The production of the BNCC (Base Nacional Comum Curricular) gave rise to a series of discussions on the role of school systems in Brazil. A number of educators and researchers expressed their concerns about the homogenizing perspective reflected and refracted by the document. In other words, in a country as socially and culturally diverse as Brazil is, how might an educational instrument outline “essential types of knowledge” for students, irrespective of their personal, regional, and local specificities?

        On the other hand, the document also incorporates a discourse which values peripheral contributions. In doing so, it adopts a more overtly progressive tone, which accentuates the importance of diversity. Szundy, in her examination of the BNCC’s English Language component, underscores how the document subscribes to the notion of ideological literacy. The author believes that the BNCC’s introduction of an intercultural axis brings the document closer to an ideological stance which “understands languages as resources that put us in contact with otherness, with plural and equally valid ways of being and of being in the world.” A bit further, the author argues that “BNCC may urge us to situate teaching within the realm of decolonial practices”.

        We could be led to think that BNCC, by laying emphasis on the situated nature of learners’ knowledge, reinforces democratic ideals and seeks to promote unrestricted access to critical education. This interpretation, albeit problematic, seems less harmful than the enunciation of universal, “essential knowledge.” However, it is also Szundy who, in her analysis of the competences and skills associated with the teaching of English in the Brazilian 6th grade, encounters an autonomous view of reading: “The use of verbs such as formulate, identify and locate in these three reading skills is at odds with the formative and political understanding of the English language found in the component’s introduction, as well as with the document’s overall apprehension of the lingua franca concept (…)”.

        BNCC’s discursive and ideological diversity refracts a myriad of epistemological and axiological contradictions, illuminating a clash between ideological systems. Amidst such conflicts, however, we may find openings for the creation of new curricula. This point is repeatedly made in Szundy’s analysis as she dwells on the skills and competences outlined by the BNCC for the 9th grade in Middle Education. In such descriptors, the use of verbs such as debate, analyse and discuss could suggest the development of more critical and political linguistic practices. Yet, in Szundy’s own words: “In BNCC, the English language’s status as a lingua franca (…) is designed to assist students in developing the skills and competences they need to become selfentrepreneurs and to participate in the global world without ever calling its macro and micro structures into question; without ever examining how these very structures operate to keep huge swaths of the population at bay, deprived of any access to the commodities of an utopian global village.”

        BNCC, a normative document, prescribes a conditioning of students’ reading practices. The underlying pedagogical conception assumes the existence of a Cartesian reader, equipped with enough autonomy to identify the precise routes laid down by authors, as if fruition automatically conferred such abilities. This project is incongruous with the nature of language itself, i.e., with the fact that meaning emerges through socially and historically situated contact with otherness (even when that otherness is materialized in texts). Here, the notion of ideological sign comes in handy once more, since meanings only arise in concrete communicative situations, where they are imbued with existing social values.

Internet:  <doi.org> (adapted).

        The production of the BNCC (Base Nacional Comum Curricular) gave rise to a series of discussions on the role of school systems in Brazil. A number of educators and researchers expressed their concerns about the homogenizing perspective reflected and refracted by the document. In other words, in a country as socially and culturally diverse as Brazil is, how might an educational instrument outline “essential types of knowledge” for students, irrespective of their personal, regional, and local specificities?

        On the other hand, the document also incorporates a discourse which values peripheral contributions. In doing so, it adopts a more overtly progressive tone, which accentuates the importance of diversity. Szundy, in her examination of the BNCC’s English Language component, underscores how the document subscribes to the notion of ideological literacy. The author believes that the BNCC’s introduction of an intercultural axis brings the document closer to an ideological stance which “understands languages as resources that put us in contact with otherness, with plural and equally valid ways of being and of being in the world.” A bit further, the author argues that “BNCC may urge us to situate teaching within the realm of decolonial practices”.

        We could be led to think that BNCC, by laying emphasis on the situated nature of learners’ knowledge, reinforces democratic ideals and seeks to promote unrestricted access to critical education. This interpretation, albeit problematic, seems less harmful than the enunciation of universal, “essential knowledge.” However, it is also Szundy who, in her analysis of the competences and skills associated with the teaching of English in the Brazilian 6th grade, encounters an autonomous view of reading: “The use of verbs such as formulate, identify and locate in these three reading skills is at odds with the formative and political understanding of the English language found in the component’s introduction, as well as with the document’s overall apprehension of the lingua franca concept (…)”.

        BNCC’s discursive and ideological diversity refracts a myriad of epistemological and axiological contradictions, illuminating a clash between ideological systems. Amidst such conflicts, however, we may find openings for the creation of new curricula. This point is repeatedly made in Szundy’s analysis as she dwells on the skills and competences outlined by the BNCC for the 9th grade in Middle Education. In such descriptors, the use of verbs such as debate, analyse and discuss could suggest the development of more critical and political linguistic practices. Yet, in Szundy’s own words: “In BNCC, the English language’s status as a lingua franca (…) is designed to assist students in developing the skills and competences they need to become selfentrepreneurs and to participate in the global world without ever calling its macro and micro structures into question; without ever examining how these very structures operate to keep huge swaths of the population at bay, deprived of any access to the commodities of an utopian global village.”

        BNCC, a normative document, prescribes a conditioning of students’ reading practices. The underlying pedagogical conception assumes the existence of a Cartesian reader, equipped with enough autonomy to identify the precise routes laid down by authors, as if fruition automatically conferred such abilities. This project is incongruous with the nature of language itself, i.e., with the fact that meaning emerges through socially and historically situated contact with otherness (even when that otherness is materialized in texts). Here, the notion of ideological sign comes in handy once more, since meanings only arise in concrete communicative situations, where they are imbued with existing social values.

Internet:  <doi.org> (adapted).

        The production of the BNCC (Base Nacional Comum Curricular) gave rise to a series of discussions on the role of school systems in Brazil. A number of educators and researchers expressed their concerns about the homogenizing perspective reflected and refracted by the document. In other words, in a country as socially and culturally diverse as Brazil is, how might an educational instrument outline “essential types of knowledge” for students, irrespective of their personal, regional, and local specificities?

        On the other hand, the document also incorporates a discourse which values peripheral contributions. In doing so, it adopts a more overtly progressive tone, which accentuates the importance of diversity. Szundy, in her examination of the BNCC’s English Language component, underscores how the document subscribes to the notion of ideological literacy. The author believes that the BNCC’s introduction of an intercultural axis brings the document closer to an ideological stance which “understands languages as resources that put us in contact with otherness, with plural and equally valid ways of being and of being in the world.” A bit further, the author argues that “BNCC may urge us to situate teaching within the realm of decolonial practices”.

        We could be led to think that BNCC, by laying emphasis on the situated nature of learners’ knowledge, reinforces democratic ideals and seeks to promote unrestricted access to critical education. This interpretation, albeit problematic, seems less harmful than the enunciation of universal, “essential knowledge.” However, it is also Szundy who, in her analysis of the competences and skills associated with the teaching of English in the Brazilian 6th grade, encounters an autonomous view of reading: “The use of verbs such as formulate, identify and locate in these three reading skills is at odds with the formative and political understanding of the English language found in the component’s introduction, as well as with the document’s overall apprehension of the lingua franca concept (…)”.

        BNCC’s discursive and ideological diversity refracts a myriad of epistemological and axiological contradictions, illuminating a clash between ideological systems. Amidst such conflicts, however, we may find openings for the creation of new curricula. This point is repeatedly made in Szundy’s analysis as she dwells on the skills and competences outlined by the BNCC for the 9th grade in Middle Education. In such descriptors, the use of verbs such as debate, analyse and discuss could suggest the development of more critical and political linguistic practices. Yet, in Szundy’s own words: “In BNCC, the English language’s status as a lingua franca (…) is designed to assist students in developing the skills and competences they need to become selfentrepreneurs and to participate in the global world without ever calling its macro and micro structures into question; without ever examining how these very structures operate to keep huge swaths of the population at bay, deprived of any access to the commodities of an utopian global village.”

        BNCC, a normative document, prescribes a conditioning of students’ reading practices. The underlying pedagogical conception assumes the existence of a Cartesian reader, equipped with enough autonomy to identify the precise routes laid down by authors, as if fruition automatically conferred such abilities. This project is incongruous with the nature of language itself, i.e., with the fact that meaning emerges through socially and historically situated contact with otherness (even when that otherness is materialized in texts). Here, the notion of ideological sign comes in handy once more, since meanings only arise in concrete communicative situations, where they are imbued with existing social values.

Internet:  <doi.org> (adapted).

        The production of the BNCC (Base Nacional Comum Curricular) gave rise to a series of discussions on the role of school systems in Brazil. A number of educators and researchers expressed their concerns about the homogenizing perspective reflected and refracted by the document. In other words, in a country as socially and culturally diverse as Brazil is, how might an educational instrument outline “essential types of knowledge” for students, irrespective of their personal, regional, and local specificities?

        On the other hand, the document also incorporates a discourse which values peripheral contributions. In doing so, it adopts a more overtly progressive tone, which accentuates the importance of diversity. Szundy, in her examination of the BNCC’s English Language component, underscores how the document subscribes to the notion of ideological literacy. The author believes that the BNCC’s introduction of an intercultural axis brings the document closer to an ideological stance which “understands languages as resources that put us in contact with otherness, with plural and equally valid ways of being and of being in the world.” A bit further, the author argues that “BNCC may urge us to situate teaching within the realm of decolonial practices”.

        We could be led to think that BNCC, by laying emphasis on the situated nature of learners’ knowledge, reinforces democratic ideals and seeks to promote unrestricted access to critical education. This interpretation, albeit problematic, seems less harmful than the enunciation of universal, “essential knowledge.” However, it is also Szundy who, in her analysis of the competences and skills associated with the teaching of English in the Brazilian 6th grade, encounters an autonomous view of reading: “The use of verbs such as formulate, identify and locate in these three reading skills is at odds with the formative and political understanding of the English language found in the component’s introduction, as well as with the document’s overall apprehension of the lingua franca concept (…)”.

        BNCC’s discursive and ideological diversity refracts a myriad of epistemological and axiological contradictions, illuminating a clash between ideological systems. Amidst such conflicts, however, we may find openings for the creation of new curricula. This point is repeatedly made in Szundy’s analysis as she dwells on the skills and competences outlined by the BNCC for the 9th grade in Middle Education. In such descriptors, the use of verbs such as debate, analyse and discuss could suggest the development of more critical and political linguistic practices. Yet, in Szundy’s own words: “In BNCC, the English language’s status as a lingua franca (…) is designed to assist students in developing the skills and competences they need to become selfentrepreneurs and to participate in the global world without ever calling its macro and micro structures into question; without ever examining how these very structures operate to keep huge swaths of the population at bay, deprived of any access to the commodities of an utopian global village.”

        BNCC, a normative document, prescribes a conditioning of students’ reading practices. The underlying pedagogical conception assumes the existence of a Cartesian reader, equipped with enough autonomy to identify the precise routes laid down by authors, as if fruition automatically conferred such abilities. This project is incongruous with the nature of language itself, i.e., with the fact that meaning emerges through socially and historically situated contact with otherness (even when that otherness is materialized in texts). Here, the notion of ideological sign comes in handy once more, since meanings only arise in concrete communicative situations, where they are imbued with existing social values.

Internet:  <doi.org> (adapted).

        The production of the BNCC (Base Nacional Comum Curricular) gave rise to a series of discussions on the role of school systems in Brazil. A number of educators and researchers expressed their concerns about the homogenizing perspective reflected and refracted by the document. In other words, in a country as socially and culturally diverse as Brazil is, how might an educational instrument outline “essential types of knowledge” for students, irrespective of their personal, regional, and local specificities?

        On the other hand, the document also incorporates a discourse which values peripheral contributions. In doing so, it adopts a more overtly progressive tone, which accentuates the importance of diversity. Szundy, in her examination of the BNCC’s English Language component, underscores how the document subscribes to the notion of ideological literacy. The author believes that the BNCC’s introduction of an intercultural axis brings the document closer to an ideological stance which “understands languages as resources that put us in contact with otherness, with plural and equally valid ways of being and of being in the world.” A bit further, the author argues that “BNCC may urge us to situate teaching within the realm of decolonial practices”.

        We could be led to think that BNCC, by laying emphasis on the situated nature of learners’ knowledge, reinforces democratic ideals and seeks to promote unrestricted access to critical education. This interpretation, albeit problematic, seems less harmful than the enunciation of universal, “essential knowledge.” However, it is also Szundy who, in her analysis of the competences and skills associated with the teaching of English in the Brazilian 6th grade, encounters an autonomous view of reading: “The use of verbs such as formulate, identify and locate in these three reading skills is at odds with the formative and political understanding of the English language found in the component’s introduction, as well as with the document’s overall apprehension of the lingua franca concept (…)”.

        BNCC’s discursive and ideological diversity refracts a myriad of epistemological and axiological contradictions, illuminating a clash between ideological systems. Amidst such conflicts, however, we may find openings for the creation of new curricula. This point is repeatedly made in Szundy’s analysis as she dwells on the skills and competences outlined by the BNCC for the 9th grade in Middle Education. In such descriptors, the use of verbs such as debate, analyse and discuss could suggest the development of more critical and political linguistic practices. Yet, in Szundy’s own words: “In BNCC, the English language’s status as a lingua franca (…) is designed to assist students in developing the skills and competences they need to become selfentrepreneurs and to participate in the global world without ever calling its macro and micro structures into question; without ever examining how these very structures operate to keep huge swaths of the population at bay, deprived of any access to the commodities of an utopian global village.”

        BNCC, a normative document, prescribes a conditioning of students’ reading practices. The underlying pedagogical conception assumes the existence of a Cartesian reader, equipped with enough autonomy to identify the precise routes laid down by authors, as if fruition automatically conferred such abilities. This project is incongruous with the nature of language itself, i.e., with the fact that meaning emerges through socially and historically situated contact with otherness (even when that otherness is materialized in texts). Here, the notion of ideological sign comes in handy once more, since meanings only arise in concrete communicative situations, where they are imbued with existing social values.

Internet:  <doi.org> (adapted).

        The exploration of bilingual education in Brazil reveals a landscape filled with significant challenges and promising possibilities. Inequalities between private institutions and the public sector perpetuate socioeconomic gaps and limited access to it.

        Despite the increasing presence of bilingual education, many programs continue to operate under a monolingual mindset that emphasizes strict separation between languages and prioritizes linguistic accuracy over communicative practices. This perspective limits students’ opportunities to engage dynamically with multiple languages and hinders their development of linguistic mobility. To move beyond these limitations, it is crucial to foster intercultural competences. To do so, creating spaces where students can appreciate and interact with cultural and linguistic diversity becomes essential.

        Central to this discussion is the concept of “funds of perezhivanie”, which integrates various theoretical and practical elements, encompassing experiences, knowledge, potentials, values, and emotions of individuals or groups accumulated throughout their lives. By recognizing these diverse experiences, educators can create a more inclusive and responsive educational environment that values the cultural and experiential diversity of students.

        The concept of “interculturality” is also significant for our context. By exploring strategies for intercultural education, we conceive bilingual education as a possibility for the formation of subjects with an intercultural stance and with greater willingness and knowledge to face the inequalities imposed by our society. Crafting bilingual identities, in this sense, means forging spaces for the construction of intercultural and critical curricula. So interculturality, from the perspective we adopt, is not a theoretical position or a dialogue between cultures or philosophical traditions but a “position” or “disposition,” a “way of life”. An attitude of willingness to live “our” identity references in relation to “others” that opens the human experience toward a process of relearning and of cultural and contextual relocation, which allows us to perceive cultural illiteracies.

        This leads us to the second challenge faced by public bilingual schools that can contribute to the formation of empowered and agentive global citizens: the need to move toward heteroglossic perspectives.

        Heteroglossia is here understood in a broad sense, drawing on Bakhtin’s view of language as inherently plural, layered, and dynamic. According to Busch, this concept encompasses three interrelated dimensions: 1) Multidiscursivity refers to the coexistence of distinct speech types or discourses associated with particular social spheres, time periods, professions, or communities; 2) Multivoicedness highlights the presence of diverse individual voices within these discursive spaces. Every utterance is situated on the boundary between self and other and becomes meaningful only when appropriated and reaccentuated by the speaker; and 3) Linguistic diversity points to the multiplicity of languages and language varieties shaped by social differentiation.

        Framing bilingual education through heteroglossic lenses challenges dominant monolingual and homogenizing ideologies. It invites schools to cultivate spaces where varied discourses, voices, and languages can coexist, interact, and contribute to the construction of knowledge.

Internet: <jstor.org/stable>  (adapted).

        The exploration of bilingual education in Brazil reveals a landscape filled with significant challenges and promising possibilities. Inequalities between private institutions and the public sector perpetuate socioeconomic gaps and limited access to it.

        Despite the increasing presence of bilingual education, many programs continue to operate under a monolingual mindset that emphasizes strict separation between languages and prioritizes linguistic accuracy over communicative practices. This perspective limits students’ opportunities to engage dynamically with multiple languages and hinders their development of linguistic mobility. To move beyond these limitations, it is crucial to foster intercultural competences. To do so, creating spaces where students can appreciate and interact with cultural and linguistic diversity becomes essential.

        Central to this discussion is the concept of “funds of perezhivanie”, which integrates various theoretical and practical elements, encompassing experiences, knowledge, potentials, values, and emotions of individuals or groups accumulated throughout their lives. By recognizing these diverse experiences, educators can create a more inclusive and responsive educational environment that values the cultural and experiential diversity of students.

        The concept of “interculturality” is also significant for our context. By exploring strategies for intercultural education, we conceive bilingual education as a possibility for the formation of subjects with an intercultural stance and with greater willingness and knowledge to face the inequalities imposed by our society. Crafting bilingual identities, in this sense, means forging spaces for the construction of intercultural and critical curricula. So interculturality, from the perspective we adopt, is not a theoretical position or a dialogue between cultures or philosophical traditions but a “position” or “disposition,” a “way of life”. An attitude of willingness to live “our” identity references in relation to “others” that opens the human experience toward a process of relearning and of cultural and contextual relocation, which allows us to perceive cultural illiteracies.

        This leads us to the second challenge faced by public bilingual schools that can contribute to the formation of empowered and agentive global citizens: the need to move toward heteroglossic perspectives.

        Heteroglossia is here understood in a broad sense, drawing on Bakhtin’s view of language as inherently plural, layered, and dynamic. According to Busch, this concept encompasses three interrelated dimensions: 1) Multidiscursivity refers to the coexistence of distinct speech types or discourses associated with particular social spheres, time periods, professions, or communities; 2) Multivoicedness highlights the presence of diverse individual voices within these discursive spaces. Every utterance is situated on the boundary between self and other and becomes meaningful only when appropriated and reaccentuated by the speaker; and 3) Linguistic diversity points to the multiplicity of languages and language varieties shaped by social differentiation.

        Framing bilingual education through heteroglossic lenses challenges dominant monolingual and homogenizing ideologies. It invites schools to cultivate spaces where varied discourses, voices, and languages can coexist, interact, and contribute to the construction of knowledge.

Internet: <jstor.org/stable>  (adapted).

        The exploration of bilingual education in Brazil reveals a landscape filled with significant challenges and promising possibilities. Inequalities between private institutions and the public sector perpetuate socioeconomic gaps and limited access to it.

        Despite the increasing presence of bilingual education, many programs continue to operate under a monolingual mindset that emphasizes strict separation between languages and prioritizes linguistic accuracy over communicative practices. This perspective limits students’ opportunities to engage dynamically with multiple languages and hinders their development of linguistic mobility. To move beyond these limitations, it is crucial to foster intercultural competences. To do so, creating spaces where students can appreciate and interact with cultural and linguistic diversity becomes essential.

        Central to this discussion is the concept of “funds of perezhivanie”, which integrates various theoretical and practical elements, encompassing experiences, knowledge, potentials, values, and emotions of individuals or groups accumulated throughout their lives. By recognizing these diverse experiences, educators can create a more inclusive and responsive educational environment that values the cultural and experiential diversity of students.

        The concept of “interculturality” is also significant for our context. By exploring strategies for intercultural education, we conceive bilingual education as a possibility for the formation of subjects with an intercultural stance and with greater willingness and knowledge to face the inequalities imposed by our society. Crafting bilingual identities, in this sense, means forging spaces for the construction of intercultural and critical curricula. So interculturality, from the perspective we adopt, is not a theoretical position or a dialogue between cultures or philosophical traditions but a “position” or “disposition,” a “way of life”. An attitude of willingness to live “our” identity references in relation to “others” that opens the human experience toward a process of relearning and of cultural and contextual relocation, which allows us to perceive cultural illiteracies.

        This leads us to the second challenge faced by public bilingual schools that can contribute to the formation of empowered and agentive global citizens: the need to move toward heteroglossic perspectives.

        Heteroglossia is here understood in a broad sense, drawing on Bakhtin’s view of language as inherently plural, layered, and dynamic. According to Busch, this concept encompasses three interrelated dimensions: 1) Multidiscursivity refers to the coexistence of distinct speech types or discourses associated with particular social spheres, time periods, professions, or communities; 2) Multivoicedness highlights the presence of diverse individual voices within these discursive spaces. Every utterance is situated on the boundary between self and other and becomes meaningful only when appropriated and reaccentuated by the speaker; and 3) Linguistic diversity points to the multiplicity of languages and language varieties shaped by social differentiation.

        Framing bilingual education through heteroglossic lenses challenges dominant monolingual and homogenizing ideologies. It invites schools to cultivate spaces where varied discourses, voices, and languages can coexist, interact, and contribute to the construction of knowledge.

Internet: <jstor.org/stable>  (adapted).

        The exploration of bilingual education in Brazil reveals a landscape filled with significant challenges and promising possibilities. Inequalities between private institutions and the public sector perpetuate socioeconomic gaps and limited access to it.

        Despite the increasing presence of bilingual education, many programs continue to operate under a monolingual mindset that emphasizes strict separation between languages and prioritizes linguistic accuracy over communicative practices. This perspective limits students’ opportunities to engage dynamically with multiple languages and hinders their development of linguistic mobility. To move beyond these limitations, it is crucial to foster intercultural competences. To do so, creating spaces where students can appreciate and interact with cultural and linguistic diversity becomes essential.

        Central to this discussion is the concept of “funds of perezhivanie”, which integrates various theoretical and practical elements, encompassing experiences, knowledge, potentials, values, and emotions of individuals or groups accumulated throughout their lives. By recognizing these diverse experiences, educators can create a more inclusive and responsive educational environment that values the cultural and experiential diversity of students.

        The concept of “interculturality” is also significant for our context. By exploring strategies for intercultural education, we conceive bilingual education as a possibility for the formation of subjects with an intercultural stance and with greater willingness and knowledge to face the inequalities imposed by our society. Crafting bilingual identities, in this sense, means forging spaces for the construction of intercultural and critical curricula. So interculturality, from the perspective we adopt, is not a theoretical position or a dialogue between cultures or philosophical traditions but a “position” or “disposition,” a “way of life”. An attitude of willingness to live “our” identity references in relation to “others” that opens the human experience toward a process of relearning and of cultural and contextual relocation, which allows us to perceive cultural illiteracies.

        This leads us to the second challenge faced by public bilingual schools that can contribute to the formation of empowered and agentive global citizens: the need to move toward heteroglossic perspectives.

        Heteroglossia is here understood in a broad sense, drawing on Bakhtin’s view of language as inherently plural, layered, and dynamic. According to Busch, this concept encompasses three interrelated dimensions: 1) Multidiscursivity refers to the coexistence of distinct speech types or discourses associated with particular social spheres, time periods, professions, or communities; 2) Multivoicedness highlights the presence of diverse individual voices within these discursive spaces. Every utterance is situated on the boundary between self and other and becomes meaningful only when appropriated and reaccentuated by the speaker; and 3) Linguistic diversity points to the multiplicity of languages and language varieties shaped by social differentiation.

        Framing bilingual education through heteroglossic lenses challenges dominant monolingual and homogenizing ideologies. It invites schools to cultivate spaces where varied discourses, voices, and languages can coexist, interact, and contribute to the construction of knowledge.

Internet: <jstor.org/stable>  (adapted).

        The exploration of bilingual education in Brazil reveals a landscape filled with significant challenges and promising possibilities. Inequalities between private institutions and the public sector perpetuate socioeconomic gaps and limited access to it.

        Despite the increasing presence of bilingual education, many programs continue to operate under a monolingual mindset that emphasizes strict separation between languages and prioritizes linguistic accuracy over communicative practices. This perspective limits students’ opportunities to engage dynamically with multiple languages and hinders their development of linguistic mobility. To move beyond these limitations, it is crucial to foster intercultural competences. To do so, creating spaces where students can appreciate and interact with cultural and linguistic diversity becomes essential.

        Central to this discussion is the concept of “funds of perezhivanie”, which integrates various theoretical and practical elements, encompassing experiences, knowledge, potentials, values, and emotions of individuals or groups accumulated throughout their lives. By recognizing these diverse experiences, educators can create a more inclusive and responsive educational environment that values the cultural and experiential diversity of students.

        The concept of “interculturality” is also significant for our context. By exploring strategies for intercultural education, we conceive bilingual education as a possibility for the formation of subjects with an intercultural stance and with greater willingness and knowledge to face the inequalities imposed by our society. Crafting bilingual identities, in this sense, means forging spaces for the construction of intercultural and critical curricula. So interculturality, from the perspective we adopt, is not a theoretical position or a dialogue between cultures or philosophical traditions but a “position” or “disposition,” a “way of life”. An attitude of willingness to live “our” identity references in relation to “others” that opens the human experience toward a process of relearning and of cultural and contextual relocation, which allows us to perceive cultural illiteracies.

        This leads us to the second challenge faced by public bilingual schools that can contribute to the formation of empowered and agentive global citizens: the need to move toward heteroglossic perspectives.

        Heteroglossia is here understood in a broad sense, drawing on Bakhtin’s view of language as inherently plural, layered, and dynamic. According to Busch, this concept encompasses three interrelated dimensions: 1) Multidiscursivity refers to the coexistence of distinct speech types or discourses associated with particular social spheres, time periods, professions, or communities; 2) Multivoicedness highlights the presence of diverse individual voices within these discursive spaces. Every utterance is situated on the boundary between self and other and becomes meaningful only when appropriated and reaccentuated by the speaker; and 3) Linguistic diversity points to the multiplicity of languages and language varieties shaped by social differentiation.

        Framing bilingual education through heteroglossic lenses challenges dominant monolingual and homogenizing ideologies. It invites schools to cultivate spaces where varied discourses, voices, and languages can coexist, interact, and contribute to the construction of knowledge.

Internet: <jstor.org/stable>  (adapted).