Access to this full-text is provided by De Gruyter.
Content available from Open Education Studies
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Research Article
Diego A. Barrado-Timón*
Potential Elitism in Selection to Bilingual Studies:
A Case Study in Higher Education
https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2022-0217
received August 22, 2023; accepted January 16, 2024
Abstract: This research provides information toward answering
the question of whether bilingual studies at the university level
might be elitist. This is a recurring research topic in terms of
using English for nonlanguage instruction at the primary
and secondary levels, but very few studies refer to univer-
sity education. We seek to fill that gap in the literature by
way of a case study centered on the International Studies
degree offered by the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid in
Spain. A survey was conducted of students in this program
inquiring as to the educational and language levels of their
parents as well as their possibilities for exposure to English
during secondary (high school) education. The analysis of
this quantitative data, student’s grades, and qualitative
responses gathered through interviews with program pro-
fessors does not allow us to affirm the presence of class bias
in said institution during student selection for the bilingual
track; nor are students in the bilingual group found to have
obtained better academic outcomes than their peers in the
monolingual group.
Keywords: higher education: bilingualism, student selec-
tion, social elitism, class bias
1 Introduction
English Medium Instruction, or EMI, is the educational
practice of using English as the vehicular language (in
non-English-speaking contexts) to teach any sort of content
except the language itself. Given an already lengthy tradi-
tion and recent rapid expansion, EMI has become an
important field of research (Macaro & Tian, 2020). As
would be expected, much of this research has focused on
the fields of linguistics and pedagogy, where (in broad
strokes) several lines of particular importance include:
an analysis of the challenges faced by educators and stu-
dents, especially in relation to minimal English skills (Butler,
2014; Hellekjær, 2010); the effectiveness of EMI programs,
both in terms of improvements in the vehicular language
(Martínez-Agudo, 2022a) and in relation to course contents
(Anghel, Cabrales, & Carro, 2016; Dallinger, Jonkmann, Hollm,
& Fiege, 2016; Hernández-Nanclares & Jiménez-Muñoz, 2017);
assessments made of EMI courses by teachers (Aguilar &
Rodríguez, 2012) and students (Aguilar & Rodríguez, 2012;
Coyle, 2013); and issues of diversity (Madrid & Pérez-Cañado,
2018). Furthermore, and following Macaro and Tian (2020),
EMI constitutes a fruitful domain for investigations into var-
ious educational policies and their implementation across
different scales, ranging from the national level to how indi-
vidual educators interpret these policies. This encompasses
their implementation at the institutional level and the requi-
site curricular adaptation of content and methodologies.
Going beyond the strictly linguistic and pedagogical
aspects of such programs, many authors have sought to eval-
uate bilingual studies from a social perspective. The impetus
and interest of our research fall within the latter current, in
the social inequality that bilingual studies may generate or
reinforce, when the potential segregation of students whose
English is not sufficiently strong at the beginning of univer-
sity studies moves them to opt for exclusive instruction in the
official language of their institution, thereby resulting in a
diploma that may be deemed of lesser value, to the extent
that “teaching through one single language is seen as second-
rate education”(Lorenzo, 2007,p.35).
This controversial idea of whether the presumed elitism
of bilingual programs is myth or reality (Pérez-Cañado,
2020) has become the subject of its own scientific debate.
As noted by Fernández-Sanjurjo, Blanco, and Fernández-
Costales (2018), studies are lacking that examine the extent
to which socioeconomic differences in families might lead to
differences in student performance within bilingual pro-
grams. Such an oversight poses a scientific problem and
might be contributing “to the creation (or enlargement) of
a divide between an elite of young multilingual learners and
those who could not access bilingual education”(Fernández-
Sanjurjo etal., 2018, p.17). Moreover, the reported scarcity of
* Corresponding author: Diego A. Barrado-Timón, Facultad de
Filosofía y Letras, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain,
e-mail: diego.barrado@uam.es
Open Education Studies 2024; 6: 20220217
Open Access. © 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
studies on the impacts of socioeconomic factors on student
access and on grades obtained in bilingual studies is more
pronounced at the university level, as the vast majority of
published works have thus far focused on primary and sec-
ondary education.
The present research intends to help cover this gap
detected by various authors, taking as our case study the
degree in International Studies conferred by the Universidad
Autónoma de Madrid (UAM) in Spain. In this course, there are
two groups of students: those who study entirely in Spanish
and those who pursue a bilingual program of subjects in both
Spanish and English. The research will focus on assessing the
influence of specific socioeconomic factors within the family,
in conjunction with the disparate exposure of students to
English during secondary education, on the selection and
self-selection of students into bilingual or monolingual groups.
Furthermore, the study will explore the outcomes achieved by
each of these two groups. Ultimately, an analysis will also be
conducted regarding the perspectives of both students and
professors on the potentially divergent assessments that society
and the individuals involved may make regarding the out-
comes achieved by each group.
To this end, we have designed three interlinked research
questions:
–RQ1: Does socioeconomic level have an impact on the
selection of a bilingual program by a student or on his/
her acceptance into such a program by the institution?
–RQ2: Is there a correlation between belonging to one
group or the other (bilingual or monolingual) and the
results obtained over the university career?
–RQ3: Do those involved –teachers and students –con-
sider that the social value of these studies will be equal,
regardless of whether the degree has been studied in the
bilingual or monolingual group?
The first two questions are intended to evaluate (based
on our case study) the potential social elitism of bilingual
studies at the university level, whether due to the weight
that socioeconomic factors may play in the initial selection
for the bilingual group or in light of the improved results
that bilingual students can ostensibly obtain, as derived
from relatively better training opportunities. The third
question seeks to examine the potential role of bilingual
studies in the reproduction of inequalities; should the
hypothesis of segregation based on status be accepted
(and verified), and given that a bilingual diploma will
receive greater social recognition (and therefore greater
economic rewards) than a monolingual diploma, then
bilingual programs at public universities would both fail
to fulfill a purpose of social rebalancing and act as a lever
that reinforces prior inequalities.
2 Literature Review
EMI refers to the practice of using English as a vehicle for
instruction at educational centers in areas where the
majority population does not speak English as a first lan-
guage (Macaro & Tian, 2020). According to Macaro and
Tian, this concept refers fundamentally to the use of Eng-
lish as a vehicular language in higher or university educa-
tion; for primary and secondary education levels, the
preferredtermisContentandLanguage Integrated Learning
(CLIL). The concept of CLIL was coined in the 1990s (Marsh,
1994) in reference to educational methodologies in which a
subject was taught in a foreign language, focusing on both
the content and the language itself.
However, unlike CLIL methodologies focused on both
content and language, there is little scientific evidence that
higher education professors using the EMI method pay
particular attention to the use and development of English
by their students (Macaro & Tian, 2020). This has led some
authors to propose more integrative methodologies grouped
under the acronym ICLHE, for Integrated Content and Lan-
guage in Higher Education (Macaro & Tian, 2020). As Ruiz-
Madrid and Fortanet-Gómez (2023) indicate, this term appears
to vindicate the “I”of “Integrated”in a university context
where neither professors nor students are native English
speakers. In any case, while the term ICLHE continues to
be used, EMI is apparently gaining a presence in the litera-
ture expressly focused on higher education (Ruiz-Madrid &
Fortanet-Gómez, 2023).
As articulated in the introduction, the purpose of our
study is neither conceptual nor terminological. It does not
center on the more directly linguistic aspects of English
usage either but, instead, focuses on specific social implica-
tions associated with its use as the language of instruction
in higher education. Therefore, we generally address all
types of bilingual programs, following the definition by
Barrios (2022): “all types of provisions in which a foreign
language is used to teach subjects in the curriculum, other
than language lessons themselves”(p. 183). Of course, as noted
above, most of the prior research considered here has been
focusedonprimaryandsecondary education and thus likely
uses the acronym CLIL.
Aside from the problems of terminology and definition
mentioned above, the entirety of the scientific evaluation of
these bilingual programs is apparently subject to what
Fernández-Sanjurjo et al. (2018)describeasa“pendulum
effect.”Following an initial period of “unbridled enthu-
siasm”(Pérez-Cañado, 2016, p. 10), in which such programs
seemed a panacea for all educational challenges, a number
of authors soon began to address certain problems (both
theoretical and applied) observed in bilingual
2Diego A. Barrado-Timón
methodologies. Here, the controversy upon which we direct
both theoretical and analytical focus is that of the egali-
tarian or elitist character of these bilingual programs.
As regards this controversy around potential elitism,
among those opinions most frequently cited in favor of
bilingual programs is that of Marsh (2002) in a report for
the European Union, stating that “[e]galitarianism has
been one success factor because the approach is seen to
open doors on languages for a broader range of learners”
(2002a, p. 10). This author further remarks that CLIL pro-
grams have allowed “gender mainstreaming in terms of
male and female performance in language learning”(Marsh,
2002, p. 11). The main argument behind this report by Marsh
(2002) is that such programs offer educational opportunities
within public systems that were previously available only
to those who could afford private education, whether
formal or informal (through private classes). Under this
argument, not only would bilingual education not be eli-
tist –at least in the public system –butitwouldrepresent
a crucial element in reducing inequality in terms of access
to education.
Marsh’s aforementioned ideas in defense of the egali-
tarianism and equity of bilingual studies refer essentially
to the potential inequality of the moment of access to edu-
cation in a foreign language, whatever the social status of a
student. Fernández-Sanjurjo, on the other hand, suggests that
bilingual studies may generate a second type of inequality,
adding to the problem of access to the issue of whether the
methodology “provides a suitable learning setting for students
with different backgrounds (compared to traditional monolin-
gual learning approaches)”(Fernández-Sanjurjo et al., 2018,p.
18). That is to say, following the determination of access, such
programs could fail to adequately address the diversity of
possible learning situations, including that of the initial level
inthelanguageofinstruction.
In addition to the problems of initial access and atten-
tion to diversity is the possibility of further inequality at
the end of the process, should bilingual education offer
better educational results than those obtained in a mono-
lingual program. Thus, we may distinguish between two
debates around the possible elitism of such methodologies,
although the two may overlap in most situations.
–The problem of whether bilingual programs are equally
accessible to all students regardless of family social
class, gender, nationality, prior academic training, place
of residence, etc.
–The problem of educational outcomes obtained, depending
on access conditions as well as varying perceptions of these
results by society when, within the same degree, a bilingual
course with English coincides with a monolingual course in
the official language of the institution.
The problem of access is directly related to the selec-
tion or self-selection of students, to the extent that this is
conducted by the institution or by the student or his/her
family. A situation of self-selection would occur in the case
of those who, perhaps justifiably, believe that they are not
sufficiently trained to follow a bilingual program, or whose
families cannot help in this regard (whether educationally
or financially). Among works that most clearly cite the
elitism of bilingual programs, those of Paran (2013) and
Bruton (2011, 2013, 2015) can be highlighted for their argu-
ment that students are (self-)selected at the beginning of the
process, implying unequal conditions for those admitted to
monolingual programs only.
The first aspect to be taken into account when dealing
with the selection of students is that of the criteria according
to which selection is made. Pérez-Cañado (2020), who has
analyzed selection processes in several European countries,
finds that the most common criteria are the level of the
language of instruction and knowledge of the subjects to
be studied (a combination of the two being common).
As Lorenzo, Casal, and Moore (2010) indicate, behind
these apparently objective selection processes may be
hidden aspects of social class and parental choice. The
latter can be crucial and linked to the educational levels
of the parents, given that not all families are capable of
perceiving the importance that such education may have
for their children’s future. Whether or not they are aware
of the potential value of bilingual education, families of
lower status or education will be conditioned in their
choice by their own inability to assist their children in their
studies, either directly (due to low educational or English
levels) or economically (due to the impossibility of acces-
sing private classes, courses abroad, etc.). These factors,
considered here as educational markers of social class
that can establish class bias in a selection process, will be
recalled in the empirical phase to determine the potential
elitism of the program under study. In relation to this
combination of educational and economic factors, Butler
(2014) concludes her research on students in East Asia by
noting that “parents with higher SES [socioeconomic status]
tended to adjust their assistance according to their chil-
dren’s changing needs; parents with lower SES tended to
remain controlling and often failed to respond to their chil-
dren’s changing needs to foster their self-competence and
self-determined motivation”(Butler, 2014, p. 16).
In light of the aforementioned, one conclusion might be
that, whatever the openness of a public bilingual system, the
socioeconomic level of the parents will serve as a significant
marker in determining access by students to that program.
In this sense, Fernández-Sanjurjo et al. (2018) conclude
that students enrolled in bilingual programs come from
Potential Elitism in Selection to Bilingual Studies 3
environments where the English language is prioritized, to
the extent that parents see it as an added value in their
children’seducation.
Following these arguments, several authors have rejected
the assessment of Marsh (2002) mentioned above. Bruton qua-
lifies CLIL systems as being a kind of gatekeeper, emphasizing
that they perform subtle pre-selection of students (Bruton,
2013). In the same vein, Paran (2013) argues that bilingual
programs attract the most motivated, intelligent, and linguis-
tically competent students, giving them greater opportunities
than the rest. In any case, the final question is whether
students are categorized based on their merits or whether
“selection is done –to a greater extent –on the basis of
socio-economic status of the family (and the learners’motiva-
tion, intelligence, and linguistic proficiency to a lesser extent)”
(Rascón Moreno & Bretones Callejas, 2018, p. 116).
Hüttner and Smit (2014) contest this discriminatory
vision of bilingual systems, arguing “that CLIL in itself is
a negligible factor compared to other, system-inherent
sources of privileging some groups on socio-economic
grounds”(2014, p. 161). This argument focuses on aspects
that these authors consider inherently discriminatory in
educational systems, including high fees and private insti-
tutions that advantageously coexist with public ones.
This notion of CLIL as an elitist system has also been
empirically questioned by Pérez-Cañado (2016). According
to her analysis of different empirical approaches, she con-
cludes that “CLIL and non-CLIL classes have been found to
be homogeneous on four different variables: verbal intelli-
gence, motivation (where four factors have been considered:
will, anxiety, disinterest, and self-demand), socioeconomic
status, and extramural exposure to the foreign language”
(Pérez-Cañado,2016,p.19).Herconclusionisthatthese
results disarm “the belief –in our context, clearly unsubstan-
tiated –that the most intelligent, motivated, and socially
privileged students are those found in CLIL streams”
(Pérez-Cañado, 2016, p. 19).
Given the importance of this issue and the scientific
disagreement around it, it seems more prudent to adhere
to the position of Hüttner and Smit when they point out
that “educational discrimination (…) would require a lot
more focused attention, political as well as academic”
(Hüttner & Smit, 2014, p. 162).
The second aspect to be addressed regarding equality
vs elitism in bilingual studies must focus on the question of
achievement, i.e., on comparative analysis of the grades
obtained by students in monolingual and bilingual pro-
grams. If we accept the hypothesis of initial segregation,
and also that bilingual students later obtain more favor-
able academic results, then these systems would not only
assume existing social inequality but also reproduce it, and
possibly legitimize it. As occurs in many aspects related to
these educational methodologies, clear scientific disagree-
ment again prevails.
Paran (2013) points out that the CLIL system benefits
only what he calls “great achievers”in elite schools and
contexts. In a similar vein, Anghel et al. (2016) highlight
that divergent results have been identified not only between
CLIL and non-CLIL students but also, within the former
group, differences are observed in favor of those with
higher socioeconomic levels. These authors find a correla-
tion between socioeconomic level and achievement in bilin-
gual programs (Anghel et al., 2016).
In contrast to these affirmations and interpretations, it
has been argued that the socioeconomic level of the family
is indeed a significant variable when measuring the educa-
tional results of students, but that this is not peculiar to
bilingual programs: “In general, students whose parents
had a higher educational level outperformed those whose
parents had lower levels of education, both in CLIL and
non-CLIL”(Pérez-Cañado, 2020, p. 6). Therefore, this would
not constitute a negative factor when evaluating such
methodologies, which might conceivably be blamed for
not sufficiently struggling against socioeconomic discrimi-
nation in education but not for promoting it.
To conclude this review, we should repeat that most of
the studies cited are based on analyses of educational pro-
grams at the primary or secondary levels of education; the
paucity of research at the university level is evident as it
corroborates one of the few existing works (Aguilar &
Rodríguez, 2012). One point in favor of bilingual university
education is that existing studies appear to find no signifi-
cant variations in the outcomes between groups in English
and those in a native language (Aguilar & Rodríguez, 2012).
3 Methodology
The case study through which we address our research ques-
tionsisthedegreeprograminInternationalStudiesoffered
by the Department of Philosophy and Letters (Facultad de
Filosofía y Letras) of the UAM (Spain). Launched in the
2014–2015 academic year, this program has at the time of
writing been in effect for nine academic years.
The chief characteristic of this degree, making it an
ideal case for our purposes, is that its students are divided
into two groups: one entirely monolingual, in Spanish, and
another bilingual, with more than a third of the subjects
taught in English and the rest in Spanish, although this
proportion may vary slightly depending on the year. This
mode of organization implies that there are three types of
4Diego A. Barrado-Timón
subjects within the degree: those taught in Spanish for all
students; those taught in Spanish only for students in the
monolingual group; and those taught in English only for
students in the bilingual group.
At the beginning of the program, students can request
affiliation to the bilingual group if they possess sufficient
certification in English (B2 level, according to the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages or CEFR) or
else pass a test given by the degree program’sownadminis-
tration. According to the data provided by the department,
during the 2021–2022 academic year, an average of 46 students
were enrolled per subject, distributed between the monolin-
gual and bilingual groups in a relatively balanced way.
In our analysis, we worked with three methodologies and
three types of data, with the firstbeingasurveyofstudents
conducted to produce quantitative data. Questions were asked
about the educational and language levels of students’parents
as well as the students’formativeexperienceduringsecondary
education, especially as regards increased possible exposure to
English (both considered educational markers of social class).
These anonymous surveys were conducted in Spanish
during the school term in the second semester of the
2021–2022 academic year. The survey was carried out
during class time in one of the subjects taught in both
Spanish and English, with the permission of the professor.
In each of the groups surveyed, express permission was
requested orally. In total, from among the four courses and
the two groups (bilingual and monolingual), 131 question-
naires were considered valid (two, submitted practically
blank, were discarded). This meant coverage of just over
70% of the total students enrolled in the degree at the time
of this empirical work (at 185, according to data from the
UAM’s Department of Philosophy and Letters). To deter-
mine the effect on the choice of bilingual and monolingual
options of variables related to the academic level of the
parents and the educational opportunities of the students
during their high school studies, logistic regression models
were carried out at the univariate level.
Second, to compare the results obtained by the bilin-
gual and monolingual groups, analysis was made of the
grades obtained by the students in seven of the eight com-
pleted academic years. It was not possible to use data from
the first academic year (2014–2015), as the students’records
did not differentiate between the bilingual and monolin-
gual groups. These data were provided by the Department
of Philosophy and Letters of the UAM, with corresponding
guarantees of anonymity. With these data, two indicators were
calculated that facilitated the comparison of the groups: the
success rate (percentage of students who passed each subject
in the first examination) and the average grade (calculated
accordingtotheSpanishsystemof0minimumto10maximum).
Finally, semi-structured interviews were conducted
with the professors instructing the bilingual group (by
email, following initial contact in person or by phone) to
obtain qualitative information on their experience as well
as their assessments of the studies and their students. At
the time of research, 19 professors at the university taught
subjects in English (some subjects being shared by more
than one professor). All were contacted, but ultimately
only nine responded to the request for an interview.
4 Results
Within the International Studies program at the UAM, the
only criterion for selection to the group that undertakes a
portion of studies in English (following passage of the
minimum cut-offmark) is the academic level of a student
in that language at the beginning of the course. Therefore,
the only way to prove elitism in the bilingual group from a
social perspective would be to demonstrate a connection
within this group between the level of English and the
socioeconomic status of the family, affording some stu-
dents certain opportunities to improve their English skills,
which others of lower status would not have had. This
would indicate a class bias in the selection of students.
To this end, the first factor to be taken into account is
whether or not (self-)selection has occurred, i.e., if some
students who had wanted to join the bilingual group were
not admitted. The answer to this question is clearly yes
since approximately 20% of the students surveyed in the
monolingual group stated that they requested entry into
the bilingual group but were not admitted. Moreover,
11.6% of respondents indicated that they did not request
the bilingual track because they knew their level of English
to be insufficient. In other words, in addition to a selection
made by the institution, some negative self-selection was
made by the students themselves, as mentioned in the
Literature Review. Furthermore, a small segment of the
monolingual group (6.9%) began their studies in English
but soon switched to monolingual, largely for reasons of
language level. Thus, we find that just over 38% of students
in the monolingual group remained outside the bilingual
program either through selection or by self-selection.
4.1 Educational Markers of Social Class and
(Self-)selection to the Bilingual Program
To test whether this (self-)selection effectively implies class
bias, the survey asked students (in both the bilingual and
monolingual groups) about their access and use during
Potential Elitism in Selection to Bilingual Studies 5
secondary education of what we have termed educational
markers of social class (see left column in Table 1). The aim
was to detect a possible correlation between the avail-
ability during high school of a series of opportunities to
increase exposure to English, which might explain their
language levels and, consequently, their acceptance to
the bilingual group at university. The results obtained after
statistical analysis are reflected in Table 1.
The educational marker of social class presenting the
greatest impact on being selected for the bilingual group
(lower p-value) is the possession of an official English level
certification. Those with certification (of any type or level)
were 13.61 times more likely to be selected than those
without. This is not surprising, since to be selected for
this group, one requirement is to have just such a certifica-
tion (minimum level B2, in accordance with the CEFR),
although this can be substituted by a test implemented
by the program. In the case of those who obtained a level
certification during secondary education, both the lin-
guistic requirement (having at least an average level of
English) and the administrative requirement (being able
to prove it) were met; hence the high correlation.
A more detailed analysis of the types and levels of cer-
tifications achieved (Figure 1) reveals that students in the
bilingual group had more certifications and also possessed a
higher level of certification. This reinforces the idea of
English certification as an educational marker of social class
that can prove certain class bias within the bilingual group,
since the majority of (self-)selected students were those with
an average level or higher (Advanced and Proficiency), often
explained by reinforcements received outside compulsory
education.
The second of the variables being considered as a poten-
tial marker of social class, which can predict (self-)selection to
the bilingual group –albeit with a much lower level of sig-
nificance than the previous (p-value =0.017) –is that of
havingtakenEnglishcoursesinanEnglish-speakingcountry.
Thosewhodidsowerefound2.36timesmorelikelytobe
(self-)selected than those who did not, and the result is that
those (self-)selected for the bilingual group were almost twice
as many as those who had not taken languages in English-
speakingcountries(62.9%vs37.1%),
Finally, the third variable (an educational marker of
social class) with statistical significance as a predictor of
(self-)selection to the bilingual group was that of having
completed secondary education in a bilingual program
(OR =2.19, p=0.033, Table 1). As in the above case, practi-
cally two-thirds of students in the bilingual group (63.6%,
compared to 36.4% in the monolingual course) completed
their secondary studies in a program of this type.
The two latter variables (having taken English courses
in an English-speaking country and having studied in a
Table 1: Effect of academic variables on the choice of the bilingual stream by students in the IS degree at UAM
Bilingual stream, n (%) Univariate logistic regression
No Yes OR (IC 95%) p-value
Type of high school
Public 28 (45.2) 34 (54.8) 1
State-funded (concertada) 24 (53.3) 21 (46.7) 0.72 (0.33–1.56) 0.404
Fully private 9 (42.9) 12 (57.1) 1.10 (0.41–2.98) 0.854
Bilingual studies in high school
No 40 (55.6) 32 (44.4) 1
Yes 20 (36.4) 35 (63.6) 2.19 (1.07–4.49) 0.033
Official English level certification
No 18 (90) 2 (10) 1
Yes 43 (39.8) 65 (60.2) 13.61 (3.00–61.64) 0.001
Full course abroad
No 45 (52.9) 40 (47.1) 1
Yes 16 (37.2) 27 (62.8) 1.90 (0.90–4.02) 0.094
English course abroad
No 39 (58.2) 28 (41.8) 1
Yes 23 (37.1) 39 (62.9) 2.36 (1.16–4.79) 0.017
Private classes in English
No 27 (44.3) 34 (55.7) 1
Yes 34 (49.3) 35 (50.7) 0.82 (0.41–1.63) 0.568
OR: odds ratio IC: confidence interval
Source: Own elaboration based on student survey data.
Note: Bold indicates statistically significant values due to having a p< 0.05.
6Diego A. Barrado-Timón
bilingual high school program) –the impacts of which are
similar as a predictor of (self-)selection to a bilingual
program –may engender controversy and potentially
divergent interpretations in terms of their consideration
as markers of class bias in these programs. Taking English
courses abroad might be presumed a clear educational
marker of social class, to the extent that such stays are paid
for by the families’educational budgets. On the other hand, the
fact of having studied secondary education in a bilingual pro-
gram could be valued either as a factor of inequality (following
Bruton and Paran) or as a leveling factor (following Marsh),
given that in the Autonomous Community of Madrid, where
our focus of analysis is located, the bilingual model of sec-
ondary education is integrated into the public school system.
The potential impact of family status on (self-)selection
to the bilingual group –and, therefore, the proof of pos-
sible elitism of the program analyzed –is diminished when
considering the null statistical relationship of the final
three variables (educational markers of social class) to be
considered as predictors of integration into the bilingual
group. No statistical correlation is found between having
been (self-)selected to the bilingual group and having com-
pleted secondary education in a private or subsidized educa-
tional institution (p-valuegreaterthan0.05inbothcases,
Table 1). In other words, having a family able to pay for a
private education (in which attention to languages may be
greater than in public school) does not imply an advantage
for integration into the bilingual group. Likewise, the vari-
ables of having completed an entire course abroad or having
regularly attended private English classes (Table 1) show no
relationship with ultimate integration into the bilingual group
(in both cases, the p-value is greater than 0.05).
It must be taken into account that these three variables
are among the investments in education that present the
highest costs for families; therefore, they may be viewed as
very clear educational markers of social class. Nevertheless,
among the variables shown to be clear predictors of integra-
tion into the bilingual group, only the fact of having taken
English courses in English-speaking countries seems to carry
the same significance as an educational marker of social
class as those previously mentioned.
4.2 Educational and Language Levels of
Parents and (Self-)selection to the
Bilingual Program
In addition to exploring the impact that these markers of
social class may have on integration into the bilingual
group, we also sought to verify whether a correlation exists
between the educational and language levels of the parents
and (self-)selection to the bilingual group, a topic that has
attracted the attention of various authors (Butler, 2014;
Fernández-Sanjurjo et al., 2018; Lorenzo et al., 2010). The
results are shown in Table 2.
As shown in Table 2, a very evident correlation is
established between the father’s level of English and the
chances of being (self-)selected to the bilingual group, and
0 10203040506070
Total
TOFEFL
IELST
C2 (Proficiency)
C1 (Advanced)
B2 (First)
B1
A2
Without certificate
Monolingual t. Bilingual t.
Figure 1: Official English certifications according to (bilingual/monolingual) track. Source: own elaboration based on student survey data.
Potential Elitism in Selection to Bilingual Studies 7
this increases along with the father’s language level. As
regards general studies, a correlation emerges only in the
case of a father with university studies.
One interesting fact should be highlighted: the correla-
tion between educational and language levels and (self-)
selection only occurs with the father, and not with the
mother, whose levels of studies or languages show no sta-
tistical significance in predicting the chances of a child
integrating into the bilingual group. The possible effect
that polylingualism in a family may have on a student’s
interest in languages (and, consequently, on their greater
chances of selection to the bilingual group) is likewise
shown to be statistically null.
The last of the analyses carried out along this line
sought to establish a correlation between the socioeconomic
status of the family and the student’s prior opportunities to
improve their language level during secondary studies, i.e.,
whether they had easy access (due to their economic level)
to what we have considered educational markers of social
class. To the extent that some of these markers (e.g., taking
courses abroad) do exhibit a correlation with access to the
bilingual group, their connection with the status of the
family would constitute a certain demonstration of elitism
associated with the bilingual program.
Unfortunately, given the method of surveying the students, it
was considered impossible to access all the information necessary
to establish the socioeconomic status of the family.
Consequently, the educational levels of the parents were
used as a proxy for this family status, following precedents
found in the literature (Alonso, Grisaleña, & Campo, 2008;
Martínez-Agudo, 2022b; Rascón Moreno & Bretones Callejas,
2018; Sirin, 2005). The analyses carried out (and not shown
in this work) found no relationship between the educational
levels of the parents (understood here as socioeconomic
status) and the possibility of access to training opportunities
(social class markers) in secondary education.
4.3 Potential ex-post elitism: Comparison of
the academic results of the bilingual and
monolingual groups
To answer the second of our research questions, a com-
parative analysis was undertaken of the grades obtained by
the students from the bilingual and monolingual groups.
This is a question of demonstrating whether the (self-)selec-
tion process ultimately chooses the most gifted students,
where according to Paran (2013) some portion of the poten-
tial for the success of this kind of program may reside.
As noted in the section on Methodology, two para-
meters were chosen: the success rate and the average
mark or grade, relating in both cases to the first examina-
tion for application. In the analysis, the grades obtained
from those subjects taught only in English for the bilingual
Table 2: Effect of variables related to parents’knowledge on the choice of the bilingual track by students in the IS degree at UAM
Bilingual track, n (%) Univariate logistic regression
No Yes OR (IC 95%) p-value
Mother’s university studies
No 25 (51) 24 (49)
Yes 37 (45.1) 45 (54.9) 1.27 (0.62–2.58) 0.513
Father’s university studies
No 36 (65.5) 19 (34.5)
Yes 24 (32.9) 49 (67.1) 3.87 (1.85–8.11) <0.001
Mother’s level of English
Does not speak English 19 (50) 19 (50)
Basic competences 27 (51.9) 25 (48.1) 0.93 (0.40–2.14) 0.857
Professional competences/Fluent 16 (39) 25 (61) 1.56 (0.64–3.82) 0.328
Father’s level of English
Does not speak English 30 (66.7) 15 (33.3)
Basic competences 18 (40.9) 26 (59.1) 2.89 (1.22–6.85) 0.016
Professional competences/Fluent 12 (33.3) 24 (66.7) 4.00 (1.58–10.14) 0.003
Other languages
None 33 (48.5) 35 (51.5) 1
Only one 18 (45) 22 (55) 1.15 (0.53–2.52) 0.723
Both 11 (50) 11 (50) 0.94 (0.36–2.47) 0.905
Source: Own elaboration based on student survey data.
Note: Bold indicates statistically significant values due to having a p< 0.05.
8Diego A. Barrado-Timón
group were compared with grades obtained from subjects
taught only in Spanish for the monolingual group (while
those taught in Spanish for both tracks were excluded). A
descriptive analysis of these two indicators appears in
Table 3.
Student’sttest was applied to the two above indicators
for each of the 16 subjects taught in Spanish and English at
the same time. The results are listed in Tables 4 (success
rate) and 5 (average grade).
Of the 32 comparisons shown in Tables 4 and 5, the
Student’sttest analysis finds statistically significant differ-
ences in only three: in favor of the bilingual group for
Historia del Siglo XX (20th Century History), in the case
of the success rate; and in favor of the bilingual group in
the first case and the monolingual group in the second for
Territorios y Paisajes del Mundo Actual (Contemporary
World Territories and Landscapes) and Geografía de la
Población y la Desigualdad (Geography of Population and
Inequality) in the case of average grade.
Therefore, it has apparently been confirmed that, in
the case of the International Studies degree at the UAM,
self-selection (among what some have called “great achie-
vers”) does not occur at the beginning of the academic
career, nor does the full course of instruction encourage
the bilingual group to obtain better academic results. Thus,
the answer to our second research question is that there is
no relationship between student (self-)selection to the
bilingual group and obtaining better grades than those
whose studies are entirely in Spanish.
While these results can only be construed as positive
in terms of equity, the same cannot be said of the poten-
tially distinct valuations that society as a whole (or, more
specifically, potential employers) may make of the qualifi-
cations earned by students during their academic careers.
This is related to concerns voiced by several authors (e.g.,
Lorenzo, 2007) that, when two tracks coexist –one bilin-
gual (or totally in English) and the other in the country’s
native language –the latter becomes less valued, which
Table 3: Comparison (grades) of the academic results obtained by students of the bilingual and monolingual groups
Modality Mean Median Standard deviation Minimum Maximum
Success rate In Spanish for the monolingual group 81.838 85.7100 14.33712 8.58 100.00
In English for the bilingual group 81.965 83.3300 14.30769 30.91 100.00
Average grade In Spanish for the monolingual group 6.802 6.7700 0.87396 5.12 8.83
In English for the bilingual group 6.756 6.8500 0.77076 4.58 8.52
Source: Own elaboration from UAM data.
Table 4: Descriptive and comparative analysis between groups of the success rate by subject
Group, mean (DT) Difference in mean Student’sttest d
Spanish English t(gl)p-value
Introducción a la política internacional: actores y temas 85.18 (6.52) 84.60 (9.75) 0.58 0.13 (12) 0.898 8.29
La primera globalización, siglos XV-XVIII 90.63 (5.98) 85.69 (6.12) 4.94 1.53 (12) 0.152 6.05
Estadística descriptive 62.97 (11.51) 69.23 (10.04) −6.26 −0.80 (7) 0.451 11.11
El nacimiento del mundo contemporáneo 77.24 (10.55) 70.79 (16.44) 6.45 0.81 (10) 0.437 13.81
La formación del orden internacional, ss. XVI-XIX 78.40 (17.15) 81.75 (11.58) −3.34 −0.40 (10) 0.701 14.63
Territorios y paisajes del mundo actual 90.16 (9.48) 97.37 (4.56) −7.21 −1.23 (8) 0.255 8.52
Historia del siglo XX 71.96 (10.46) 85.57 (9.12) −13.61 −2.59 (12) 0.023 9.82
Comunicación intercultural 91.94 (6.46) 96.15 (1.99) −4.21 −0.87 (7) 0.413 6.02
Desarrollo económico 85.19 (12.34) 87.98 (11.29) −2.79 −0.36 (8) 0.727 11.95
Arte y globalización 84.77 (10.43) 83.92 (11.82) 0.85 0.13 (10) 0.898 11.15
Historia de las relaciones internacionales en un mundo
globalizado
77.99 (12.55) 61.64 (21.20) 16.35 1.63 (10) 0.135 17.42
El sistema internacional de las artes 91.18 (5.27) 97.50 (3.54) −6.32 −1.54 (6) 0.174 5.02
Europa y américa: una perspectiva histórica 77.86 (9.81) 87.75 (9.60) −9.89 −1.77 (10) 0.108 9.71
Geografía de la población y de la desigualdad 88.73 (5.85) 81.98 (5.38) 6.74 2.08 (10) 0.064 5.62
Cuestiones actuales de la política internacional 90.90 (9.97) 79.93 (18.45) 10.97 1.17 (8) 0.276 14.83
El pensamiento político moderno y contemporáneo 85.93 (8.62) 80.50 (19.73) 5.42 0.56 (8) 0.589 15.22
gl: degree of freedom. d: Cohen’s“d”(size effect).
Note: Bold indicates statistically significant values due to having a p< 0.05.
Potential Elitism in Selection to Bilingual Studies 9
can prove especially significant for degrees such as Inter-
national Studies or International Relations.
Our results demonstrate that both bilingual and mono-
lingual students consider that social perceptions will be
more favorable for those obtaining a diploma for which
at least part of the instruction has been in English. When
measured on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (with 5 being total
agreement that social assessments will favor of studies in
English), the overall result of the students surveyed in the
bilingual group was 3.91, while that of the monolingual
itinerary was 3.55. In other words, despite data that contra-
dict the hypothesis wherein students in the English pro-
gram obtain better results (while not necessarily being
better prepared) than those who study entirely in Spanish,
there is a symbolic assumption that a stronger command of
English will comparatively strengthen their position vis-à-
vis society. All students appear to beaware of this inequality
–if not in results, then in future rewards.
5 Discussion and Conclusions
In this section, we establish a discussion between the scien-
tific work outlined in the literature review (again, based fun-
damentally on analyses at the primary and secondary levels of
education) and the quantitative data resulting from this
research (addressed in the previous section). Opinions from
a third source will be added to this discussion: qualitative
information, likewise produced for this research and collected
through semi-structured interviews with professors who teach
the bilingual group.
The first argument verified by our case study is that at
the UAM program, a kind of negative (self-)selection is
perceived for those students who hope to integrate into
the bilingual group but cannot do so. At the same time, a
kind of “positive self-segregation”has been detected, which
may conceivably lead a student to forgo, and even to chal-
lenge, the bilingual education model. This refers to stu-
dents who, despite a sufficient level of English accredita-
tion (or else thinking themselves capable of passing the
program’s internal language level test), do not apply to
the bilingual group for various reasons (perhaps expecting
better results or greater “comfort”levels in their native
tongue and thus preferring to study in Spanish). This
notion of “positive self-segregation”has not been found
in the reviewed literature, but evidently, such students
should not be considered mere “remnants,”as in the ter-
minology of Bruton (2013, p. 593).
In order to provide evidence for the debate on poten-
tial elitism, the discussion should revolve around whether
selection based on the English level (a division among stu-
dents that is explicitly manifested in the structure of the
degree program) is rooted in a socioeconomic rationale. As
mentioned, the argument in favor of elitism would be that
students are not selected through strict academic meritoc-
racy but in a way mediated by the economic capacities and
academic levels of their families, who have offered them
Table 5: Descriptive and comparative analysis between groups of the average grade by subject
Group, mean (DT) Difference in mean Student’sttest d
Spanish English t(gl)p-value
Introducción a la política internacional: actores y temas 7.05 (0.31) 6.92 (0.43) 0.14 0.69 (12) 0.504 0.37
La primera globalización, siglos XV-XVIII 6.98 (0.34) 6.47 (0.57) 0.51 2.01 (12) 0.067 0.47
Estadística descriptiva 5.41 (0.23) 5.47 (0.18) −0.06 −0.39 (7) 0.711 0.21
El nacimiento del mundo contemporáneo 6.04 (1.02) 6.16 (0.92) −0.12 −0.21 (10) 0.839 0.97
La formación del orden internacional, ss. XVI-XIX 6.65 (1.05) 6.37 (0.58) 0.27 0.56 (10) 0.588 0.85
Territorios y paisajes del mundo actual 6.20 (0.21) 7.51 (0.52) −1.31 −5.93 (8) <0.001 0.32
Historia del siglo XX 5.87 (0.34) 6.59 (1.00) −0.72 −1.81 (12) 0.096 0.74
Comunicación intercultural 6.98 (0.48) 7.68 (0.11) −0.69 −1.96 (7) 0.091 0.44
Desarrollo económico 6.07 (0.69) 6.23 (0.92) −0.16 −0.32 (8) 0.756 0.78
Arte y globalización 6.64 (0.61) 6.72 (0.66) −0.09 −0.23 (10) 0.821 0.63
Historia de las relaciones internacionales en un mundo globalizado 8.00 (0.66) 7.49 (0.37) 0.50 1.63 (10) 0.134 0.53
El sistema internacional de las artes 7.92 (0.63) 7.88 (0.40) 0.04 0.09 (6) 0.935 0.60
Europa y américa: una perspectiva histórica 6.73 (0.56) 6.92 (0.41) −0.19 −0.67 (10) 0.52 0.49
Geografía de la población y de la desigualdad 7.24 (0.51) 6.42 (0.46) 0.82 2.92 (10) 0.015 0.49
Cuestiones actuales de la política internacional 7.04 (0.66) 7.19 (0.68) −0.15 −0.36 (8) 0.73 0.67
El pensamiento político moderno y contemporáneo 7.41 (0.70) 7.21 (0.42) 0.20 0.56 (8) 0.593 0.58
gl: degree of freedom. d: Cohen’s“d”(size effect).
Note: Bold indicates statistically significant values due to having a p< 0.05.
10 Diego A. Barrado-Timón
more and better opportunities for exposure to English
(Bruton, 2013, 2015) in the years leading up to university.
The best argument that can currently be offered in favor
of the theory of elitism would be based on the positive cor-
relation between having been selected for the bilingual group
and two variables considered potential educational markers
of social class: having completed at least one language stay in
an English-speaking country and/or having completed high
school studies in a bilingual program. Interestingly, a signifi-
cant number of professors interviewed from the bilingual
group draw the same logical connection: most students in
the bilingual group have a high English level due to rela-
tively intense exposure to the language, as compared with
other Spanish students, and this is feasible, in their opinion,
thanks to a relatively high socioeconomic level.
Any of the aforementioned variables (such as stays
abroad) would be considered a clear marker of social class
(Bruton, 2015; Fernández-Sanjurjo et al., 2018). However, as
yet undetected is any debate around the point at which
such variables as the socioeconomic level of the family
or the potential capacity to access relevant academic ser-
vices would begin to produce a class bias and establish
patterns of social inequality in access to public education.
More controversial is the debate on the variable of
bilingual education during secondary schooling, a poten-
tial educational marker of social class that shows a clear
correlation with integration into the bilingual track of the
university degree. The statistical connection demonstrated
in this analysis indicates elitism around the bilingual group
of International Studies at the UAM only when accepting
the further premise that bilingual programs at the primary
and secondary levels are intrinsically discriminatory.
This is the line taken by authors such as Bruton (2015)
and Paran (2013), who argue that CLIL or bilingual pro-
grams do not meet the obligation of public education to
respond to diversity and to thereby offer equal opportunities
to all students, whatever their initial situation (including lan-
guage level). If this argument is accepted, then the statistical
connection indicated above would clearly indicate certain seg-
regation or elitism in the (self-) selection of students to the
bilingual study track in our case study. As shown by the sta-
tistical correlation, greater opportunities for access would thus
be offered to the English (bilingual) program, not only for
those whose socioeconomic status has afforded greater possi-
bilities for exposure to English (by taking courses abroad), but
also for those who (for similar reasons) have been able to
develop their pre-university secondary education in bilingual
programs.
For other authors, bilingual education at the primary
and secondary levels is not only non-discriminatory (and
thus unlikely to generate class bias at higher levels of
education), but in fact offers clear opportunities for social
equity by allowing quality instruction in English to socioeco-
nomic strata that could not otherwise afford it (Fernández-
Sanjurjo et al., 2018; Hüttner & Smit, 2014; Marsh, 2002). In the
words of Fernández-Sanjurjo et al. (2018), “CLIL and non-CLIL
groups can be regarded as homogeneous, and no statistical
differences can be found according to SES”(socioeconomic
status) (p. 19). The same conviction was shown by some of
the UAM professors interviewed, who considered that bilin-
gual education (whether at university or lower levels) is a
factor in social leveling, extending an opportunity (at public
prices, however high) to students from lower socioeconomic
backgrounds.
Without entering into a discussion of whether bilin-
gual programs at the primary and secondary levels are
discriminatory or not, we can highlight certain indications
that appear to support the conclusion that –strictly in the
case under analysis –any potential segregating effects
would be quite limited. The first of these is the null statis-
tical relationship between having been (self-)selected for
the bilingual group and having completed high school in a
private or subsidized institution.
Second, also found to be null, is the statistical relation-
ship between the educational levels of a student’s parents
and the opportunities offered (such as studies abroad, pri-
vate education, private classes, etc.) for achieving a high
level of English. Indeed, although some aspects linked to
better education in the English language do offer improved
chances of a student being accepted into the bilingual
group, it remains unproven whether this issue is necessa-
rily linked to family status.
This is consistent with some of the empirical work seen
in the literature for other educational levels, such as that of
Pérez-Cañado (2016), in which she finds no differences
between CLIL and non-CLIL students in relation to “extra-
mural exposure to the foreign language”(p. 19). Our
conclusion is, however, subject to objection due to metho-
dological issues stemming from the limitations of this work,
such as the possible weakness of the parents’educational
levels as a (proxy) predictor of the family’ssocioeconomic
level. Nevertheless, this factor has been used in other
research of this type (Alonso et al., 2008; Martínez-Agudo,
2022b; Rascón Moreno & Bretones Callejas, 2018; Sirin, 2005).
Even so, given the data here obtained, it follows that
students with parents of low or medium educational levels
did not, in this case, suffer discrimination in access to suf-
ficient English instruction (and thus in potential access to
the bilingual track) as compared to students from families
with high educational levels. This marks a clear contrast
with work carried out in other contexts and at other levels
of the educational system, where a connection was indeed
Potential Elitism in Selection to Bilingual Studies 11
observed between the educational level of the family, the
socioeconomic status, and the level of exposure of the chil-
dren to foreign languages, with the conclusion that “chil-
dren of parents from different socioeconomic backgrounds
and with different educational levels are not homoge-
neously distributed in all types of school”(Muñoz, 2008,
p. 589).
Because only certain educational markers of social
class have proven good predictors of integration into the
bilingual group, and given that no statistical connections
have been established between the parents’educational
and language levels and the students’possibility of greater
exposure to English, it cannot be said that the students, in
this case, are distributed in a pattern similar to that indi-
cated by Muñoz (2008). Indeed, the most that can be said is
that, despite some indications, in the absence of additional
in-depth and consistent research, elitism cannot be proved
in the selection of students for the bilingual group in the
UAM International Studies degree. The qualitative responses
of professors teaching in this program reveal similar
ambivalence, with a near-even distribution between
those who consider the bilingual-track students to repre-
sent an academic and idiomatic elite (derived somewhat
from social elite status) and those who claim not to have
perceived a segregating effect.
As regards the weight that the educational and lan-
guage levels of parents may exert on the English levels of
their children (and thus the chances of being selected for a
bilingual group at university), the specialized biography
presents studies of this issue at different levels and in dif-
ferent contexts (Fernández-Sanjurjo et al., 2018). For example,
Muñoz (2008) points out that “the educational level of parents
has a significant influence on children’s foreign language
learning success (see for example the PISA report in Europe
2003)”(p. 589). Martínez-Agudo (2022b) confirmsthisrelation-
ship, establishing 65% as the proportion of students in CLIL
programs whose parents possess a university degree (our
data are very similar to those reported by this author). In
any case, we must cite the clarification made by Pérez-Cañado
(2020) in her exhaustive research, in the face of such
empirical evidence: “this is clearly the case of all students,
whether they are following CLIL or non-CLIL programs”
(p. 15). In other words, although the educational levels of
parents do clearly influence educational decisions, as well as
the results obtained by their children, in no case has this
effect been found to be caused by CLIL methodologies or
bilingual programs.
Although our analysis has detected a connection
between the educational and language levels of the parents
and the selection for the bilingual group, this has only been
established in the case of the father and not of the mother.
No similar findings have emerged from the literature on
bilingual education, although some general works have
reflected on the potentially distinct roles that the educa-
tional levels of a father or mother may play in both the
educational level and achievement of a child (e.g., Korupp,
Ganzeboom, & Van Der Lippe, 2002; Minello & Blossfel, 2017).
This is part of a much broader debate around gender and
behavior models not directly relevant to this work; the most
that can be said here is that in the case analyzed, (self-)
selection to the bilingual group in relation to the parents’
educational levels has been found to be sensitive to the
parents’gender.
Moving ahead to a discussion of academic results, it
seems evident that in this case no special selection was
made of what Paran (2013) terms “great achievers.”Indeed,
the indicators used to measure achievement in the two
groups do not reveal that bilingual students obtained
better grades than their monolingual peers at the end of
the degree program. This is consistent with other findings
in the scientific literature, including examples attending to
the university level in Spain (Aguilar & Rodríguez, 2012).
Moreover, Anghel et al. (2016), Lorenzo et al. (2021), and
Pérez-Cañado (2016) report homogeneous results between
students from CLIL programs and monolingual groups at
other, lower educational levels.
In clear contrast, among the professors interviewed, a
strong current of opinion considered that students in the
bilingual group can indeed be considered “great achie-
vers,”in keeping with Paran (2013). Among those who
expressly maintained this opinion, a significant portion
felt that this higher grouping of bilingual students mani-
fests not only in terms of knowledge and results but at the
attitudinal level, indicating greater competitiveness.
Certain agreement prevails between the quantitative and
qualitative results offered by the professors as regards the
differing assessments that society will likely make of the stu-
dies undertaken and therefore the differing rewards (in both
prestige and earnings) that graduates may receive, depending
on their adherence to a bilingual or monolingual cohort. That
is to say, both students and professors consider that the mono-
lingual track will be viewed to a certain extent as a lower-level
degree (Lorenzo, 2007), in contrast with the real achievements
attained by both groups, which are very similar.
Although the students’reasons for entering the bilin-
gual group include both instrumental motivations (aimed
at greater socioeconomic returns from their studies) and
inherent motivations (the intrinsic pleasure of improving
one’s English and using it as a means for communication
and culture) (Somers & Llinares, 2021), the economic instru-
mentalization of education is difficult to transcend. This is
especially clear in the case of knowledge of English, viewed
12 Diego A. Barrado-Timón
largely as an instrument rather than a vital manifestation of
culture by a neoliberal vision of education that only “sees
language proficiency as the main causal factor in economic
success”(Paran, 2013, p. 335).
One possible explanation for the results obtained,
where clear (self-)selection was detected but without clear
patterns of discrimination for socioeconomic reasons, may lie
in the educational level at which this experiment was carried
out: higher education, compared to an overwhelming majority
of research and reflections focused on primary and secondary
education. Thus, it is possible that at the university level, no
clear segregation exists between students in the bilingual and
monolingual groups because the university is itself selective;
that is, selections based on status have already taken place. As
Piketty (2022) points out in one of his latest works, the fact that
public higher education is often nearly free (which is not the
case in Spain, much less in the Community of Madrid, with the
country’s highest prices) does not prevent it from causing
social selection: “The pursuit of extensive training in institu-
tions of higher learning in the absence of an adequate system
of minimum income represents a considerable investment for
people with lower incomes. Moreover, these students have not
always had access to the preliminary training, the social codes,
and the networks that provide opportunities for certain courses
of study”(Piketty, 2022, p. 178). In other words, as Bourdieu
theorized half a century ago, the greater or lesser endowment
of a certain cultural capital should be added to the economic
availability and/or the assessment of the opportunity cost of
going to university (Bourdieu, Boltanski, & de Saint Martin,
1973) that allows the potential student to consider, or even
just imagine, access to certain levels and academic spaces.
Therefore, it would be difficult to detect discrimination
at the university level, even in the public system, if such
has already occurred. Furthermore, a significant percentage
of those who have attended private institutes during sec-
ondary (high school) education decide to continue their stu-
dies at private universities and/or to follow educational paths
with a different profile than the one under analysis. In other
words, if (self-)selection occurred before reaching the educa-
tional level, type of institution, and area of study that comprise
our case study, then it is very likely that we are obtaining a
level of student homogeneity (in both family status and aca-
demic performance) that is a product of prior biases.
Another discussion worthy of attention is whether,
from the perspective of segregation and equal opportu-
nities, separation for academic reasons (in this case, lan-
guage level) carries the same meaning in primary and
secondary education as it does in higher education. Even
under the assumption that primary and secondary bilingual
programs are inherently elitist, as some authors maintain,
neither the meaning nor the impact of segregation for
academic reasons would seem to be the same as regards
university education. Indeed, as certain professors remarked
in interviews, this would serve a leveling purpose by being
offered at a public university at public prices –as has been
claimed by various authors focused on the lower echelons of
education (Fernández-Sanjurjo et al., 2018; Hüttner & Smit,
2014; Marsh, 2002).
It must further be taken into account that such segrega-
tion (for academic reasons) already occurs for students in both
the bilingual and monolingual groups, as compared to those
not accepted into the degree program. Prior to any separation
based on the language of instruction, a previous selection pro-
cess is made for academic reasons, the criteria of which focus
on the grades obtained during secondary education.
We therefore fully agree with Pérez-Cañado (2020)when
she states that the relevant conclusions in her own study are
once again “mixed, if not contradictory”(p. 7). Likewise, as
relates to our research questions and to novel doubts raised
in this Discussion section, we find that new and more specific
research will be necessary before the questions prompted by
this educational model can be answered.
Acknowledgements: I thank Professor Eva Samaniego
(UNED –Spain) for her comments and suggestions during
the development of this work. I would like to express grati-
tude for the assistance provided by Rosa Rincón Barrado
concerning the specificities of the bilingual primary and
secondary education system in the Community of Madrid.
Funding information: This research received no specificgrant
from any funding agency, commercial or nonprofitsectors.
Conflict of interest: The author states that there is no
conflict of interest.
Data availability statement: The datasets generated and/
or analyzed during the current study are available from the
corresponding author on reasonable request. The data on
student enrolment and grades are the property of the
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid and were provided under
the condition of strict confidentiality and restricted use.
References
Aguilar, M., & Rodríguez, R. (2012). Lecturer and student perceptions on
CLIL at a Spanish university. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism,15(2), 183–197. doi: 10.1080/13670050.
2011.615906.
Alonso, E., Grisaleña, J., & Campo, A. (2008). Plurilingual education in
secondary schools: Analysis of results. International CLIL Research
Journal,1(1), 36–49.
Potential Elitism in Selection to Bilingual Studies 13
Anghel, B., Cabrales, A., & Carro, J. M. (2016). Evaluating a bilingual
education program in Spain: The impact beyond foreign language
learning. Economic Inquiry,54(2), 1202–1223. doi: 10.1111/ecin.
12305.
Barrios, E. (2022). The effect of parental education level on perceptions
about CLIL: A study in Andalusia. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism,25(1), 183–195. doi: 10.1080/13670050.
2019.1646702.
Bourdieu, P., Boltanski, L., & de Saint Martin, M. (1973). Les stratégies de
reconversion: Les classes sociales et le système d’enseignement. Social
Science Information,12(5), 61–113. doi: 10.1177/053901847301200503.
Bruton, A. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating
some of the research. System,39(4), 523–532. doi: 10.1016/j.system.
2011.08.002.
Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why…and why not. System,
41(3), 587–597. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2013.07.001.
Bruton, A. (2015). CLIL: Detail matters in the whole picture. More than a
reply to J. Hüttner and U. Smit (2014). System,53, 119–128. doi: 10.
1016/j.system.2015.07.005.
Butler, Y. G. (2014). Current Issues in English Education for Young
Learners in East Asia. English Teaching,69(4), 3–25. doi: 10.15858/
engtea.69.4.201412.3.
Coyle, D. (2013). Listening to learners: An investigation into ‘successful
learning’across CLIL contexts. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism,16(3), 244–266. doi: 10.1080/13670050.
2013.777384.
Dallinger, S., Jonkmann, K., Hollm, J., & Fiege, C. (2016). The effect of
content and language integrated learning on students’English and
history competences –Killing two birds with one stone? Learning
and Instruction,41,23–31. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.09.003.
Fernández-Sanjurjo, J., Blanco, J. M. A., & Fernández-Costales, A. (2018).
Assessing the influence of socio-economic status on students’per-
formance in Content and Language Integrated Learning. System,73,
16–26. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2017.09.001.
Hellekjær, G. O. (2010). Lecture comprehension in English-medium
higher education. Hermes Journal of Language and Communication
Studies,45,11–34. doi: 10.7146/hjlcb.v23i45.97343.
Hernandez-Nanclares, N., & Jiménez-Munoz, A. (2017). English as a
medium of instruction: Evidence for language and content targets
in bilingual education in economics. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism,20(7), 883–896. doi: 10.1080/13670050.
2015.1125847.
Hüttner, J., & Smit, U. (2014). CLIL (Content and Language Integrated
Learning): The bigger picture. A response to: A. Bruton. 2013. CLIL:
Some of the reasons why. and why not. System,41(2013), 587–597.
System 44, 160–167. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2014.03.001.
Korupp, S. E., Ganzeboom, H. B., & Van Der Lippe, T. (2002). Do mothers
matter? A comparison of models of the influence of mothers’and
fathers’educational and occupational status on children’s educa-
tional attainment. Quality and Quantity,36,17–42. doi: 10.1023/
A:1014393223522.
Lorenzo, F. (2007). The sociolinguistics of CLIL: Language planning and
language change in 21st Century Europe. Revista española de
lingüística aplicada,20(1), 27–38.
Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., & Moore, P. (2010). The effects of content and
language integrated learning in European education: Key findings
from the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project. Applied
linguistics,31(3), 418–442. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp041.
Lorenzo, F., Granados, A., & Rico, N. (2021). Equity in bilingual education:
Socioeconomic status and content and language integrated
learning in monolingual Southern Europe. Applied Linguistics,42(3),
393–413. doi: 10.1093/applin/amaa037.
Macaro, E., & Tian, L. (2020). Developing EMI teachers through a colla-
borative research model. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development. doi: 10.1080/01434632.2020.1862131.
Madrid, D., & Perez Canado, M. L. (2018). Innovations and challenges in
attending to diversity through CLIL. Theory Into Practice,57(3),
241–249. doi: 10.1080/00405841.2018.1492237.
Marsh, D. (1994). Bilingual education & content and language integrated
learning. International Association for Cross-cultural
Communication, Language Teaching in the Member States of the
European Union (Lingua). University of Sorbonne.
Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL-EMILE. The European Dimension. Actions, Trends and
Foresight Potential. University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Retrieved May
25, 2023, from https://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/47616.
Martínez-Agudo, J. D. (2022a). The impact of CLIL on English language
competence in a monolingual context: A longitudinal perspective.
The Language Learning Journal.48(1), 36–47. 10.1080/09571736.2019.
1610030.
Martínez-Agudo, J. D. (2022b). To what extent does parental educational
background affect CLIL learners’content subject learning? Evidence
from research in Spain. International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism,25(2), 598–611. doi: 10.1080/13670050.2020.
1715916.
Minello, A., & Blossfeld, H. P. (2017). From parents to children: The impact
of mothers’and fathers’educational attainments on those of
their sons and daughters in West Germany. British Journal of
Sociology of Education,38(5), 686–704. doi: 10.1080/01425692.2016.
1150156.
Muñoz, C. (2008). Symmetries and asymmetries of age effects in natur-
alistic and instructed L2 learning. Applied linguistics,29(4), 578–596.
doi: 10.1093/applin/amm056.
Paran, A. (2013). Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or
policy borrowing myth? Applied Linguistics Review,4(2), 317–342.
doi: 10.1515/applirev-2013-0014.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2016). From the CLIL craze to the CLIL conundrum:
Addressing the current CLIL controversy. Bellaterra Journal of
Teaching and Learning Language and Literature,9(1), 9–31. 10.5565/
rev/jtl3.667.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2020). CLIL and elitism: Myth or reality? The
Language Learning Journal,48(1), 4–17. doi: 10.1080/09571736.2019.
1645872.
Piketty, T. (2022). A brief history of equality. Harvard University Press.
Rascón Moreno, D., & Bretones Callejas, C. M. (2018). Socioeconomic status
and its impact on language and content attainment in CLIL contexts.
Porta Linguarum,29,115–135. doi: 10.30827/Digibug.54025.
Ruiz-Madrid, N., & Fortanet-Gómez, I. (2023). Integrating content and
language in higher education. System,115,1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.
system.2023.103073.
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A
meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research,
75(3), 417–453. doi: 10.3102/00346543075003417.
Somers, T., & Llinares, A. (2021). Students’motivation for content and
language integrated learning and the role of programme intensity.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,24(6),
839–854. doi: 10.1080/13670050.2018.1517722.
14 Diego A. Barrado-Timón
Content uploaded by Diego A. Barrado-Timón
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Diego A. Barrado-Timón on Feb 09, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
