Worldwide, languages are disappearing, particularly indigenous languages which suffering from historical and present-day globalising trends teether towards extinction (Hornberger, 1998). In Guatemala, 30% of the population’s mother tongue is one of 22 distinct heritage languages, a percentage that decreases yearly (Saz-Choxin, 2020). Despite the new laws and curriculum in the last decades, most Bilingual Intercultural Education (BIE) teachers are unfamiliar with evidence-based pedagogical strategies that might support their bilingual practice and students’ success in learning, which is driving indigenous languages towards extinction.

This study’s purpose is to better understand what other countries similar have done to prevent language loss and identifying opportunities in Bilingual Intercultural Education (BIE) models. Guatemala’s educational policy faces barriers and opportunities similar to those experienced by indigenous groups in Europe, such as the Sámi (Lee-Hammond & Jackson-Barrett, 2019), the Roma and Travellers (UNESCO, 2020), and linguistic minorities such as the Euskara (Basque) (Etxeberria-Sagastume, 2006). The study therefore has significant relevance for European researchers.

A challenge for the Mayan Language reclamation and revitalization movements  is that it is trying to reverse a 500-year-old trend of colonization with a little over 20 years of new policy (Bastos & Cumes, 2007). Another element to consider, is that the ‘language as a right’ orientation policy (Ruiz, 1984) that was put in place with the 1996 Peace Accords, has had limited impact when the country’s full cultural background remains unchanged (Bastos & Cumes, 2007). Much can be learned from similar struggles in correctly implementing policy, such as the rulings against the discrimination of the Sámi people in Finland, and the state’s responsibility in providing education and resources for these populations (Lee-Hammond & Jackson-Barrett, 2019; McCarty et al., 2008).

Additionally in Guatemala, there is still a resistance on behalf of the European descendentelite, who during the Civil War sided with the military, and despite signing the Peace Accords, have not allowed deep social change to occur, or correct policy implementation (Bastos & Cumes, 2007; Maxwell, 2017). The struggles lived in Guatemala, and the impact after a Civil War, where language education was one of the battleground, is reminiscent of experiences, such as those lived by the Catalans in Spain (Chiesa et al., 2012).

For a bi/multilingual education program to have a positive impact, it must have an effective literacy pedagogical component, because teaching children to read and write in a student’s mother tongue, and requires a strong form of bilingual education aims for “bilingualism, biliteracy and biculturalism” (Baker & Wright, 2021, p. 293). The work that has been done through international efforts in language legislation in Europe can help inform educational public policy in Guatemala, helping overcome barriers and incentivize key drivers for change (McCarty et al., 2008).

Guatemala’s BIE policy has progressed slowly and remains rooted in a postcolonial perspective of education and language (Cortina & De la Garza, 2015). What is still lacking, is sufficient details on where and how the educational and language policy are helping or failing indigenous students. This exploratory study hopes to fill part of this gap in information, doing so by answering the following three research questions:

1. What does existing research identify as barriers to and drivers for bilingual indigenous language education? Might these relate to the Guatemalan context?  
2. How do different stakeholders view bilingual indigenous education (in their mother tongue and with Spanish as a second language) in general and in the current education system?
3. What do these findings tell us about the potential barriers to and drivers for the BIE model in Guatemala? 

This study sits in a qualitative indigenous research paradigm with a phenomenological approach (Panofsky et al., 2024; Spencer & Snape, 2003). The selected data collection methods were a systematic literature review and interviews. The systematic literature review examined previous Bilingual Intercultural Education (BIE) experiences that can be adapted to the Guatemalan context. The interviews provided the human element to abstract phenomena such as language policy in education (Seidman, 2019). The systematic literature review Due to the nature and subject matter of this study a qualitative systematic review was used to identify and analyse the results of mixed method studies (both quantitative and qualitative). This included the alternative search frameworks created by qualitative researchers, following three key elements: Population, Phenomenon of Interest, and Context (PICo) (Stern et al., 2014). A total of 1,850 records were found through six databases and two Ibero-American indexed journal article websites. After the screening process 38 articles were considered to fit the inclusion and quality criteria. These articles were then analysed and synthesized to identify key findings which were clustered in four categories grouped in pairs: 1) social inclusion/exclusion; 2) policy barriers and drivers; 3) language as a barrier/driver; and 4) BIE classroom practice barriers/drivers. Interviews The study’s interviews contributed to a more complete understanding of the lived reality of participants and the systematic literature review’s findings helped informed the interviews’ structure and questions. The BIE phenomenon was examined through the lens of either those who endorsed the language policies (policy makers) or lived them at school level (from administrative leaders to students and their families). The structure of the interview was an adapted version of what Seidman (2019) describes as the three interview series in phenomenology. Selecting participants was done through the multiple perspectives’ framework for interviews, where the various stakeholders are selected to allow to analyse the intersection of their experiences (Santoro, 2014). The key stakeholders interviewed were policy makers (7), followed by ex-students (7), parents (7), teachers (8), school administrators (3) in three schools that have bilingual indigenous education. Making it a total of 32 interviews. The schools were purposely sought for their BIE model, and those selected consented to be a part of the study. Data analysis All interviews were transcribed, coded using NVivo14 (Lumivero, 2023) and analysed using thematic analysis for identifying and analysing patterns or themes in the data (Saldaña, 2014).

The study has found that historical and recent political context in Guatemala created a set of barriers and drivers to bilingual intercultural education that persist to the present day. At the same time the effort of social justice and reparations which began with the inclusive language and education policies put in place by the 1996 Peace Accords is driving the change at the national level. Nevertheless, it is the grassroots classroom practice that has the biggest impact in indigenous children’s everyday lives. The data collected shows that there is hope in creating an educational model that is inclusive, culturally relevant, and supportive of how indigenous languages are resources for change and positive outcomes nationwide, and can be learned bilingually alongside Spanish, the national language (Ruiz, 1984). Yet, one of the most interesting results has been the participants’ hunger for knowledge and details about functional models of bilingual intercultural education. Study participants shared consistently, in their belief in the importance of indigenous languages for them in terms of culture, identity, and learning. They also believed in the importance of the role of bilingual intercultural education to help promote and revitalize indigenous language. Nevertheless, participants mentioned that they continue to struggle to convince and inform students’ parents, students, peers, and other members of society about the BIE model’s importance. Participants mentioned they are searching for detailed recommendations and programs, like so many today in Europe, that can help inform their practice and their community. This is an important finding going forward, and potentially a key consideration for future research and support.

Baker, C., & Wright, W. E. (2021). Bilingualism and Multilingualism: Definitions and Distinctions. In Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (Vol. 127). Multilingual Matters. https://go.exlibris.link/J8t2DPTr Bastos, S., & Cumes, A. (2007). Mayanización y vida cotidiana: La ideología multicultural en la sociedad guatemalteca (F. CIRMA, Ed. Vol. 3). Cholsamaj Fundacion. Chiesa, B. D., Scott, J., & Hinton, C. (2012). Languages in a Global World: Learning for Better Cultural Understanding. ERIC. Cortina, R., & De la Garza, K. (2015). Educación, pueblos indígenas e interculturalidad en América Latina. Ediciones Abya-Yala. Etxeberria-Sagastume, F. (2006). Attitudes towards language learning in different linguistic models of the Basque autonomous community. Imagining multilingual schools, 111-136. Hornberger, N. H. (1998). Language policy, language education, language rights: Indigenous, immigrant, and international perspectives. Language in society, 27(4), 439-458. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500020182 Lee-Hammond, L., & Jackson-Barrett, E. (2019). Indigenous Children’s Linguistic Rights in the 21st Century: Intentions and Tensions in Practice. International Journal of Early Childhood, 51(3), 301-318. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-019-00251-6 Maxwell, J. (2017). Kib’eyal taq ch’ab’äl: Mayan language regimes in Guatemala. International journal of the sociology of language, 2017(246), 109-133. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2017-0015 McCarty, T. L., Skutnabb‐Kangas, T., & Magga, O. H. (2008). Education for speakers of endangered languages. The handbook of educational linguistics, 297-312. Panofsky, S., Hartwick, L., & Buchanan, M. J. (2024). Potential and Pitfalls: Settler Scholar Engagement in Indigenous Research. Qualitative inquiry, 30(3-4), 318-332. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004231163537 Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE journal, 8(2), 15-34. Saldaña, J. (2014). Coding and Analysis Strategies. In P. Leavy (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199811755.013.001 Santoro, N. (2014). Using a multiple perspectives framework: a methodological approach to analyse complex and contradictory interview data. Ethnography and education, 9(2), 127-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2013.839387 Saz-Choxin, M. A. (2020). Lectoescritura inicial en contextos bilingües: Una aproximación desde la teoría fundamentada. RECIE. Revista Caribeña de Investigación Educativa, 4(2), 46-61. Seidman, I. (2019). Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences. Fifth Edition. Teachers College Press. https://go.exlibris.link/x4d99LGd Spencer, L., & Snape, L. (2003). The foundations of qualitative research. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers, 1-23. Stern, C., Jordan, Z., & McArthur, A. (2014). SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, Step by Step: Developing the Review Question and Inclusion Criteria. The American Journal of Nursing, 114(4), 53-56. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24466342 UNESCO. (2020). Global education monitoring report 2020: Inclusion and education-all means all. UN.