Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development

Information Sources and Search Strategy

The search was conducted iteratively between late 2023 and early 2025 and targeted peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2012 and 2024. Web of Science and Scopus were selected due to their broad coverage of journals in education, applied linguistics, and language policy. Searches yielded 92 records in Web of Science and 24 in Scopus.

Search queries were conducted in Spanish and English, combining terms related to bilingual education or English-language education policy, Colombia, and educational equity or inequality. Descriptors such as bilingual education, bilingualism policy, English education, Colombia, educational equity, and educational inequality were linked through Boolean operators (AND/OR) and adapted to each database’s syntax.

Because this strategy may underrepresent studies published exclusively in regional open-access repositories—particularly those focusing on rural, Indigenous, or intercultural education—such platforms were consulted only to retrieve full texts for records already identified in Web of Science or Scopus. To retrieve full manuscripts, when necessary, additional open-access platforms were consulted only to access the full text of records already identified in Web of Science or Scopus. No additional studies were incorporated through these platforms.

Eligibility Criteria

Document selection was guided by the study’s research questions and by an adaptation of the PICO approach to language-in-education policy (Methley et al., 2014). Studies were eligible if they focused on Colombia and addressed bilingualism policy or English education policy, including the NBP in any of its phases, its enactment in rural or peripheral settings, or the social and ideological effects of English. To be included, studies also had to make an explicit connection to educational inequality, operationalized as socioeconomic disparities, rural-urban gaps, public-private contrasts, intercultural or ethnic education, or uneven institutional capacity.

Two studies on educational inequality and spatial segregation in Colombia (Castro-Aristizábal et al., 2022; Fajardo et al., 2021) were retained despite not focusing specifically on bilingual education, as they provide a structural context to interpret unequal English outcomes in Saber 11 and to support the analytical use of Sen’s and Fraser’s frameworks.

Selection Procedure

The study selection followed the PRISMA 2020 framework. Records identified through database searching were screened in successive stages to ensure temporal relevance, contextual focus on Colombia, and alignment with the study’s analytical scope. Titles and abstracts were then reviewed to confirm that Colombia constituted the primary empirical or policy context and that the studies addressed bilingualism or English education policy in relation to educational inequality. Twenty-two studies met all inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative thematic synthesis (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram for Systematic Reviews

Note. Adapted from “The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,” by M. J. Page, J. E. McKenzie, P. M. Bossuyt, I. Boutron, T. C. Hoffmann, C. D. Mulrow, L. Shamseer, J. M. Tetzlaff, E. A. Akl, S. E. Brennan, R. Chou, J. Glanville, J. M. Grimshaw, A. Hróbjartsson, M. M. Lalu, T. Li, E. W. Loder, E. Mayo-Wilson, S. McDonald, . . . D. Moher, 2021, International Journal of Surgery, 88 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906). Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0).

Data Extraction and Organization

Once the final corpus of studies had been defined, a data extraction matrix was developed to support systematic coding and qualitative synthesis. For each study, information was recorded on authorship and year of publication, publication outlet, educational level and territorial scope, methodological design, the type of equity or territorial dimension addressed, the English-achievement indicators reported, and the policy implications identified in relation to the NBP. These analytical categories were selected based on the research questions and align with the theoretical framework guiding the study. They capture dimensions related to redistribution, recognition, and stratified access to linguistic capital, which are central to understanding how bilingualism policy operates across unequal educational contexts.

The extraction matrix functioned as an organizational tool to ensure traceability between the included studies and the themes reported in the qualitative synthesis, supporting consistency in interpretation and transparency in the analytical process.

Qualitative Synthesis and Quality Assessment

The 22 included studies were analyzed through an inductive thematic synthesis. Full texts were read iteratively and coded to identify recurrent mechanisms, contextual conditions, and equity-related claims across the corpus. This process resulted in three analytical axes: (a) bilingual education as a setting where structural inequality becomes visible, (b) socioeconomic status and differentiated access to English learning opportunities, and (c) teacher-centered implications for bilingualism policy enactment. The synthesis prioritized interpretive comparison across studies, focusing on how inequality is conceptualized, evidenced, and explained in relation to bilingualism and English education policy.

Methodological quality and risk of bias were appraised to strengthen transparency and interpretive rigor. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklists (https://casp-uk.net/) were used for qualitative and documentary designs, and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT; Hong et al., 2018) was used for quantitative and mixed-method studies. Quality appraisal was not used to exclude studies. Instead, all included studies contributed to the synthesis, while appraisal results were used to qualify the strength, scope, and transferability of the evidence.

When similar claims appeared across studies with different levels of methodological robustness, greater interpretive emphasis was placed on those with clearer design rationale, more explicit analytical procedures, and stronger alignment between data and conclusions. Table 1 summarizes the appraisal outcomes and the main methodological limitations identified for each study.

Bilingual Education as a Setting Where Structural Inequality Becomes Visible

In Colombia, bilingual education is framed as a policy field in which pre-existing structural inequalities become visible and, in many cases, reinforced. Bilingualism is not presented as a neutral pedagogical innovation, but as a reform whose outcomes are strongly mediated by territorial, institutional, and socioeconomic conditions. In this sense, the implementation of bilingual and English education policies operates within an unequal educational landscape, where access to resources, instructional conditions, and institutional capacity vary markedly across school sectors and regions.

Empirical evidence shows that public schools—particularly those in rural and peripheral areas—face persistent constraints in infrastructure, teacher availability and specialization, continuity of instruction, and access to pedagogical and technological resources. These constraints limit the extent to which national bilingualism policy objectives can be translated into sustained learning trajectories. In contrast, better-resourced institutions (more frequently associated with urban settings and private provision) are described as operating under more favorable conditions, including stable staffing, greater availability of instructional materials, and more systematic professional development opportunities for teachers. As a result, bilingual education functions as a differentiated policy space, in which the same formal objectives generate uneven outcomes across contexts. These structural patterns, repeatedly documented in the literature, are summarized in Table 2.

National assessment data from the Saber 11 examination for the 2017-2024 period further reinforce this interpretation. As illustrated in Figure 2, the national mean score in English remains broadly stable over time, indicating limited cumulative improvement despite sustained policy implementation.

Figure 2: National Mean Score in English in the Saber 11 Examination (2017-2024)

However, this apparent stability conceals substantial internal disparities. To examine how national outcomes translate into proficiency profiles, Figures 3 and 4 present the distribution of CEFR performance levels by academic calendar (A and B) for 2017-2024. The results show that Calendar A consistently concentrates the largest proportions of students in the lowest performance bands, whereas Calendar B exhibits markedly higher achievement profiles across the same years. These differences are not episodic but persistent across time, suggesting that structural inequalities at the system level are reproduced in assessment outcomes.

Figure 3: Distribution of CEFR Performance Levels in Saber 11 English, Calendar A (2017-2024)

The distribution observed for Calendar A shows a persistent concentration of students in the lowest CEFR bands (A- and A1), with only a marginal proportion reaching B1 or higher. This pattern reflects the structural constraints documented in public and rural schooling contexts and underscores the system’s limited capacity to support upward trajectories of proficiency under unequal conditions.

Figure 4: Distribution of CEFR Performance Levels in Saber 11 English, Calendar B (2017-2024)

In contrast, the distribution for Calendar B shows a markedly different proficiency profile, with a substantially higher concentration of students in the upper CEFR bands (B1 and B+), and a comparatively smaller proportion remaining at the lowest levels. This pattern is consistent across the period analyzed and reflects more favorable instructional conditions, greater continuity of English exposure, and stronger institutional capacity, which enable sustained progression toward functional and advanced levels of proficiency.

The convergence between the reviewed studies and the longitudinal assessment evidence indicates that bilingual education in Colombia operates as a site where structural inequality becomes measurable and visible. Rather than offsetting existing disparities, bilingualism policy outcomes reflect long-standing differences in institutional capacity, territorial conditions, and access to educational resources. This finding provides a necessary foundation for examining, in the following sections, how socioeconomic status shapes differentiated access to English learning opportunities and how teachers’ work mediates the enactment of bilingualism policy across unequal contexts.

Socioeconomic Status and Differentiated Access to English Learning Opportunities

Across the reviewed studies, socioeconomic status (SES) emerges as a cross-cutting determinant of access to English learning opportunities and achievement. Qualitative, mixed-method, and macro-level analyses indicate that learners in low-SES contexts face cumulative barriers associated with limited infrastructure and materials, restricted access to technology, fewer opportunities for out-of-school support, and uneven availability of qualified English instruction. These conditions constrain participation in higher-quality bilingual provision and reduce the likelihood of sustained exposure to English across schooling trajectories.

In contrast, students in middle- and higher-SES contexts more frequently access complementary resources, including private tutoring, extended exposure to English through extracurricular programs, and greater access to technology at home and at school. The reviewed literature consistently underscores that SES does not operate in isolation: it interacts with the school sector, territory, and institutional capacity, producing differentiated pathways of access and achievement in English.

Territorial conditions intersect with SES in systematic ways. In rural settings, English education is delivered under constraints of limited material and institutional capacity, with fewer instructional resources and weaker infrastructure than is typically reported in urban environments. In low-resource urban contexts, studies also show early differentiation in students’ experiences and representations of English by school type and family context, suggesting that unequal exposure and unequal meanings attached to English emerge early and are reproduced over time.

National assessment evidence aligns with these patterns. While mean English scores remain broadly stable at the aggregate level (Figure 2), distributions of CEFR performance levels by academic calendar reveal persistent stratification in proficiency profiles (Figures 3 and 4). Calendar A concentrates the largest proportions of students in the lowest CEFR bands, whereas Calendar B shows substantially higher concentrations in B1 and B+. Although the calendar is not a direct proxy for SES, these distributions are consistent with the evidence reviewed on socioeconomic and sector-based differentiation in access to sustained, higher-quality English learning opportunities. Table 3 synthesizes the empirical studies that most directly document SES-linked disparities in access to English learning opportunities and outcomes.

Teacher-Centered Implications for Bilingualism Policy Enactment

Across the reviewed studies, teachers’ working conditions and professional development opportunities emerge as central mechanisms through which socioeconomic and territorial inequalities shape the enactment of bilingual education policy. Evidence from rural and public-school contexts indicates that English teachers often work under reduced instructional time, limited access to pedagogical and technological resources, and organizational constraints that affect curriculum continuity, follow-up, and assessment practices (Correa & González, 2016; Cruz-Arcila, 2018, 2020).

The review also indicates that professional development opportunities are unevenly distributed across territories and school sectors. Teachers in better-resourced urban institutions report more frequent access to sustained development pathways related to CLIL, assessment, and program innovation, often supported by stronger leadership and institutional infrastructure. In contrast, teachers working in disadvantaged territories describe sporadic, short-term, or discontinuous education opportunities that are insufficient to offset structural constraints related to workload, time allocation, connectivity, and scarcity of teaching materials (Cardona-Escobar et al., 2023; McDougald & Pissarello, 2020).

Several studies highlight teachers’ agencies in sustaining policy enactment under conditions of scarcity. Teachers adapt curricular goals, mobilize locally available resources, and develop situated pedagogical strategies to maintain English instruction; however, these practices frequently rely on individual effort rather than stable institutional support, making implementation fragile and uneven (Cardona-Escobar et al., 2021; Cruz-Arcila, 2018). This evidence suggests that policy expectations are often enacted through intensified pedagogical labor in disadvantaged contexts, without proportional redistribution of resources or sustained professional support.

These findings speak directly to the role of teachers as mediators of bilingualism policy in unequal conditions. They show that differentiated working environments and uneven access to professional learning shape teachers’ capacity to implement bilingual policy consistently and constrain the extent to which professional development can translate into improved student outcomes in historically disadvantaged settings. Table 4 summarizes the teacher-centered evidence on policy enactment under unequal conditions.

How Do Socioeconomic and Territorial Conditions Affect Bilingual Policy Results in Colombia?

Across the reviewed studies, socioeconomic and territorial conditions emerge as foundational determinants of who has access to sustained, high-quality opportunities to learn English and who is more likely to reach functional proficiency. The triangulation between empirical evidence and national assessment distributions shows that bilingual education operates within differentiated circuits that shape learning opportunities before, during, and beyond classroom instruction. At the system level, territorial segregation and academic clustering concentrate stronger institutional capacity, including specialized teachers, stable programs, and access to authentic materials, within specific school networks and urban circuits (Castro-Aristizábal et al., 2022; Roldán & Peláez-Henao, 2017). These dynamics are consistent with the literature documenting persistent disparities in instructional resources, continuity of English exposure, and infrastructure between public and private provision, particularly across rural-urban divides (Correa & González, 2016; Cruz-Arcila, 2018).

Within schooling, the conversion of instructional time into learning is shaped by structural differences in effective exposure hours, staffing stability, curriculum continuity, access to information and communication technologies, and the availability of sustained professional development. These conditions are systematically less favorable in disadvantaged public and rural contexts (Correa & González, 2016; Cruz-Arcila, 2018; McDougald & Pissarello, 2020). Beyond schooling, standardized evaluation and accountability incentives tend to reward institutions with greater accumulated capital, consolidating cycles of advantage and reinforcing stratified trajectories (Cardona-Escobar et al., 2021; Mackenzie, 2020; Miranda et al., 2016).

These mechanisms are reflected in Saber 11 English proficiency profiles. While mean scores show only limited variation at the aggregate level (ICFES, 2024, 2025), disaggregation by academic calendar reveals persistent stratification in CEFR distributions. Calendar A has the largest proportions of students in the lower bands, whereas Calendar B consistently shows higher concentrations in B1 and B+. Interpreted through the capability approach, the equity problem is not only the outcome gap but also the asymmetry in conversion factors that prevents formal access to English from translating into comparable real freedoms across contexts (Sen, 1999). Where schools operate with fewer effective hours, higher teacher turnover, limited materials and connectivity, and fewer immersion or enrichment opportunities, the same formal policy promise yields substantially different learning returns (Correa & González, 2016; McDougald & Pissarello, 2020).

From a capital perspective, English functions as institutionalized cultural and symbolic capital, the acquisition of which depends on belonging to school networks with greater resource density. Once acquired, it is certified through assessments and educational trajectories that enable stratified positioning (Bourdieu, 1986). In this sense, English does not merely measure achievement. It also contributes to classification and distinction through unequal access to learning opportunities and unequal institutional capacity to support progression. This interpretation aligns with the reviewed evidence that structural inequality in bilingualism is not explained by individual deficits but by systemic configurations that organize supply, condition pedagogical mediation, and crystallize results (Cardona-Escobar et al., 2023; Cruz-Arcila, 2018).

What Adjustments Does the National Bilingualism Program Require to Advance Educational Equity?

The review indicates that equity-oriented adjustments to bilingualism policy require a shift from uniform standards and compliance-oriented monitoring toward territorial differentiated strategies that redistribute conditions for learning. Critical analyses suggest that the emphasis on CEFR alignment, standardization, and results-based accountability has often outweighed redistributive mechanisms that could address heterogeneity in baseline conditions (Bettney, 2022; Cardona-Escobar et al., 2021; Mackenzie, 2020). This design can structure expectations. However, it insufficiently addresses unequal institutional capacity and territorial variation in the conditions required to meet those expectations.

From a Fraserian perspective, advancing equity requires integrating redistribution and recognition (Fraser, 2008). Redistribution implies differential funding, targeted strengthening of institutional capacity, guaranteed instructional time, stable teacher allocation, and access to materials and connectivity in the most disadvantaged territories. Without these conditions, policy goals remain formally universal but practically selective. Recognition implies validating local linguistic repertoires and pedagogical practices, rather than treating them as deficiencies. It also requires enabling context-responsive curricular and assessment decisions that expand meaningful participation. In this regard, studies emphasizing monoglossic policy orientations show that standardized frameworks can reproduce symbolic hierarchies unless plural and context-sensitive approaches are institutionally legitimized (Bettney, 2022; Ubaque-Casallas, 2023).

Accordingly, policy adjustment should prioritize territorially differentiated targets and implementation supports, equity-linked funding and incentives aimed at improving conversion conditions, and monitoring systems that track distributive improvement rather than only aggregate performance. The evidence suggests that equity in bilingualism is unlikely to result from further standardization alone. It requires regulatory architectures that preserve shared quality horizons while redistributing resources and decision-making capacity to contexts facing the highest structural barriers (Cardona-Escobar et al., 2021; Mackenzie, 2020; McDougald & Pissarello, 2020).

How Do These Conditions Shape English Teachers’ Work and Opportunities for Professional Development?

A teacher-centered reading of the findings shows that policy misalignment is often first experienced in teachers’ daily work. Studies on rural and disadvantaged contexts document that teachers enact bilingualism policy through situated translation, using available resources rather than those assumed by centralized designs (Cruz-Arcila, 2018, 2020). This enactment becomes more demanding in low-SES and rural schools, where teachers must compensate for reduced exposure time, limited out-of-school access to English, and scarce pedagogical and technological resources (Correa & González, 2016; Cruz-Arcila, 2018).

Professional development is frequently positioned as a compensatory lever. Evidence indicates that in-service education in areas such as CLIL or assessment can strengthen pedagogical knowledge, yet its impact is mediated by workload, time allocation, leadership, and territorial support (McDougald & Pissarello, 2020). Consequently, equity-oriented bilingualism policies should territorialize teacher professional development. Teachers in rural and highly segregated urban contexts require longer, school-embedded programs, mentoring, and access to digital and pedagogical resources. By contrast, better-resourced contexts may benefit from specialization and innovation tracks. Without such differentiation, professional development can reproduce inequalities because advantaged institutions are better positioned to allocate time and infrastructure for participation.

Finally, the review suggests limited participation of teachers and communities in the design, adaptation, and monitoring of bilingualism initiatives, which constrains the recognition dimension of social justice (Fraser, 2008). Strengthening participatory mechanisms would enable inclusive practices developed in contexts of scarcity—such as translanguaging, multigrade strategies, and culturally responsive materials—to be recognized as legitimate and scalable forms of bilingual education in Colombia (Bettney, 2022; Ubaque-Casallas, 2023). In conclusion, teacher-centered policy enactment under unequal conditions underscores that educational equity in bilingualism depends not only on standards but on the redistribution of conditions and support that make sustained pedagogical work feasible in disadvantaged territories.