In recent decades, multilingual education has been widely promoted as a policy response to globalisation, knowledge-economy demands, and increased linguistic diversity. Kazakhstan’s trilingual education policy—designed to institutionalise Kazakh as the state language, Russian as the language of interethnic communication, and English as the language of global integration—represents one of the most ambitious education policy reforms in the field of language governance in post-Soviet contexts. Introduced as part of a broader modernisation agenda, the policy sought to transform secondary education by introducing English-medium instruction (EMI), particularly in STEM subjects, while maintaining bilingual instruction in Kazakh and Russian (Nazarbayev, 2007; Karabassova, 2018). Despite strong political endorsement and extensive piloting, the reform was effectively paused by the late 2010s, raising critical questions about why a strategically central policy failed to achieve its intended outcomes.

Conceptually, the paper is situated within education policy studies and is informed by a micro–meso–macro analytical framework (Dale, 1999), which enables examination of how centrally designed reforms (macro level) are mediated within institutional settings such as schools and local authorities (meso level) and ultimately enacted in professional practice at classroom level (micro level). Drawing on an in-depth critical analysis of peer-reviewed literature, government policy documents, evaluation reports, and empirical studies of school- and teacher-level responses, the study situates Kazakhstan’s experience within international debates on policy enactment, English-medium instruction, and multilingual education reform (Hornberger & Johnson, 2007; Braun et al., 2011; Johnson, 2013).

The paper is guided by three research questions:

1. How was the trilingual education policy conceptualised and justified within Kazakhstan’s secondary education reform agenda?
2. How did teachers and schools interpret and respond to the introduction of English-medium instruction in policy enactment at the level of professional practice?
3. What structural and institutional conditions constrained the effective enactment of the policy across mainstream secondary schools? 

Analytically, the study adopts a policy enactment perspective that foregrounds the interaction between policy texts, institutional contexts, and professional agency within policy enactment (Braun et al., 2011). This approach enables a critical examination of how globally circulating models—such as CLIL and EMI—were transferred into Kazakhstan’s education system with limited adaptation to local linguistic ecologies, teacher preparedness, and resource disparities (Coyle et al., 2010; Cenoz et al., 2014). Particular attention is paid to teachers as key policy actors who actively negotiate reform demands in response to classroom realities, student proficiency levels, and workload pressures (Menken & García, 2010; Karabassova, 2022).

The analysis demonstrates that although the trilingual policy was coherent at the level of political discourse, its implementation was undermined by multiple interconnected factors. These included uneven teacher English proficiency, an overreliance on short-term training programmes, insufficient emphasis on pedagogical integration of content and language, and stark inequalities between elite pilot institutions and mainstream public schools, particularly in rural areas (Goodman & Karabassova, 2018; Karabassova, 2020). In many classrooms, limited student preparedness constrained meaningful engagement with subject content, leading to extensive code-switching and pedagogical simplification (Zhumanova et al., 2016; Imanova et al., 2025). As a result, trilingualism frequently functioned symbolically rather than substantively, weakening both subject learning and language development. 

By placing Kazakhstan’s experience in comparative perspective, this paper contributes to international scholarship on education policy and the politics of reform by illustrating the risks of rapid, top-down initiatives and uncritical policy borrowing. It argues that sustainable multilingual education requires phased implementation, strong institutional mediation, and sustained investment in teacher development rather than ambitious timelines and symbolic targets.

This study adopts a qualitative, document-based research design grounded in critical policy analysis and explicitly informed by a micro–meso–macro framework. This framework provides a structured lens for analysing interactions between national policy design (macro), institutional mediation and organisational capacity (meso), and professional practice in classrooms (micro). Methodologically, the study is positioned within education policy research that foregrounds interpretation, mediation, and governance processes rather than linear models of policy implementation. The approach is suited to examining complex education reforms in which policy intentions, institutional mediation, and professional practice intersect across multiple layers of the education system. The primary data sources consist of three interconnected bodies of material. First, official policy documents were analysed, including state programmes on education and language development, ministerial decrees, implementation roadmaps, and public policy statements related to trilingual education and English-medium instruction (MoES, 2010; MoES, 2015). These texts provide insight into the policy’s stated objectives, timelines, and underlying assumptions regarding teacher capacity, institutional readiness, and language learning trajectories. Second, the study draws on peer-reviewed academic literature indexed in international databases such as Scopus and Web of Science. This includes empirical studies on trilingual education, CLIL, and EMI in Kazakhstan, as well as comparative research on language governance and policy enactment in international contexts (Karabassova, 2018; Goodman & Karabassova, 2018; Manan & Hajar, 2024). These sources enable triangulation between official policy narratives and research-based accounts of implementation at school and classroom levels. Third, policy evaluations, practitioner-oriented reports, and published teacher studies were examined to capture how the reform was experienced and interpreted by educators and institutions (IAC, 2016; Nurzhumbayeva, 2019). These materials are particularly valuable for identifying gaps between formal policy design and everyday pedagogical practice. Data analysis followed a thematic and iterative process. Policy texts and research findings were coded to identify recurring patterns related to teacher preparedness, pedagogical integration, institutional capacity, resource distribution, and professional agency within policy enactment. Concepts from policy enactment theory were used as sensitising tools to interpret how actors at different levels recontextualised reform demands rather than implementing them uniformly (Braun et al., 2011; Hornberger & Johnson, 2007).

This study demonstrates that the limited success of Kazakhstan’s trilingual education policy in secondary schools was not the result of flawed policy objectives, but of systemic misalignments between reform ambitions and implementation conditions. While trilingualism was framed as a strategic tool for national development and global integration, its enactment relied on assumptions about teacher readiness, institutional capacity, and student preparedness that were not met across most mainstream schools. One central finding is that English-medium instruction, positioned as the cornerstone of the reform, functioned unevenly and often symbolically rather than pedagogically. Insufficient emphasis on content–language integration, combined with short-term training and limited post-training support, constrained meaningful classroom enactment (Karabassova, 2020; Manan & Hajar, 2024). Teachers frequently adapted the policy through code-switching or selective implementation in order to prioritise subject comprehension over formal compliance. The analysis also highlights how institutional inequalities shaped policy outcomes. Elite pilot schools benefitted from strong leadership, sustained professional development, and access to resources, whereas mainstream and rural schools faced structural constraints that limited their capacity to adopt English-medium instruction effectively (Goodman & Karabassova, 2018). These disparities undermined the scalability of the reform and exposed the risks of transferring practices from privileged contexts to the wider system without adequate mediation. From a policy studies perspective, the findings illustrate how ambitious reforms can lose coherence through institutional fragmentation, uneven governance capacity, and weak feedback loops between policymakers and practitioners (Braun et al., 2011; Hornberger & Johnson, 2007). The study contributes to international debates on education reform by positioning Kazakhstan’s experience as a cautionary case, underscoring the importance of phased implementation, sustained teacher development, and context-sensitive governance in multilingual and English-medium education policies.

Braun, A., Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Policy enactments in schools: Towards a typology of policy work. Journal of Education Policy, 26(5), 633–648. Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Goodman, B., & Karabassova, L. (2018). Bottom-up and top down: Comparing language-in-education policy in Ukraine and Kazakhstan. In I. Silova & M. Chankseliani (Eds.), Comparing post-socialist transformations (pp. 147–166). Symposium Books. Hornberger, N. H., & Johnson, D. C. (2007). Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers and spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 509–532. Imanova, D., Akzhigitova, A., & Zabrodskaja, A. (2025). Language-in-education policy for English language teaching in public schools of Kazakhstan. Education Sciences, 15(1), 66. Information-Analytic Center (IAC). (2016). Review of the international trilingual education experience and development of language learning methodology. Astana. Johnson, D. C. (2013). Language policy. Palgrave Macmillan. Karabassova, L. (2018). Teachers’ conceptualisation of content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Evidence from a trilingual context. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(7), 1–13. Karabassova, L. (2020). CLIL as part of mainstream education: Secondary school science teachers’ experiences. Nazarbayev University. Karabassova, L. (2022). Teacher preparedness and EMI enactment in Kazakhstan. Current Issues in Language Planning. Manan, S. A., & Hajar, A. (2024). Understanding English-medium instruction policy from the perspectives of STEM teachers in Kazakhstan. TESOL Journal, 15(4), e847. Menken, K., & García, O. (2010). Negotiating language policies in schools. Routledge. Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan (MoES). (2010). State Program of Education Development in the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2011–2020. Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan (MoES). (2015). State Program of Education Development for 2016–2019. Nazarbayev, N. (2007). A new Kazakhstan in a new world: Address to the people of Kazakhstan. Nurzhumbayeva, A. Z. (2019). Implementation of the trilingual policy through advanced teacher training. Bulletin of the Karaganda University, 95(3), 80–89. Zhumanova, A. Z., Dosova, B. A., Imanbetov, A. N., & Zhumashev, R. M. (2016). Language politics in the Republic of Kazakhstan. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(11), 4241–4253.