Multilingual education in unequal contexts: Structural barriers to making all repertoires count in the global south

Over the past two decades, language education has been shaped by what is often described as a multilingual turn, characterized by an increasing acknowledgment that language learning and use are dynamic, socially embedded, and deeply entangled with issues of identity, power, and inequality (May, 2013). Concepts such as multilingualism, plurilingualism, and translanguaging have challenged long-held monolingual assumptions in teaching and assessment, emphasizing learners’ full linguistic repertoires as legitimate resources for making meaning. However, this conceptual change has occurred alongside a countercurrent: a renewed global skepticism toward diversity-based educational initiatives, including multilingual education, which are increasingly seen as politically controversial, economically inefficient, or ideologically excessive (Block, 2018; Kubota, 2016). Consequently, multilingualism often receives rhetorical support—for example, at the policy level—but remains structurally fragile in practice (Mendoza et al., 2024; Mohanty, 2019; Sah it is politically vulnerable. These global dynamics help explain why the multilingual turn, despite its significant theoretical influence, has had limited systemic impact—particularly within schooling systems shaped by nationalist and neoliberal language ideologies, high-stakes assessment, and market-oriented logics. Although multilingual practices are often promoted as pedagogical strategies or framed as transitional scaffolding, they remain tightly constrained by curricula and assessment structures that ultimately reward proficiency in a narrow set of dominant languages. As a result, multilingualism is frequently tolerated only insofar as it does not disrupt the gatekeeping functions of languages such as English. This tension is especially pronounced in the Global South, where multilingualism is a long-standing social and historical reality, yet education systems continue to privilege ex-colonial or global commodified languages as primary pathways to mobility and opportunity. Against this backdrop, Van Gorp's (2026, this issue) perspective offers a timely and significant intervention. By urging the field to “make all repertoires count,” and by grounding this call in critical multilingual language awareness (CMLA), he provides a principled and pedagogically coherent response to the continuing dominance of monolingual norms in task-based language teaching, assessment, and teacher education. His argument shows how multilingualism can be operationalized within established frameworks instead of remaining an abstract notion. However, building on this idea, this commentary raises a question that becomes especially urgent given current political conditions: What does it mean to “make all repertoires count” when only some languages have social and economic value? Within environments influenced by anti-DEI sentiments, neoliberal education policies, and global English dominance, addressing this question calls for not only pedagogical innovation but also persistent attention to the ideological and political-economic structures that determine which languages—and whose futures—are ultimately valued. This commentary argues that the uneven uptake of multilingual education and translanguaging—particularly in Global South contexts—cannot be explained solely by pedagogical resistance or a lack of teacher awareness, but must be understood through the ideological, political, and economic conditions that shape language-in-education policies and practices. While multilingualism is a lived and historical reality in much of the Global South, schooling continues to be governed by nationalist and neoliberal language regimes that, for example, position English as must-have linguistic capital and relegate other local/Indigenous languages to symbolic roles (Block, 2018; Sah it can just as easily reinforce unequal language practices when only certain repertoires are considered valuable (see Mendoza et al., 2024; Sah rather, it involves positioning teacher agency within the larger ideological and policy frameworks that influence educational practices. Awareness without alignment can lead to professional frustration, moral loss, reduced emotional well-being, or selective implementation, in which multilingual education thrives only in protected settings while remaining absent or punished elsewhere. If the field genuinely aims to “make all repertoires count,” it must ask not only who is aware but also what systems are being asked to change. Furthermore, one constant challenge in multilingual education research is the tendency to focus on the classroom level for both problems and solutions. When multilingual pedagogies are not widely embraced, explanations often cite teachers’ beliefs, training, or resistance, oftentimes blaming individual teachers. Although these factors are important, they can mask the structural realities teachers face. In many education systems, especially those influenced by colonial legacies and neoliberal reforms, teachers are positioned as implementers rather than designers of policy. Their professional survival depends on conforming to assessment regimes and performance metrics that continue to privilege monolingual norms. While developing critical awareness among teachers is important, it does not automatically result in increased pedagogical flexibility. In such situations, the disconnect between awareness and action is not always about lack of knowledge but about structural limitations. Viewing multilingual education mainly as a teacher's stance risks shifting responsibility onto individuals with limited power to effect systemic change. This dynamic is especially evident in EMI contexts, where teachers regularly confront conflicting demands: guaranteeing students’ understanding through multilingual practices while concurrently preparing them for assessments that favor monolingual English skills (Sah they actively (re)produce and legitimize them. When multilingualism is celebrated in policy rhetoric but excluded from high-stakes examinations, the message to teachers and students is clear: Some repertoires are more valuable than others. Similarly, when curricula endorse multilingual engagement without allocating time, resources, or professional recognition to it, multilingualism becomes an optional add-on rather than a foundational principle. Critical multilingual policy alignment, therefore, calls for consistency across three interconnected areas. First, the curriculum must reflect multilingual realities. This implies moving beyond strict language separation and recognizing multilingual meaning-making as essential to disciplinary learning. In practice, this entails designing curricula that support the use of multiple languages for learning, discussion, and knowledge-building, rather than viewing them solely as tools to achieve monolingual outcomes. Second, assessment needs to be rethought in ways that align closely, for example, with Van Gorp's focus on multilingual task-based language assessment. As long as assessment structures remain implicitly monolingual, multilingual pedagogies will continue to be marginalized. From my perspective, assessment reform is not just a technical issue but a political one. It involves reconceptualizing what constitutes achievement and whose linguistic resources are deemed legitimate. Without this redefinition, multilingual education will continue to operate in the shadow of monolingual accountability. Third, policy coherence beyond education must be addressed. Language-in-education policies do not operate in isolation; they are deeply connected to labor markets, migration patterns, and broader political imaginaries. In many Global South contexts, English is seen as the main language of social and economic participation, creating a strong incentive structure that undermines multilingual education. When employability, higher education access, and social mobility are overwhelmingly linked to English proficiency, multilingual policies—however well-intentioned—are perceived as economically risky. Addressing this tension requires a broader conversation about how languages are valued across society, not just within schools. An important implication of this framework is a new way of understanding teacher agency. Instead of viewing teachers as the primary agents responsible for implementing multilingual education, critical multilingual policy alignment highlights collective and institutional responsibility. Teachers are not just lone actors making isolated decisions; they are professionals embedded within ideological systems that influence which practices are seen as possible, legitimate, and safe. Recognizing this does not teacher it it more From this perspective, professional development focused only on awareness risks becoming if it is not by structural change. Teachers be asked to multilingual practices without being given the assessment or institutional necessary to do this can even as multilingual education on individual teachers’ to about across and structural approach aims to shift responsibility that multilingual education is not on individual to the central question this it means to “make all repertoires this cannot be by pedagogy Van Gorp's call to “make all repertoires count” offers a timely and principled response to the persistent dominance of monolingual norms in language education, that multilingualism is not a pedagogical but also an ethical and I argue that this in the Global moving beyond individual teachers’ critical awareness to include the ideological, political, and policy structures that what multilingual education can When only certain languages are institutionally valued, multilingual practices may be symbolically but limited in practice. Making all repertoires means not only recognizing linguistic but also the conditions which languages are and rewarded. In this the importance of multilingualism is not just about it is about its power to challenge hierarchies and language education a of social and educational In contexts where only languages are linked to institutional assessment and future making all repertoires involves more than calls for multilingual assessment, institutional power, and ultimately social value. In my perspective is that the future of multilingual education depends on to see it not just as a pedagogical innovation but as a structural and political endeavor. CMLA remains a but it must be with critical policy alignment if multilingual education is to beyond isolated and become a of equitable education can the field to genuinely what it truly means to make all repertoires Without multilingual education risks being and In such multilingualism may be recognized symbolically while remaining materially unequal. From a Global South perspective, this risk is especially is already what is is institutional recognition of its full value. Making all repertoires then, is not about multilingual practices to systems but about the systems This transformation through institutional aligning language policies with and assessment reforms, multilingual and assessment frameworks, and collective responsibility among and It also requires confronting political nationalist and English-only ideologies, neoliberal of language to and education as a for linguistic and social this as Van Gorp CMLA of an important not only for teachers but also for other (e.g., and This is a commentary and does not