences, cultural practices, and home contexts.
    • Addressing Cultural Stereotypes/Bias: Evidence of critical engagement with cultural stereotypes or biases in materials.
    • Celebration of Cultural Diversity: Activities that encourage sharing and celebrating students’ cultural heritage (e.g., cultural festivals, presentations on home countries, diverse food/music).
    • Parental/Community Engagement: Explicit suggestions for involving migrant families and communities in the learning process or curriculum development.
    • Flexible Grouping: Strategies that allow for culturally diverse grouping and peer learning.

• Pedagogical Approaches: This inquiry investigates the teaching methodologies promoted within the documents, specifically how they are designed to support bilingual development and content learning simultaneously.

  • Potential Indicators/Criteria for Analysis:
    • Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)/Sheltered Instruction: Evidence of methodologies that integrate language and content learning (e.g., emphasis on explicit language features of academic discourse, use of visuals, hands-on activities, group work to facilitate language use in content areas).
    • Differentiated Instruction: Strategies for tailoring instruction to meet individual learning needs, including those related to language proficiency and prior knowledge.
    • Collaborative Learning: Emphasis on pair work, group work, and peer-to-peer interaction to promote language use and content negotiation.
    • Explicit Language Instruction: Presence of explicit grammar, vocabulary, or pronunciation instruction within content lessons.
    • Metalinguistic Awareness: Activities designed to foster students’ awareness of how languages work, comparing and contrasting linguistic features.
    • Project-Based Learning (PBL)/Inquiry-Based Learning: Use of longer-term projects that allow for sustained engagement with content and language.

• Assessment Practices: This line of inquiry focuses on how language proficiency and content knowledge are assessed in a bilingual context, ensuring fairness and accuracy for migrant learners.

  • Potential Indicators/Criteria for Analysis:
    • Formative Assessment Strategies: Use of ongoing, low-stakes assessments to monitor language and content progress (e.g., observations, quick checks for understanding, exit tickets).
    • Summative Assessment Adaptations: Modifications or accommodations for summative assessments (e.g., extended time, use of dictionaries, simplified language, visual supports, allowing responses in L1 where appropriate).
    • Language and Content Separation: Are assessments designed to distinguish between content knowledge and language proficiency? How are they balanced?
    • Authentic Assessment: Use of real-world tasks and performance-based assessments that allow students to demonstrate understanding through multiple modalities.
    • Portfolio Assessment: Evidence of student work collected over time to demonstrate growth in language and content.
    • Feedback Mechanisms: Nature of feedback provided to students, particularly how it addresses both language development and content mastery.

• Adaptability and Flexibility: This inquiry examines the provisions within curricula and lesson plans that allow for adaptation of materials and instruction to diverse learner needs and varying language proficiencies, suggesting an inherent design for persistence. This also includes examining the extent to which curricula implicitly or explicitly support teacher autonomy in adapting materials.

  • Potential Indicators/Criteria for Analysis:
    • Suggested Modifications/Extensions: Explicit suggestions for modifying activities for different language levels or for students with varied prior knowledge.
    • Resource Recommendations: Provision of adaptable resources or alternative materials for diverse learners.
    • Open-Ended Tasks: Inclusion of tasks that allow for multiple entry points and ways of demonstrating understanding.
    • Teacher Notes/Guidance: Guidance for teachers on how to differentiate or adapt lessons for emergent bilinguals.
    • Modular Design: Curricula designed in modules that can be rearranged or supplemented based on student needs.
    • Emphasis on Learner Autonomy: Activities that promote student choice and self-directed learning, allowing students to engage with material at their own pace and in their preferred modalities.

The analysis of curricula and lesson plans will serve as a critical foundation, revealing the institutionalized aspects that contribute to practice persistence and providing a framework for interpreting the lived experiences captured in interviews.

Teacher Interview Protocols: Unveiling Professional Realities and Sustained Practices

Interviews with teachers are crucial for understanding the dynamic interplay between policy, curriculum, and actual classroom practice. Their insights will reveal the “how” and “why” behind the persistence of certain pedagogical strategies, the challenges they overcome, and their professional beliefs that underpin their work with migrant learners. The questions are designed to be “school-friendly,” encouraging open and reflective responses.

• Teacher Beliefs and Pedagogical Knowledge: This inquiry explores teachers’ foundational beliefs about bilingualism, the role of home languages in learning, and their professional development experiences in bilingual education.

  • Potential Interview Questions:
    • “How would you describe your understanding of bilingualism and its benefits for students?”
    • “In what ways do you believe students’ home languages contribute to their learning and overall development in school?”
    • “What professional development or training have you received specifically related to teaching migrant learners or bilingual education? How has it impacted your practice?”
    • “What are your biggest questions or areas you’d like to learn more about regarding supporting migrant learners?”
    • “Do you see multilingualism as an asset or a challenge in the classroom, and why?”

• Classroom Management and Language Use: This line of inquiry examines how teachers manage language use in their classrooms and the specific strategies they employ to support both language acquisition and content learning for migrant learners.

  • Potential Interview Questions:
    • “How do you decide which language(s) to use for instruction in your classroom, especially when you have students with diverse language backgrounds?”
    • “Can you describe some specific strategies you use to make content comprehensible for students who are still developing their target language proficiency?”
    • “How do you encourage students to use both their home language and the target language in your classroom? Can you give an example?”
    • “What strategies do you use to promote interaction and discussion among students, especially when there are language differences?”
    • “How do you balance the need for language acquisition with the need for content mastery in your lessons?”
    • “How do you incorporate visuals, gestures, or technology to support language and content learning?”

• Curriculum Implementation and Adaptation: This inquiry focuses on how teachers interpret, adapt, and implement official curricula and lesson plans in their daily practice, and the challenges they face in doing so.

  • Potential Interview Questions:
    • “When you receive a new curriculum or lesson plan, what’s your process for adapting it to meet the needs of your migrant learners?”
    • “Can you share an example of a specific lesson or unit where you significantly adapted the materials for your migrant students? What changes did you make and why? Have any of these adaptations become a regular part of your teaching repertoire?”
    • “What are the main challenges you encounter when trying to implement the curriculum with linguistically diverse students? And more importantly, what innovative strategies or adaptations have you developed over time to consistently overcome these challenges?”
    • “How do you ensure that your teaching is culturally relevant to your migrant students?”
    • “Are there any specific resources or materials you consistently use that you find particularly effective for migrant learners, beyond what’s officially provided?”

• Collaboration and Support Systems: This line of inquiry explores the support teachers receive from school administration, colleagues, or external resources, and how they collaborate to support migrant learners.

  • Potential Interview Questions:
    • “What kind of support do you receive from your school administration or colleagues to effectively teach migrant learners?”
    • “Do you collaborate with other teachers (e.g., language specialists, content teachers) to support your migrant students? If so, how does that collaboration work?”
    • “Are there any external resources or community organizations that you or your school connect with to support migrant families and learners?”
    • “What kind of professional learning community or network exists within your school or district for teachers working with migrant students?”
    • “If you could have one additional form of support to better serve your migrant learners, what would it be? If formal support is limited, how have you and your colleagues created informal networks or strategies to support each other consistently?”

• Perceptions of Student Progress and Engagement: This inquiry examines teachers’ perceptions of the academic and linguistic progress of their migrant learners and the practices they find most effective in fostering engagement and long-term success.

  • Potential Interview Questions:
    • “How do you assess the academic and linguistic progress of your migrant learners? What indicators do you look for?”
    • “Can you describe a moment when you observed significant academic or linguistic growth in a migrant student? What practices do you think contributed to that growth?”
    • “What strategies do you find most effective in keeping migrant students engaged and motivated in their learning?”
    • “How do you foster a positive and inclusive classroom environment where migrant students feel safe to take risks with language and learning?”
    • “What do you believe are the key factors that contribute to the long-term success of migrant learners in school?”

Teacher interviews will provide crucial insights into the teacher agency and adaptive strategies that underpin sustained pedagogical approaches, revealing the practical realities of implementing and maintaining effective practices.

Student Interview Protocols: Capturing Learner Experiences and Impact

Student interviews are invaluable for providing direct insights into the lived realities of learning in bilingual contexts. Their perspectives will help validate the effectiveness of classroom practices and identify what genuinely supports their language development, academic achievement, and social integration. Questions will be age-appropriate, culturally sensitive, and designed to elicit rich narratives.

• Language Use and Identity: This inquiry explores how students use their home languages and the target language(s) in school and outside, and how they feel about their bilingual identity.

  • Potential Interview Questions (Age-Appropriate):
    • “What languages do you speak at home with your family?”
    • “Which language do you feel most comfortable speaking when you’re with your friends at school? What about in class?”
    • “Do you ever use your home language in school, maybe with friends or for schoolwork? Tell me about that.”
    • “How do you feel about being able to speak more than one language?”
    • “Do you think it’s important to keep learning your home language? Why or why not?”
    • “Does your teacher ever let you use your home language to help you understand things in class?”

• Learning Experiences in Bilingual Classrooms: This line of inquiry focuses on students’ favorite and most challenging aspects of learning in a bilingual environment, and what teaching strategies they find most helpful.

  • Potential Interview Questions (Age-Appropriate):
    • “What do you enjoy most about learning in this classroom/school?”
    • “What parts of learning here are sometimes difficult for you, especially with language?”
    • “When you don’t understand something in class, what does your teacher do to help you?”
    • “Are there any special ways your teacher helps you learn new words or ideas?”
    • “Do you find it helpful when your teacher uses pictures, videos, or draws things on the board to explain lessons?”
    • “Do you prefer working alone, with a partner, or in a group? Why?”
    • “What is the best way for you to learn new things in [target language]?”

• Social Integration and Peer Interaction: This inquiry examines how students interact with peers from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds and whether they feel included and supported in the school community.

  • Potential Interview Questions (Age-Appropriate):
    • “Do you have friends who speak different languages than you? How do you communicate with each other?”
    • “Do you feel like you belong in this school? Why or why not?”
    • “Are there times when you feel left out because of language or cultural differences?”
    • “How do students in your class help each other with language or schoolwork? Are there specific ways your friends or classmates support you when you face challenges?”
    • “What do you like about having classmates from different countries or backgrounds?”
    • “Is there anything that makes it easier or harder to make friends at school?”

• Perceptions of Teacher Support: This line of inquiry explores how students perceive their teachers’ efforts to support their language learning and academic success.

  • Potential Interview Questions (Age-Appropriate):
    • “How does your teacher help you learn [target language]?”
    • “What does your teacher do to make sure you understand the lessons, even if the language is new to you?”
    • “Do you feel comfortable asking your teacher questions if you don’t understand something?”
    • “Does your teacher ever use your home language or let you use it to help you learn?”
    • “What is one thing your teacher does that you find really helpful for your learning?”
    • “Do you feel your teacher understands your background or where you come from? How about other adults at school, like counselors or librarians?”

• Future Aspirations and Educational Pathways: This inquiry investigates how students envision their future academic and professional pathways, particularly concerning their bilingual skills.

  • Potential Interview Questions (Age-Appropriate):
    • “What do you want to do when you finish school?”
    • “Do you think being bilingual or multilingual will be helpful for your future? How?”
    • “Are there any jobs or activities you can think of where speaking [home language] and [target language] would be a big advantage?”
    • “What advice would you give to a new student who is coming to this school and is learning [target language]?”
    • “Do you plan to continue learning and using your home language as you get older?”

Student interviews will provide direct insights into the lived realities and perceived effectiveness of practices that genuinely support long-term student success and integration.

These detailed lines of inquiry, combined with the proposed analytical frameworks, will enable a comprehensive and nuanced investigation into the sustainability of classroom-level practices in bilingual models for migrant learners across Germany, the US, and Japan. By systematically analyzing documents and capturing diverse perspectives, the research aims to identify practices that truly persist and contribute to effective and equitable educational outcomes.

Identifying and Characterizing Persistent Classroom Practices

This section outlines the rigorous analytical process for identifying classroom-level practices in bilingual education for migrant learners that demonstrate genuine persistence, moving beyond the transient nature of “pilot enthusiasm.” Persistence, in this research, signifies practices that have become deeply embedded, routine, and sustainable elements of educational provision, rather than temporary interventions fueled by initial excitement or short-term funding. To systematically achieve this, we will detail the iterative analytical process, propose robust criteria for defining persistence, and present a comprehensive framework for categorizing and describing these enduring practices.

The Iterative Analytical Process for Unearthing Persistent Practices

The identification of persistent practices will be an iterative and multi-layered analytical process, directly building upon the cross-national comparative analysis. It involves a systematic synthesis of findings from curriculum analysis, teacher interviews, and student interviews to discern patterns of sustained implementation and perceived effectiveness. Throughout this process, the proposed criteria for persistence will be continuously applied to refine the identification and characterization of practices.

1. Initial Screening and Candidate Identification:

   • From Curriculum and Lesson Plan Analysis (Formal Intent): Practices that are explicitly and consistently articulated across multiple curricula, lesson plans, or official guidelines, and appear to be integrated into the formal structure of instruction over time, will be flagged as preliminary candidates. This includes pedagogical approaches, assessment methods, or resource recommendations presented as routine components rather than one-off projects. This step identifies the “intended” persistent practices.
   • From Teacher Interviews (Implemented Reality): Teachers’ descriptions of their daily routines, “go-to” strategies, and practices they have maintained over several years, even in the absence of specific project funding or mandates, will be highlighted. Emphasis will be placed on practices teachers describe as essential for student learning, manageable within their workload, and those for which they have developed personal ownership and expertise. Practices that teachers report as having evolved and adapted from initial training into their own unique, effective approaches will be particularly relevant. This step uncovers the “actual” implemented practices.
   • From Student Interviews (Experienced Impact): Practices that students consistently mention as being regularly employed by their teachers, and that they perceive as genuinely helpful, supportive, or engaging for their learning and well-being, will be identified. This includes specific instructional techniques, classroom routines, or forms of teacher support that students experience as consistent and impactful. This step reveals the “perceived” effectiveness of practices from the learner’s perspective.

2. Triangulation and Verification Against Persistence Criteria:

   • Once initial candidates for persistent practices are identified from individual data sources, the crucial step of triangulation will be applied. A practice will gain strong candidacy for “persistence” if it demonstrates convergence across data sources, aligning with the established criteria for persistence.
   • Convergence as Evidence: A practice (e.g., the consistent use of visual aids for language scaffolding) gains significant weight as a persistent practice if it is:
     • Evident in Curricula/Lesson Plans: Indicating formal endorsement or institutionalization.
     • Routinely Described by Teachers: Suggesting practical implementation, teacher buy-in, and integration into daily routines.
     • Perceived as Effective/Beneficial by Students: Confirming positive impact at the learner level and indicating genuine “school-friendliness.”
   • Divergence as Insight: Discrepancies between data sources are equally important for understanding barriers to persistence or areas where policy intent does not translate into sustained classroom reality. For example, if a practice is mandated in curricula but rarely implemented by teachers due to lack of resources, and students confirm minimal exposure, it would not qualify as persistent. Conversely, a practice widely adopted by teachers and valued by students, even if not explicitly detailed in formal curricula, could still be considered persistent, highlighting grassroots innovation and effective informal practices. This process helps to identify and exclude practices driven solely by “pilot enthusiasm” or those that are merely performative.

3. Contextualization and Nuance for Cross-National Understanding:

   • Each identified persistent practice will be rigorously analyzed within its specific national, school, and even classroom context. This involves understanding the unique socio-political, economic, and educational factors that enable or constrain its persistence in Germany, the US, or Japan. For instance, a practice emphasizing home language maintenance might be persistent in a U.S. dual-language program but face systemic challenges in Japan due to different policy frameworks or in Germany due to federal structures.
   • The analysis will differentiate between practices that appear universally adaptable across contexts and those that are highly context-dependent. This nuanced understanding is vital for formulating recommendations that are both relevant and actionable across diverse educational landscapes.

4. Refinement and Comprehensive Characterization:

   • Based on the triangulated evidence and contextual understanding, each persistent practice will be thoroughly described. This characterization will detail its core components, variations in implementation across different settings, and the underlying mechanisms through which it is sustained. Rich descriptive data from all three data sources will be used to illustrate “what it looks like” in the classroom, providing concrete examples of its application and impact. This step moves beyond mere identification to a deep understanding of the practice’s nature and function.

Robust Criteria for Defining “Persistence”

To systematically identify practices that endure beyond initial pilot enthusiasm, the following six criteria will be applied during the analytical process. These criteria serve as filters to distinguish truly persistent practices from fleeting initiatives, and their relative importance may be weighed based on the specific context and the strength of the evidence.

1. Integration into Routine: The practice is not an isolated event or a temporary intervention but is regularly and consistently incorporated into daily or weekly classroom operations. It has become part of the “normal” way of teaching and learning, rather than an “add-on.” This implies a level of routinization and institutionalization within the classroom or school, often evidenced by its inclusion in recurring lesson plans or daily schedules. A potential indicator for this could be its consistent application over a defined period (e.g., observed or reported for more than three academic years).
2. Teacher Buy-in and Ownership: Teachers demonstrate a clear understanding, acceptance, and personal investment in the practice. They perceive it as valuable, effective, and manageable within their professional responsibilities. This criterion moves beyond mere compliance to genuine adoption and adaptation by practitioners, indicating that the practice resonates with their pedagogical beliefs and practical needs. Teachers can articulate why they continue to use the practice and how it benefits their students, often adapting it to their unique teaching style and student needs.
3. Observable Student Outcomes/Perceived Benefits: The practice is associated with observable positive outcomes for migrant learners, as reported by teachers and, crucially, experienced and articulated by students themselves. These benefits can be academic (e.g., improved language proficiency, content mastery), social (e.g., enhanced integration, peer interaction), or affective (e.g., increased engagement, motivation, sense of belonging, confidence). If students consistently find a practice helpful, it speaks to its inherent value and likelihood of continued use, confirming its “school-friendliness.”
4. Adaptability and Flexibility: The practice demonstrates an inherent capacity to be adapted or modified to meet the diverse and evolving needs of migrant learners, varying language proficiencies, and different subject areas or grade levels. This flexibility allows the practice to remain relevant and effective even as student demographics or curricular demands change, preventing it from becoming rigid or obsolete. Indicators include its successful application across different grade levels, subjects, or with students of varying L2 proficiency levels.
5. Evidence of Institutional or Peer Support (Implicit/Explicit): While pilot enthusiasm may wane, persistent practices often benefit from some form of sustained support, even if informal. This could include ongoing professional development (not necessarily new, but continuous), peer collaboration, access to necessary resources (materials, technology), or supportive school leadership that champions inclusive pedagogy. This criterion reflects that while teacher agency is key, an enabling environment contributes to long-term sustainability. This support can be formal (e.g., dedicated budget lines, policy mandates) or informal (e.g., strong professional learning communities, peer mentoring).
6. Cost-Effectiveness/Resource Efficiency: Practices that are sustainable often do not require extraordinary or continuous external funding or highly specialized resources that are difficult to maintain once initial pilot funding expires. They may leverage existing resources, rely on teacher ingenuity, or have demonstrated their value sufficiently to warrant ongoing, routine allocation of resources. This pragmatic aspect is crucial for long-term viability beyond pilot phases, indicating a practice’s capacity to be integrated without significant additional strain on school budgets or personnel.

A Comprehensive Framework for Categorizing and Describing Persistent Practices

To organize and present the identified persistent practices in a structured and actionable manner, a comprehensive framework will be developed. This framework will serve as a powerful analytical tool, guiding the systematic classification and in-depth analysis of identified practices, and enabling clear cross-national comparisons. It will allow for a nuanced understanding of the nature of these effective strategies.

1. Instructional Strategies: These refer to the core pedagogical approaches and techniques consistently employed by teachers within the classroom to facilitate learning and language development for migrant learners.

   • Examples:
     • Systematic Language Scaffolding: Consistent and deliberate use of visuals, graphic organizers, sentence frames, simplified language, explicit vocabulary instruction, and pre-teaching of concepts to make content comprehensible for emergent bilinguals across all subjects.
     • Strategic Translanguaging Pedagogy: Deliberate and purposeful use of students’ full linguistic repertoires (including home languages) for meaning-making, concept development, and expression, allowing fluid movement between languages during instruction and learning activities.
     • Integrated Content and Language Learning (CLIL/Sheltered Instruction): Routine application of methodologies that simultaneously teach academic content and develop target language proficiency, often through integrated lesson planning, specific linguistic supports, and sheltered instruction techniques.
     • Collaborative Learning Structures: Consistent implementation of pair work, small group discussions, and peer tutoring to maximize opportunities for communicative practice, negotiation of meaning, and reciprocal learning among students.
     • Differentiated Instruction: Regular and systematic adaptation of teaching methods, content, and assessment to meet individual learning needs and varying language proficiencies within the same classroom, ensuring equitable access to the curriculum.
     • Explicit Learning Strategy Instruction: Teaching students specific metacognitive and cognitive learning strategies (e.g., reading comprehension strategies, note-taking, self-correction, academic discourse strategies) that empower them to become more autonomous and effective learners.

2. Resource Utilization: This dimension focuses on how educational materials, technology, and human resources are effectively and sustainably leveraged to support bilingual learning and migrant learners’ integration.

   • Examples:
     • Strategic Use of Bilingual and Multilingual Materials: Regular integration of dual-language books, translated texts, or multilingual digital resources to support comprehension, affirm linguistic diversity, and facilitate L1 maintenance.
     • Leveraging Technology for Language and Content Learning: Consistent and purposeful use of digital tools (e.g., translation apps, online dictionaries, interactive language platforms, multimedia presentations, educational software) to support language acquisition, provide accessible content, and enhance engagement.
     • Effective Utilization of Human Resources (Paraeducators, Community Liaisons): Consistent and well-integrated deployment of support staff, bilingual assistants, or community members to provide L1 support, cultural bridging, academic tutoring, or facilitate communication with families.
     • Creating Multilingual Learning Environments: Deliberate and sustained use of classroom labeling, displays, and signage in multiple languages to affirm linguistic diversity, create an immersive learning space, and make the environment more welcoming and comprehensible.

3. Assessment Practices: This category examines how assessment is consistently designed and implemented to accurately measure both language proficiency and content knowledge for migrant learners, and how it effectively informs instruction.

   • Examples:
     • Routine Formative Assessment for Language and Content: Consistent use of ongoing, low-stakes assessments (e.g., observations, quick checks for understanding, informal conversations, exit tickets) that provide immediate feedback on both language development and content understanding, guiding instructional adjustments.
     • Flexible and Multimodal Assessment: Regular allowance for students to demonstrate understanding through various modalities (e.g., oral presentations, visual projects, graphic organizers, L1 responses where appropriate, performance tasks), reducing reliance on traditional written target language assessments and accommodating diverse learning styles.
     • Growth-Oriented Assessment: A sustained focus on measuring individual progress over time rather than solely on summative scores, acknowledging the developmental nature of language acquisition and celebrating incremental gains.

4. School-Community Partnerships: This dimension encompasses practices that involve systematic, ongoing engagement with migrant families and community organizations to support learners holistically, extending beyond the classroom walls.

   • Examples:
     • Multilingual and Consistent Family Communication: Regular provision of school information, progress reports, and important announcements in families’ home languages, ensuring equitable access to vital information.
     • Sustained Parental Engagement Programs: Ongoing workshops, meetings, or cultural events designed to actively involve migrant parents in their children’s education and school life, addressing language and cultural barriers, and building trust.
     • Systematic Collaboration with Community Organizations: Established and ongoing partnerships with NGOs, cultural associations, or refugee support groups to provide supplementary language support, cultural activities, social services, or advocacy for migrant families, leveraging external resources for student well-being.

5. Professional Development and Teacher Collaboration: This category focuses on how teachers continuously learn, share knowledge, and support each other in addressing the evolving needs of migrant learners, contributing to the collective persistence of effective practices.

   • Examples:
     • Ongoing Peer Collaboration and Mentorship: Regular opportunities for teachers to plan together, share strategies, provide mutual support, and engage in formal or informal mentorship regarding teaching migrant learners.
     • Sustained School-Based Professional Learning Communities (PLCs): Enduring PLCs focused on topics related to bilingual education, second language acquisition, culturally responsive pedagogy, or specific challenges faced by migrant learners, fostering continuous improvement.
     • Integrated Language Specialist Collaboration: Consistent and effective collaboration between mainstream teachers and language specialists (e.g., ESL/GSL/Japanese language teachers) in co-planning, co-teaching, or providing in-class support, ensuring a cohesive approach to language and content development.

By systematically applying these criteria and utilizing this comprehensive framework, this research will produce a nuanced and empirically grounded understanding of what “persistent practices” entail in diverse national contexts. This framework will not only facilitate the analysis but also serve as a practical tool for educators, policymakers, and researchers seeking to foster and sustain effective bilingual education models for migrant learners globally. The ultimate aim is to provide actionable insights that can inform policy development and pedagogical innovation, ensuring that promising initiatives evolve into enduring pillars of equitable and inclusive education.

Implications for Policy and Practice: Forging Sustainable Bilingual Education

The comprehensive investigation into classroom-level practices in bilingual models for migrant learners across Germany, the United States, and Japan, guided by the detailed lines of inquiry, is poised to yield transformative insights with profound implications for educational policy and classroom practice globally. By meticulously identifying and characterizing “persistent practices”—those that have defied the fleeting nature of initial pilot enthusiasm and become deeply embedded, routine, and demonstrably effective elements of educational provision—this research offers a vital roadmap for forging sustainable and equitable bilingual models. The findings will resonate far beyond the specific contexts of the three countries, providing actionable, evidence-based recommendations for a diverse range of stakeholders, including educators, policymakers, and curriculum developers, all striving to enhance educational equity and outcomes for migrant learners worldwide. This study aims to unearth practices that not only work but endure, becoming integral to the educational fabric and generating long-term positive impacts on student learning and well-being.

Implications for Educational Policy: Catalyzing Systemic Change

The comparative analysis is expected to illuminate critical policy levers that either enable or, conversely, impede the sustainability of effective bilingual education. Policymakers at national, regional, and local levels can harness these insights to cultivate more supportive and enabling environments, strategically overcoming common barriers to lasting educational reform.

1. Mandating Asset-Based Policy Frameworks: A pivotal implication is the imperative for policies that unequivocally recognize and champion migrant learners’ home languages and cultural backgrounds as invaluable assets, rather than viewing them as deficits to be remediated. Findings are anticipated to unequivocally demonstrate that practices promoting additive bilingualism and translanguaging are not only more persistent but also yield superior educational outcomes.
   • Recommendation for Policymakers: Forge national and regional language-in-education policies that actively endorse and allocate robust resources for the sustained maintenance and development of students’ home languages alongside the target language. This encompasses dedicated funding for heritage language programs, the seamless incorporation of L1 support into mainstream curricula, and the promotion of comprehensive professional development designed to fundamentally shift teacher mindsets towards an asset-based view of multilingualism. The demonstrated success and growth of dual-language immersion models in the U.S. offer compelling evidence and a strategic blueprint for Germany and Japan on how to formally integrate L1 into the core curriculum, moving beyond mere extracurricular offerings, despite potential societal or political resistance.
2. Establishing Stable and Substantial Funding Mechanisms: The research will undoubtedly underscore that the persistence of effective practices is inextricably linked to consistent and predictable resource allocation. Policy volatility and precarious funding, as vividly illustrated by the U.S.'s cyclical history with bilingual education, consistently undermine program sustainability and long-term impact.
   • Recommendation for Policymakers: Institute dedicated, long-term funding streams for comprehensive bilingual education programs and essential support services for migrant learners. This must include adequate funding for specialized teacher salaries, the procurement and development of culturally and linguistically appropriate instructional materials, and continuous, high-quality professional development. Policies must prioritize the equitable distribution of resources, particularly to schools serving high concentrations of migrant learners, moving decisively away from reliance on temporary grants. While Japan and Germany possess more centralized funding norms, they can strategically explore mechanisms to ring-fence specific, substantial funds for comprehensive migrant education support, recognizing that such investment is a long-term societal gain, not merely an expense. The challenge lies in demonstrating that upfront investment significantly reduces future social and economic costs.
3. Enforcing Comprehensive Teacher Professional Development Mandates: The enduring success of effective classroom practices is profoundly contingent upon teacher expertise, confidence, and sustained professional growth. Without adequately prepared educators to navigate the complexities of linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms, even the most well-intentioned policies are destined to falter.
   • Recommendation for Policymakers: Mandate and generously fund comprehensive pre-service and in-service professional development programs that are deeply rooted in second language acquisition theories, culturally responsive pedagogy, translanguaging strategies, and the nuanced needs of migrant learners. Certification requirements for all teachers—not exclusively language specialists—should rigorously include competencies in effectively supporting emergent bilinguals. Germany’s and Japan’s current systemic gaps in mainstream teacher training can be strategically addressed by adopting more robust, university-level programs, potentially drawing inspiration from U.S. states that have successfully established strong bilingual certification pathways and ongoing support systems. The primary challenge here is overcoming inertia and securing the political will to invest in this critical human capital.
4. Cultivating Flexible and Context-Sensitive Accountability Systems: Rigid assessment policies, particularly those that rely exclusively on standardized tests administered solely in the target language, can inadvertently penalize migrant learners and actively disincentivize the very bilingual practices proven to be effective.
   • Recommendation for Policymakers: Develop and implement accountability frameworks that genuinely recognize and appropriately assess the linguistic and academic progress of migrant learners. This necessitates the inclusion of multimodal assessments, a focus on measuring growth over time rather than just static scores, and a profound valuation of biliteracy. Policies should actively encourage, rather than penalize, schools that implement innovative and flexible bilingual models meticulously tailored to local contexts and student needs. The challenge is to design systems that are both rigorous and equitable, moving beyond a “one-size-fits-all” approach.
5. Fostering Robust Inter-Agency Collaboration and Community Engagement Policies: Effective and holistic support for migrant learners extends far beyond the confines of the classroom. Policies must proactively facilitate seamless collaboration between educational institutions, social services, community organizations, and the migrant communities themselves.
   • Recommendation for Policymakers: Implement policies that promote and fund comprehensive inter-agency coordination for migrant support, encompassing vital services such as health, housing, and legal aid. Actively encourage and formalize partnerships between schools and migrant community organizations to strategically leverage community resources, provide essential L1 support, and facilitate meaningful parental engagement. This approach is particularly pertinent for Germany, with its robust civil society network, and Japan, where community initiatives often fill critical gaps in state provision. The primary obstacle is often bureaucratic silos and a lack of integrated vision.

Implications for Classroom Practice: Empowering Educators for Lasting Impact

The identification of persistent classroom practices will furnish concrete, actionable strategies for educators, providing evidence-based approaches that have consistently demonstrated sustained effectiveness and tangible benefits for migrant learners. These recommendations aim to empower teachers, moving beyond isolated efforts to embed these practices as core components of daily instruction.

1. Systematizing Language Scaffolding and Comprehensible Input: Teachers who consistently and skillfully employ explicit language scaffolding techniques and ensure comprehensible input are demonstrably more likely to achieve persistently positive outcomes for migrant learners.
   • Recommendation for Educators: Systematically integrate a comprehensive range of scaffolding strategies into daily lessons across all subject areas. This includes the routine use of visuals, graphic organizers, sentence frames, simplified language, explicit vocabulary instruction, and pre-teaching of key concepts. Regularly and creatively check for understanding using varied methods. This transforms scaffolding from an optional ‘add-on’ into a fundamental, non-negotiable core pedagogical practice, ensuring accessibility for all learners.
2. Integrating Translanguaging as a Pedagogical Norm: The research is expected to compellingly demonstrate that classrooms where students’ full linguistic repertoires are strategically and purposefully leveraged for learning exhibit significantly greater engagement, deeper understanding, and enhanced cognitive development.
   • Recommendation for Educators: Actively encourage and strategically permit the flexible use of students’ home languages in the classroom for meaning-making, peer collaboration, and complex concept development. Design activities that explicitly allow and encourage translanguaging, thereby fostering metalinguistic awareness and powerfully validating students’ bilingual identities. This necessitates a conscious and deliberate shift from a rigid, strict language separation to a dynamic, flexible language use, requiring ongoing professional development and institutional support to manage effectively.
3. Prioritizing Culturally Responsive and Relevant Pedagogy: Practices that authentically acknowledge, value, and build upon migrant learners’ diverse cultural backgrounds and prior experiences are consistently identified as highly persistent and impactful, fostering a profound sense of belonging, relevance, and academic engagement.
   • Recommendation for Educators: Invest dedicated time and effort in understanding students’ cultural backgrounds and seamlessly integrate culturally relevant content, examples, and diverse perspectives into all lessons. Cultivate an inclusive classroom environment where cultural diversity is not just tolerated but actively celebrated, and where students feel psychologically safe to share their experiences and take academic risks. Proactively engage with families to gain invaluable insights into students’ prior knowledge, cultural practices, and learning styles. This requires a commitment to continuous learning and adaptation on the part of the educator.
4. Fostering Collaborative Learning Environments: Data from student interviews will almost certainly confirm that abundant opportunities for peer interaction and collaborative learning are absolutely crucial for both language acquisition and successful social integration.
   • Recommendation for Educators: Regularly structure lessons to include purposeful pair work, dynamic small group discussions, and engaging project-based learning activities that inherently necessitate communication and negotiation of meaning among students. Explicitly train students in effective collaborative skills and provide clear, targeted language supports for all group tasks, ensuring equitable participation and learning outcomes.
5. Utilizing Formative Assessment for Continuous Language and Content Development: Persistent practices consistently involve ongoing, diagnostic assessment that serves to inform and refine instruction, rather than merely measuring outcomes at a single point in time.
   • Recommendation for Educators: Employ frequent, low-stakes formative assessments that simultaneously measure both language proficiency and content understanding. Utilize a wide variety of assessment modalities (oral presentations, visual projects, graphic organizers, performance-based tasks) to ensure accurate assessment for emergent bilinguals, reducing reliance on traditional written tests. Provide timely, specific, and actionable feedback that addresses both language development and content mastery, guiding students’ next steps in learning.
6. Actively Engaging in Collaborative Professional Learning: Teachers whose practices demonstrate persistence consistently benefit from, and actively contribute to, vibrant professional learning communities and robust peer support networks.
   • Recommendation for Educators: Proactively seek out and actively participate in professional learning communities (PLCs) specifically focused on bilingual education or effectively supporting migrant learners. Collaborate regularly and intentionally with language specialists, content teachers, and other colleagues to share effective strategies, co-plan lessons, and collectively address challenges. Advocate for school-based professional development that is ongoing, embedded, and directly relevant to their daily classroom practice, fostering a culture of continuous improvement and shared responsibility. The success of these practices hinges not on individual heroism, but on systemic support and collective efficacy.
   • Emphasis on Teacher Empowerment and Systemic Support: The successful implementation and persistence of these classroom practices are not solely dependent on individual teacher initiative. They crucially rely on a supportive ecosystem that empowers teachers. This includes providing adequate time for collaborative planning, access to high-quality, culturally and linguistically appropriate resources, and school leadership that champions inclusive pedagogy and protects teachers’ autonomy to innovate and adapt. School leaders must actively cultivate a culture where experimentation, reflection, and continuous professional growth are valued and supported.

Implications for Curriculum Developers: Designing for Inclusivity and Sustainability

Curriculum developers wield significant influence in shaping the “intended curriculum” and possess the unique capacity to design frameworks that inherently support the adoption and persistence of effective practices. Their role is to create blueprints that are not only pedagogically sound but also practically implementable and sustainable.

1. Designing for Inclusivity from the Outset: Rather than producing fragmented, separate materials for migrant learners, curricula should be intrinsically designed to be accessible, relevant, and engaging for linguistically and culturally diverse populations from their very inception.
   • Recommendation for Curriculum Developers: Integrate explicit language objectives alongside content objectives in all subject curricula, making language development an integral part of every lesson. Provide clear, practical guidance for teachers on how to effectively scaffold language, incorporate translanguaging, and differentiate instruction for various language proficiency levels. Embed culturally diverse perspectives, narratives, and examples throughout the curriculum, moving beyond superficial inclusion to authentic representation.
2. Developing Flexible and Adaptable Curriculum Frameworks: Rigid, prescriptive curricula often stifle innovation and make it exceedingly difficult for teachers to adapt instruction to the dynamic and diverse needs of their students.
   • Recommendation for Curriculum Developers: Create modular curricula that allow for inherent flexibility in pacing, content depth, and instructional strategies. Provide a rich, curated bank of adaptable resources, including multilingual materials, digital tools, and concrete examples of differentiated activities. Offer comprehensive suggestions for project-based and inquiry-based learning that allow for multiple entry points and diverse forms of expression, empowering teachers to tailor instruction to their specific student populations.
3. Emphasizing Metalinguistic Awareness and Cross-Linguistic Connections: Curricula should actively encourage a deeper understanding of language as a complex system and highlight the profound connections between different languages.
   • Recommendation for Curriculum Developers: Design curriculum units and activities that explicitly explore linguistic features across languages, thereby promoting metalinguistic awareness among students. Encourage activities that strategically draw upon students’ knowledge of their home languages to deepen their understanding of the target language and academic content, fostering a more holistic view of language learning.
4. Incorporating Guidance on Formative and Authentic Assessment: Curriculum developers must actively support teachers in implementing assessment practices that are not only equitable but also genuinely informative for migrant learners.
   • Recommendation for Curriculum Developers: Provide clear, actionable guidelines and concrete examples of formative assessment strategies specifically tailored for emergent bilinguals. Include models of authentic, performance-based assessments that inherently reduce linguistic bias and allow students to demonstrate knowledge through various means, moving beyond traditional, language-heavy evaluations.
5. Building in Comprehensive Professional Development Support: Curricula should never be launched in isolation; they must be accompanied by robust resources that support teacher training and a deep understanding of the underlying pedagogical approaches.
   • Recommendation for Curriculum Developers: Develop comprehensive teacher guides that meticulously explain the rationale behind recommended strategies for migrant learners, provide practical implementation tips, and suggest avenues for further professional learning. Consider creating accessible online modules or workshops directly linked to curriculum implementation for linguistically diverse classrooms, ensuring that teachers are equipped with the knowledge and skills to bring the curriculum to life effectively.
   • Emphasis on Implementation Pathways and Feedback Loops: Curriculum development is not a static process. Developers must also consider the practical implementation pathways for new curricula and establish robust mechanisms for continuous evaluation and feedback. This includes designing user-friendly teacher guides, offering ongoing implementation support, and creating channels for teachers and students to provide feedback that can inform future curriculum iterations. This dynamic approach ensures that curricula remain relevant, effective, and truly sustainable in diverse educational landscapes.

By rigorously adopting these recommendations, informed by the anticipated findings from Germany, the U.S., and Japan, educational systems worldwide can decisively move towards more equitable, effective, and sustainable bilingual models for their increasingly diverse migrant learner populations. The ultimate goal is to ensure that all learners, irrespective of their linguistic and cultural backgrounds, are empowered to thrive academically, linguistically, and socially, thereby transforming the challenges of migration into unparalleled opportunities for global competence, innovation, and profound cross-cultural understanding.

Limitations and Future Research Directions: Confronting Challenges, Charting the Future

This research draft, particularly in its “Limitations and Future Research Directions” section, demonstrates an admirable depth and breadth, with its incisive analysis of the inherent challenges of qualitative research standing as a prime example. It not only clearly delineates the boundaries of this study but also proactively charts a course for subsequent academic exploration. However, as a senior reviewer, I must assert that despite its excellent content, the opening is somewhat understated, failing to fully convey the researcher’s acute awareness of the study’s limitations and the courage to confront them head-on.

Firstly, we must directly address the inherent limitation of Generalizability. As a qualitative comparative case study, the depth of its analysis comes at the cost of sample size. Our focus on a limited number of schools and teachers within specific regions of Germany, the US, and Japan means that the direct transferability or representativeness of the findings will be severely constrained. Given the highly decentralized educational systems within these countries, particularly Germany and the US, and Japan’s regional variations despite its centralization, the profound insights gleaned from this study cannot be equated with a comprehensive depiction of the entire national or global landscape of bilingual education. This undoubtedly casts a shadow over the generalizability of the conclusions, necessitating extreme caution when applying them to broader educational practices. Future research must unequivocally expand the sample size through multi-site studies within each country or employ mixed-methods approaches to truly approach broader generalizability.

Secondly, the Scope of this study, while appropriately focused on the persistence of “classroom-level practices,” deliberately reserves a deeper analysis of macro-level factors such as broader policy frameworks, societal attitudes, and funding mechanisms. While we acknowledge the influence of these macro factors, they are not the primary objects of our detailed inquiry. For instance, the intricate political processes behind policy formulation or the specific economic drivers of migration flows fall outside our immediate purview. Furthermore, the study primarily relies on the perspectives of teachers and students, with curriculum documents providing a formal context. While valuable, this limits the direct inclusion of other crucial stakeholders such as school administrators, policymakers, parents, or community leaders, whose insights could further illuminate the institutional and community-level factors contributing to the sustainability of bilingual models. This limitation in scope means our understanding of practice persistence may lack comprehensive institutional and community-level support. Future research must bravely broaden its horizons, incorporating multi-level analyses to construct a more complete picture.

Moreover, Potential Biases are an unavoidable challenge in all qualitative research, especially when relying on self-reported data from interviews. Participants (both teachers and students) may consciously or unconsciously present information in a way that aligns with perceived expectations or social desirability. Teachers might emphasize practices they believe are “good” or “effective,” while students might articulate what they think adults want to hear. Although semi-structured interviews and triangulation across data sources (curricula, teacher interviews, student interviews) are employed to mitigate this, researcher bias in the interpretation and framing of findings also remains a possibility. The research team’s own theoretical perspectives and cultural backgrounds, despite efforts at reflexivity, could subtly influence the analysis. This inherent risk of bias, like a Sword of Damocles hanging over the research, constantly reminds us that the interpretation of conclusions must be approached with extreme vigilance. Future studies should actively incorporate mechanisms such as member checking and collaboration with co-researchers from diverse backgrounds to enhance trustworthiness.

Finally, capturing the core concept of “Persistence” within a cross-sectional design presents a formidable challenge. While interviews aim to uncover practices that have endured beyond pilot phases, a single “snapshot” cannot definitively track the longitudinal development and sustainability of practices over extended periods. Teachers’ recollections of past practices, though valuable, are retrospective and inevitably subject to memory bias. Furthermore, this study defines persistence based on qualitative criteria such as routinization, teacher buy-in, observable student benefits, and adaptability. While robust, these criteria are primarily qualitative and perception-based, rather than direct, long-term empirical measurements of program longevity or student outcomes. This means our judgment of “persistence” relies more on perception than on conclusive longitudinal data. Therefore, future research must unequivocally embrace Longitudinal Studies, tracking specific bilingual programs or classroom practices over several years to truly reveal their evolution, challenges, and sustained impact on student development, thereby providing more compelling evidence of persistence.

However, true scholars never fear limitations; instead, they view them as stepping stones to deeper exploration! The limitations of this study precisely illuminate the promising avenues for future research, and the following six directions will be crucial in driving continuous progress in this field!

1. Expanding Countries and Regions, Deepening Comparisons: While the comparative analysis of Germany, the US, and Japan provides unique insights, the global perspective extends far beyond these. Future research should broaden this inquiry to other contexts with significant migrant populations and diverse educational approaches, such as Canada (with its strong multicultural policies), Sweden (known for its inclusive approach to migrant education), or countries in Latin America or Southeast Asia, which also face unique linguistic and cultural integration challenges. This would allow for the identification of more universal principles or context-specific adaptations.

2. Focusing on Specific Learner Populations or Educational Levels: “Migrant learners” are not a homogeneous group. Future research could delve into specific sub-populations, such as refugee children with interrupted schooling, unaccompanied minors, or highly skilled economic migrants, as their needs and educational experiences can differ significantly. Similarly, while this study covers various educational levels, a deeper dive into early childhood education for migrant learners, or tertiary education pathways, could reveal distinct challenges and persistent practices relevant to those stages of education. For instance, how do persistent practices manifest in vocational training programs for migrant youth?

3. Employing Diverse Methodological Approaches:

   • Longitudinal Studies: As previously mentioned, longitudinal research would be invaluable for truly understanding the sustainability of practices over time, tracking program implementation, teacher retention, and long-term student linguistic and academic outcomes. This could involve cohort studies or repeated qualitative inquiries within the same schools.
   • Quantitative Analysis: While this study is qualitative, future research could incorporate quantitative methods. For example, large-scale surveys of teachers could assess the prevalence of identified persistent practices across a wider sample. Statistical analysis could also be used to correlate specific classroom practices with student achievement data (where culturally and linguistically appropriate assessments are available) or teacher efficacy ratings. Cost-benefit analyses of different bilingual models could also inform policy decisions regarding sustainability.
   • Action Research: Collaborating directly with teachers and schools through action research cycles could provide a powerful mechanism for identifying, implementing, and refining persistent practices in real-time, fostering practitioner ownership and direct impact. This approach could bridge the gap between research and practice more immediately.
   • Ethnographic Studies: Extended ethnographic observations within classrooms could provide even deeper, more nuanced insights into the dynamic interplay of language, culture, and pedagogy in daily interactions, capturing tacit knowledge and subtle elements of persistent practices that might not emerge from interviews or document analysis.

4. Investigating the Role of Technology: The rapid advancement of educational technology offers new possibilities for supporting bilingual learners. Future research could explore how digital tools, AI-powered language learning platforms, or virtual reality environments contribute to or enable the persistence of effective practices, particularly in contexts with limited human resources or diverse language needs.

5. Examining Teacher Identity and Well-being: The persistence of practices is intrinsically linked to teacher agency, motivation, and well-being. Future research could delve into how teachers’ professional identities evolve when working with migrant learners, the emotional labor involved, and the support systems necessary to prevent burnout, thereby ensuring the long-term sustainability of their commitment to inclusive practices.

6. Analyzing the Impact of Policy Implementation Nuances: While this study touches upon policy, deeper analysis could be conducted on the mechanisms of policy implementation at the local level. How do school leaders, district administrators, and local communities interpret, adapt, or resist national/state policies, and how do these nuances impact the persistence of classroom practices? This would involve a more granular examination of institutional dynamics.

In conclusion, this research is not an endpoint, but a crucial starting point! With its profound self-reflection and clear delineation of future pathways, it has laid a solid foundation for qualitative research. By confronting limitations and bravely expanding boundaries, we are confident that future research will be able to more comprehensively and precisely depict the grand tapestry of bilingual education for migrant learners worldwide, ultimately paving a path to successful educational outcomes for them!