Cover Topic
BILINGUAL EDUCATION IN BRAZIL –
MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES ON
LANGUAGE LEARNING
The term ‘bilingual school’ is a rather broad label used
in Brazil to refer to various models of second language
teaching and learning. Most progammes that fall under
the blanket term ‘bilingual education’ promise to educate
learners in two languages with three goals: academic
achievement; bilingualism and biliteracy, and; cultural
competency. Students are then equipped to live and
work in an increasingly globalised marketplace. Despite
categorisation under the same general label, bilingual
schools/programmes follow very different models, many
of which have limitations and varying objectives that
can fundamentally impact the extent to which the
aforementioned three goals are met. This variation and
resulting ambiguity for stakeholders, such as families,
educators and school leaders, both in Brazil and across
United States contexts, prompted Dr. Ofelia Garcia to ask,
“What’s in a name?” (Garcia, 2009). To answer this question
in a Brazilian context, I will briefly explore the concept
of fluency, describe the variations falling under the “big
umbrella” of bilingual programmes in Brazil, and then
discuss major ‘ingredients’ necessary for ensuring teaching
and learning in two languages delivers on the promise of
bilingualism and biliteracy for participating students.
Fluency & Proficiency
Fluency refers to the ability to comprehend and produce
language unfalteringly. Proficiency, on the other hand, is
the ability to understand and communicate and involves
linguistic features such as grammar, function, vocabulary,
etc. Proficiency in a school setting is a learner’s ability
to negotiate three factors: sociocultural, linguistic and
cognitive events and requires them to negotiate between
language: structures, functions and register (TESOL,
2006). Consequently “…. L2 fluency will therefore reflect
L2 proficiency only partially because disfluencies are also
elements of communicative successful (native) speech”.
(De Jong, 2016).
Because one of the three primary goals of second language
teaching and learning includes high levels of bilingualism,
schools claim fluency as a byproduct of enrollment and
16 | New Ro u t e s ® D is a l
by Lyle Gordon French
participation. And indeed, to many families who have
enrolled their children in such programs, hearing their six-
year-olds rattle off songs and math facts in a language other
than Portuguese, provokes such exclamations as: “My child
is fluent!” Or, “my child is only in 1º ano, but she is already
bilingual!” Though indeed impressive to an untrained ear,
memorized songs and numbers do not equal fluency.
In order to understand the level to which fluency is
expected in a schooling context, it is important to ask
questions like: “Will students study all academic content in
a language other than Portuguese? “What assessments will
be used to measure the extent to which students actually
compare with native speakers of the second language being
acquired? “How long does it take to become as fluent and
proficient as a native speaker in the same grade level?”
These questions, though valid, are often left only partially
explained by school leaders and educators. Competing
research surrounding Second Language Acquisition in
educational contexts and lack of consistent definitions
associated with “fluency” contribute to the nebulous
promise of bilingualism for students attending an escola
bilíngue, perpetuating confusion and underscoring the
question: “What’s in a name?”
With this in mind, we can then review programmes, from
amount of time spent in Portuguese and the additional
language, to assessment tools and teacher qualifications,
and how this contributes to student fluency and proficiency,
and the degree to which schools that promise bilingualism
and biliteracy are able to deliver.
The Big Umbrella – Overview of Bilingual Programmes
in Brazil
Although bilingual education is a simplistic label, it describes
a very complex, linguistic, sociocultural and cognitive cultural
phenomenon that requires extensive explanation (Baker,
1996). The umbrella below is an overview of the bilingual
programmes in Brazil. Each section describes a programme
that is considered additive, in that learners acquire a second
language without any loss to their home language.
by Lyle Gordon French Cover Topic

NB: this article will focus on Developmental 2. Content-Based Language Teaching (CBLT)
Bilingual, International Schools and What Brazilians often refer to as ‘bilingual’ schools or
Content-based, language programmes. programmes

1. International Schools This approach typically serves a family who desire

These schools typically serve an
expatriate community and have four
characteristics. First, they adhere to a
national curriculum from abroad and/or adhere
to international standards such as IB, CIE, IPC, Edexcel, etc.
Therefore, there is a strong focus on international university
readiness. Second, Portuguese is normally taught as a subject
and Brazilian history is taught in Portuguese; normally all
other subjects are taught through the medium of the school’s
official language. The week is divided into approximately 80%
in the official language and 20% in Portuguese, depending
upon the school. Third, they hire a large percentage of their
faculty aboard and follow the northern hemisphere calendar
(August to June). Fourth, all intentional schools in Brazil are
private, fee-paying. International school demographics have
changed over recent years and there are now more Brazilians
studying in them, this calls for more expertise in bilingual
education instruction.
Some examples include:  Graded School, Lycée Pasteur, St.
Paul’s, (all in São Paulo); American School of Recife; Colégio
Suíço in Curitiba, British School of Rio de Janeiro etc.
strong second language skills for their children. The
over-arching term CBLT is, “an instructional approach in
which nonlinguistic content such as geography, history or
science is taught to students through the medium of . . . an
additional language” (Lyster, 2018). This is referred to as
majority language teaching because the majority, often
about 100% of the students in the classroom, speak one
common language; Portuguese as a first language, and
are acquiring an additional language through content.
‘The fact that you have majority language students [in
Brazil] is critically important because the research that
demonstrated the success of immersion … has been
carried out in schools where the students are from the
majority language group” (* Genesee, 2013).
CBLT comes in many different forms in Brazil, and
indeed around the world, and has different names
including CBI (content-based instruction), and
CLIL (content language integrated learning). Under
the blanket term of CBLT there are two models: 
Content-Driven and Language-Driven, programmes.

Language - Driven Content - Driven

theme-based language content course + language immersion programmes:

programmes: these programmes: students may deliver academic content
incorporate themes have one or two content taught in a language other
such as sports, festivals, areas in the target language than Portuguese for at least
environment etc.). together with language 50% of the day. Dedication
Typically in language classes BUT does not take up to educational discourse
classrooms in regular at least half their day in the and academic achievement
(monolingual) schools and/ foreign language. Content is in the content areas
or language institutes normally not critical

(Adapted from Lyster, 2018)

New Ro ut es® Dis a l | 17
 Cover Topic
A. Content-Driven - Immersion Education
Immersion is an instructional approach that enables
learners to acquire an additional language through content
instruction, educational discourse, and social interaction
in the target language for at least 50% of the school day
(Cloud et al, 2000). The goal is to produce bilingual and
biliterate students. What sets immersion apart are the
expectations that students can learn - and teachers can
teach - both academic subject matter content and new
language at the same time.  (Lightbown, 2014)
As with the more general term of bilingual education,
immersion education attempts to uphold three goals:
1. Academic achievement equal to or greater than students
in monolingual (regular) schools.   students study at least one content area in the foreign
2. High degree of proficiency and accuracy in the target
language
3.Increased cross-cultural awareness and sensitivity.
(Larsen-Freeman et al, 2016)
Choosing the right school (teachers and parents):
Considering that each models has implications to
student outcomes, have questions around these three
points and ask schools to show you what they expect
at each grade level and how they monitor and report on
these on an on-going basis.
Most immersion schools in Brazil are private fee-paying
schools that offer content taught in a second language
(science in English, Math in Portuguese for example). They
normally start about the age of 2 or 3 with at least 80% of
the day in English, then attempt to have a 50/50 model,
approximately half the day in each language from grade
1 – teaching academic content and language at the same
time; all the while developing student’s academic language
in the target language. Paramount here is that learners
gain language but can also pass high-stakes assessments
in the subject areas. Critical is that teachers must be
constantly aware of both goals (language and content) in
their instruction.
Some examples of this in Brazil are: São Paulo - Beacon,
Builders, Escola do Futuro, Global Me, Magister; Rio - Eleva;
Salvador - Escola Girassol; Londrina, PR - St. James;
amongst others. which is essential for university readiness. It is to this end
B. Language – Driven if they have approximately 50% of the day in the target
Although most of these programmes develop second
language, often by incorporating themes or topics
that engage the learners, they do not have the high-
stakes assessment in content that immersion education
does. If students learn English but not the content, it
is acceptable because they are often getting the core
18 | New Ro u t e s ® D is a l
by Lyle Gordon French
content at school in Portuguese. Some examples are:
• Language institutes (e.g. Cultura Inglesa, Alumini, CNA etc.)
• Regular (monolingual) school, with foreign language
teaching (regular Brazilian public or private schools that
teach English twice a week for example)
• Intensive Language Programmes (e.g.:  English everyday
at school for 1 hour)
• Intercultural Border Programmes (Programa Escolas
Interculturais de Fronteira). Progammes with reciprocal
teaching between Brazil and: Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay
and Venezuela.
C. Content Course + Language Course
This model lacks clear definitions except that normally
language in addition to a foreign language class. This
content may also be taught in Portuguese and/or may not
form part of the official school (or national) curriculum,
such as ‘global studies’. A good example are the CLIL
(Content Language Integrated Learning) schools in Europe
and elsewhere, which have recently become very popular
in Brazil and account for the recent boom in ‘bilingual’
education. Whereas immersion tends to have a 50/50 model
with some content only taught in the target language, it is
not necessarily the case here. Typically CLIL programmes
are much less time-intensive than immersion and therefore
do not have the same language and content outcomes.
3. Developmental Bilingual Education
This model develops the skills of Portuguese Language
Learners in both their native language and Portuguese.
Examples of this in modern-day Brazil are with immigrant
or refugees (minority) groups from Bolivia, Venezuela
(Spanish), Korea (Korean), Japan (Japanese) and China
(Mandarin). Students will learn Portuguese as a second
language, all the time continuing to build their first language
skills, all at school. Therefore learning Portuguese does not
mean losing their home language.
Three Other Important Considerations
1. Time in the 2nd Language. Although time is not a
pedagogical value, with less time comes less opportunity to
produce and get feedback in the language and content, and
more importantly less time to develop academic language,
that many researchers only classify a school as ‘immersion’
language. Programmes that promise to produce fluent and
proficient students ready to study abroad with only one
hour of L2/day have a daunting task ahead of them. School
timetables are also critical, learning an additional language
requires a lot of cognitive processing; therefore working in
the target language when a student is tired is not the most
beneficial for learning outcomes.
by Lyle Gordon French
Choosing the right school (teachers and parents):
Have questions around time and expectations in
the 2nd language as well as when L2 is taught. Keep
in mind that if students spend the entire morning in
Portuguese then move to English the likelihood is that
they will be more tired in the afternoon and this can
affect achievement in L2.
2. Outcomes and Expectations. Each programme serves
different learner’s needs but each has its limitations and
is important to understand them to filter school promises.
Being a proficient bilingual, as schools like to tout, brings on
benefits such as excellent opportunities for the development
of executive function and can preserve cognitive flexibility
(Bialystok, 1999). The caveat here is that the research is
based on quality, evidence-based programmes in which
learners reach advanced capabilities in their additional
language. This requires a faculty that understand the model
have ample opportunities for professional development.
Although changing, many bilingual schools in Brazil that
teach content and language use the measure of a Cambridge
ESOL exam (Movers, FCE etc.) to evaluate proficiency in
English. Although these exams are aligned to the European
Common Framework of Language, they are for the most part
an ESL (English as a Second Language) test, interestingly
this is the same measure used by many language institutes
that are language-driven. If a content-driven school is
promising higher levels of language development due to
the teaching through content then they need to look to
more rigorous and dynamic measures, which should be
reflected in student outcomes.
Choosing the right school (teachers and parents):
Have questions around how schools monitor and
report out on student achievement growth. What
standards and benchmarks are being used? Where do
these come from? How are students involved in the
process? What professional development (and how
often) is offered to the teachers for this?
3. Absence of Regulations. Surprising as it may sound, there
is a dearth of standards and regulations when it comes to
what is being done in the target language instruction in our
bilingual schools in Brazil. Each school sets its own policies
for language targets, content teaching in the foreign
language as well as teacher qualifications. Therefore there
is often a great disconnect between school-wide goals and
what teachers have been trained to deliver.
Final Thoughts
Considering all the models and options available in Brazil
today, using the generic term bilingual school to describe
such a complex process does not do service to meeting the
needs of our students and their growth. What’s in a name,
Cover Topic
as Ofelia Garcia posed, is fundamental to understanding
outcomes and therefore I would argue that the terminology
we use to describe our programmes needs to change
to reflect what is actually happening in a school. If the
school is offering content and at least 50/50 then the term
‘immersion’ or something similar should be used. This
will allow parents, students and teachers to understand
outcomes and expectations. Transparency will only help
to improve our instruction and indeed our profession. By
being informed we are able to ask the right questions when
selecting the right school in Brazil, whether that is as a
teacher or a student.
Bibliography
*Interview with Dr. Fred Genesee by Lyle French in New Routes # 49,
January 2013
Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism.
Clevedon, Multilingual Matters.
Bailystok, E (1999).  Cognitive complexity and attentional control in the
bilingual mind.  Child Development, 70, 636-644.  doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00046
Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. V. (2000). Dual language instruction: A
handbook for enriched education. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
De Jong, N. (2016). Fluency in Second Language Assessment, IN Tsagari, D.
& Banergee, J (Ed.), Handbook of Second Language Assessment, Chapter 13
(pp.203-218). Walter de Gruyter Inc.
Garcia, O. (2009). Emergent Bilinguals and TESOL: What’s in a Name? TESOL
Quarterly, 43: 322-326. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00172.x
Gottlieb, M., Katz, A. & Ernst-Slavit, G (2009). Paper to Practice: Using
the TESOL English Language Proficiency Standards in PreK-12 Classrooms.
Alexandria, VA: TESOL
Larsen-Freeman, D & Tedick, D.  (2016). Teaching World Languages: Thinking
Differently, IN Bell, A. & Giltomer, D (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching,
5th edition (pp.1335-1388), AMER Education Research Assn. Publications.
Lightbown, P (2014), Focus on Content-Based Language Teaching.  Oxford
University Press.
Lyster, R. (2018).  Content-Based Language Teaching.  New York, NY: Routledge
Lyster, R. (2007).  Learning and Teaching Languages Through Content:
A counterbalanced approach. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Taylor, C. & Lafayette, R. (2010).  Academic achievement through FLES:
A case study for promoting greater access to foreign language study among
younger learners.  Modern Language Journal, 94, 22-42.  doi: 10.1111/j.1540-
4781.2009.00981.x
The author
Lyle French, M.A.Ed. is Head of Rhyzos Education, a
new immersion school in São Paulo opening in 2020.
Lyle has over 17 years experience in Brazilian education
and held the posts of: Director of Teaching & Learning
at Avenues - SP, as well as at Escola Beit Yaacov and
PlayPen. As well he has consulted for various ‘bilingual’
schools. Find him on LinkedIn.
New Ro ut es® Dis a l | 19