Multilingual imperatives in a local family: implementing a high-pressure family language policy in South Korea

1 Introduction

Above is a short segment of a conversation between the first author of this study and a five-year-old Korean boy, Jay,^[1] playing with his toy vehicles. It is evident from the conversation that Jay is comfortable with speaking English, which is not his mother tongue. His preference for speaking English appears to be because his favorite character from the TV show Sesame Street, Elmo, speaks the language. He learns English from his teacher, Alice, and his mother, both of whom are proficient in it.

This conversation with Jay has prompted a series of questions: (1) How and why is a preschool-aged Korean child, Jay, exposed to English more than his native language in a non-English-speaking country? (2) To what extent is Jay’s language use influenced by his parents’ needs and expectations? (3) What is the role of parents in promoting English at home? and (4) What policy changes are necessary to enhance the accessibility of bilingualism for young children? This study closely examines Jay and his parents, delving into how they project and interpret English, particularly for Korea’s young children, as a gateway to mainstream society, both locally and globally. Drawing on Spolsky’s (2004) tripartite language policy model, comprising language beliefs, practices, and management, this study explores the understanding of bilingual practices in Jay’s family. The insights presented herein are expected to serve as an empirical reference for policymakers and practitioners who aim to promote bilingualism among children in non-English-speaking contexts.

2 English fever and the English divide in South Korea

South Korean society widely observes academic achievement as crucial for successful social and cultural mobility. This belief has long been ingrained in Confucian philosophy (Seth 2002), which has led to a strong desire by parents for their children to enter prestigious schools to cultivate and leverage cultural capital (Bourdieu 1986). Cultural capital, defined as “instruments for the appropriation of symbolic wealth socially designated as worthy of being sought and possessed” (Bourdieu 1977: 488), pertains to non-economic social assets that bear upon the socialization process. These assets include not only education but also artistic and intellectual attributes, as well as behavioral dispositions (Bourdieu 1986). Parents often transmit cultural capital to their children, which significantly shapes educational outcomes in East Asian contexts such as Korea (Byun et al. 2012; Kim 2020). In this particular national context, the notion of “education fever,” generally viewed as an “unusual level of interest in education” (Kim et al. 2005: 8), is salient in contemporary Korean society (Kim et al. 2005; Shin et al. 2019; Yang 2011). This phenomenon often reflects parents’ ambitions and investments, which are “produced through interaction between their agency (experiences and values) and the social structures” (Shin et al. 2019: 352).

The significance of academic achievement in Korea has resulted in a strong emphasis on English language education. Globalization motivates Koreans to learn English, highlighting its perceived benefits for academic and professional engagement and advancement, thereby facilitating greater access to and participation in knowledge-based economies (Brutt-Griffler 2002). Standardized tests measure English proficiency, which has become a prerequisite for university admissions and employment due to its nationwide importance. For instance, English is considered one of the major academic subjects as outlined in the national curriculum for K–12 students, with compulsory instruction beginning in the third grade of elementary school (see Ministry of Education 2022). The emphasis on English language education has also propelled the growth of K–12 international schools that are administered by academic institutions from Anglophone nations; these schools adopt Anglophone curricula and programs, providing inclusive and extensive academic environments with English as the sole medium of instruction (Song 2013). Most senior high school students undergo rigorous preparation for the college entrance examination, wherein the English section is obligatory and serves as a significant determinant of entry into prestigious four-year universities (see Brutt-Griffler and Kim 2023). Moreover, the English medium instruction policy is prevalent across academic majors in most higher education institutions in Korea (Kim et al. 2017; Kim et al. 2024; Macaro et al. 2018).

Due to the importance of English from K–12 to higher education, private education – exemplified by after-school academies known as hagwons in Korean culture – is ubiquitous and often considered an indispensable component of the educational journey among school-age children (Brutt-Griffler and Kim 2023; Park et al. 2011). According to Brutt-Griffler and Kim (2023), English tutoring in the private sector offers supplementary instruction outside the regular school system, focusing on English language skills and preparation for standardized exams. Conversely, this often creates a high-pressure environment for learning English, requiring a significant investment of money and time from an early age. Parental involvement in children’s academic success often aims to give them a competitive edge (Park et al. 2011), but it may also impose significant burdens on them (Yang and Shin 2008). This high-pressure FLP, which can lead to an intense pursuit of academic excellence, can negatively impact children’s overall well-being and development (Kwak and Ickovics 2019; Lee et al. 2010; Phosaly et al. 2019; Yang and Shin 2008).

Parental interest and investment in education, including English language education, extend beyond the realm of K–12 and higher education (Park and Kwon 2009). Studies have begun to uncover how Korean parents view the necessity to invest in early childhood English education. Lee et al. (2021: 647) show that high-income Korean mothers view investing in English kindergartens as part of them “being a good mother.” In other words, these parents of preschool-aged children feel high pressure to invest in English learning very early, and it appears that it is tied with their self-concept as a parent. For parents seeking such specialized and high-quality education for their young children, private English language institutes for preschoolers with steep tuition fees, commonly known as “English immersion kindergartens,”^[2] have become sought after throughout the nation. This is particularly true, given that public kindergartens are relatively affordable. Public kindergartens’ fees for children between the ages of 3 and 5, under the national policy for early childhood education known as the Nuri Curriculum, are minimal (Kim 2021). However, Yonhap News Agency (2022) reports that private English language institutes charge substantial tuition fees for preschoolers, with parents of enrolled children facing an average monthly expenditure of 1,126,000 KRW (approximately 874 USD).^[3] On an annual basis, the reported amount is almost twice as high as the average annual tuition fee for college. The report also notes that Seoul, the capital of Korea, had 311 English immersion kindergartens in 2021, which was an increase of 17 from 2020. Parents’ desire to enhance their children’s English language competence, especially during Korean students’ younger years, strongly links with their decision to pursue education in English-speaking countries, along with enabling enrollment in international schools within Korea. This phenomenon of “early study abroad” [jogi yuhak] (Bae and Park 2020; Lee 2016) has given rise to the concept of the “wild-goose father” [kirogi appa], who lives apart from his family, dedicating himself to work in his home country to provide financial support for his children’s overseas education (see Lee and Koo 2006).

Such a drive for English language education in Korea, commonly called “English fever” (Park 2009), has various sociocultural and socioeconomic implications. Korea’s attention to English has bolstered the nation’s global competitiveness by facilitating the active participation of its citizens in academic and professional networks. Still, English language education may exacerbate educational inequality, triggering the so-called “English divide” (Shin and Lee 2019; Song 2013), if it is differentially available only to those who can afford it. This may have an excessive impact on disadvantaged groups who have limited means to access essential resources to fund English language education, thereby fueling severe social and economic inequalities. Consequently, English is often viewed as “objectified capital,” which causes “feelings of despair, hopelessness and resentment among individuals, especially young adults” (Choi 2021: 102). Brutt-Griffler and Kim (2023) highlight the need for the Korean government to focus on promoting bilingual proficiency for all students by effectively implementing public school education policies. This approach aims to reduce inequalities while also raising awareness among educational policymakers about the pressures families and children encounter in achieving bilingual learning, with English as a second language.

3 Family language policy

The family unit plays a crucial role in language acquisition and socialization within the context of bi/multilingual education (Ochs and Schieffelin 1984). Scholars have also recognized the family as the primary site for language transmission, maintenance, and shift (Canagarajah 2008; Fishman 1991). Given the profound influence of language use and development within the home environment (Curdt-Christiansen 2018; King and Fogle 2017; King et al. 2008), scholarly discourse posits that the family is “a domain relevant to language policy” (Spolsky 2012: 4). Building on this perspective, family language policy (FLP), as defined by Curdt-Christiansen (2018: 420), refers to “explicit and overt as well as implicit and covert language planning by family members in relation to language choice and literacy practices within home domains and among family members.”

A burgeoning body of research has delved into the interplay between parents’ strategic language planning and their children’s language use and learning at home. In recent years, this line of inquiry has held particular significance for multilingual and transnational families as it aims to investigate the fundamental role that families play in shaping language ideologies and experiences “to intergenerationally transmit home languages, or to exert efforts, financial and otherwise, to enable their children to become bilingual” (Wiley and García 2016: 55). Scholars such as Curdt-Christiansen (2009), Fogle (2013), Hua and Wei (2016), Lee (2021), and Romanowski (2021) have made notable contributions to this field. For instance, Lee’s (2021) study with Korean immigrant families in the United States illustrates the intricacies of intragroup diversity. Families participating in the study recognize the significance of bilingualism, particularly for their children, so they tend to maintain a Korean–English bilingual environment at home. Nevertheless, the study underscores the influence of intergenerational factors, including immigration status and social and cultural positionings, on language practices and maintenance.

Recent scholarship exploring FLP has made significant strides in shedding light on its dynamics among transnational families by paying special attention to parents’ sociocultural and sociopolitical status as well as their experiences in broader society. Lanza and Lomeu Gomes (2020) observe that societies characterized by multiculturalism and multilingualism, such as the U.S., have been the primary focus of FLP research. The lack of FLP studies outside these contexts has been a significant concern in the field. In this regard, Seo (2023: 2), addressing “a lack of studies of bilingual parenting in an EFL context like Korea,” focuses on a Korean family with young children, emphasizing the pivotal role of parental involvement. The study demonstrates that family capital – comprising the parents’ academic background in English education in Korea, their attainment of master’s degrees in TESOL, and their advanced proficiency in English – is instrumental in facilitating their children’s bilingual development. Moreover, parents’ efforts to cultivate a linguistically enriched home environment, coupled with positive psychological guidance, are essential to this process.

Our study aligns with Seo (2023) and extends it by incorporating the perspectives of a Korean family on bilingualism within the Korean context, where, as discussed, learning English is no longer considered optional. Furthermore, it offers valuable insights into early English immersion, including home bilingual practices and routines and English language programs for preschoolers. Seo (2023) rightly points out the overwhelming emphasis placed by parents on their children’s English acquisition in Korea. She addresses the fact that “this obsession has been observed at all educational levels and takes diverse forms, including costly measures such as sending young children away from their families to sojourn or live abroad and enrolling them in expensive English kindergartens” (p. 3). While Seo (2023) underscores the importance of parental efforts and family capital – such as the parents’ academic backgrounds and English proficiency – as significant assets in fostering bilingual parenting, her study does not explore how societal pressures and parental dedication to English language acquisition shape FLP. Therefore, a substantial gap remains in the research, particularly regarding how these societal pressures, such as investment in high-cost private English immersion institutes (cf. Lee et al. 2021), intricately influence the foundational aspects of bilingual parenting and the development of FLP. We engage with “the full complexity and non-linearity of relationships between parental language ideology and actual language practice and management” (Schwartz 2010: 177). This study seeks to provide details on the commitments that a high-pressure FLP entails: parents’ strong belief in the cultural and functional importance of English, the financial commitments required, the intellectual commitments to bilingualism and daily bilingual practices, and the resilience within the parent–child relationship.

4 The present study

The study uses data from an ethnographic research project exploring young children’s multidimensional processes of biliteracy development in Korea. This article, serving as a case study, focuses on Jay’s family, examining “not just micro-analyses of caretaker-child interactions, but also broader issues, such as parental language ideologies and child-rearing goals, as well as the support and constraints of the wider family and community context” (King et al. 2008: 909). According to Yin (2014), a case study provides a comprehensive understanding of a particular real-life situation and the contextual factors at play. This typically entails the analysis of a small sample for a specific research purpose (Patton 2015). The study suggests that Jay’s family can provide a detailed descriptive example of the construction and implementation of FLP, along with the factors associated with parental perspectives and experiences in fostering children’s bilingual knowledge and practices.

The data presented in this paper were primarily obtained through observations and semi-structured interviews over a period of 7 months. The first author of this study conducted three visits per week to Jay’s home, with each visit lasting approximately 2–2.5 h. This was achieved by observing Jay’s conversations with his parents and his private speech during both educational and non-educational activities, such as reading and playing, using video recordings and observation notes. To elicit Jay’s parents’ views on his bilingual education, semi-structured interviews were conducted in three sessions over the early, middle, and later stages of the research period. The interview questions were designed based on Seidman’s (2013) three-step process. The questions posed to Jay’s parents included: “What motivated you to raise Jay to be bilingual?” “How do you involve yourself in Jay’s language learning process?” “How and why do you think Jay’s bilingualism will benefit him in the future?” Interviews were held with Jay’s parents on an individual basis on three separate occasions, each lasting approximately 2 h. All interviews and other communication with Jay’s family were conducted in Korean and English, according to their preference. Additionally, Jay’s parents’ information, such as their education, income, and self-assessed English proficiency, were collected. An informed consent form was administered to all participants prior to carrying out the research project to ensure ethical conduct.

Furthermore, Spolsky’s (2004) three components of language policy, a model that is widely used in FLP research to explore the interconnected components of language beliefs, language practices, and language management (Hollebeke et al. 2022; Kaveh 2018), were employed to develop a coding scheme for the qualitative data analysis. Spolsky (2004) posits that language beliefs allude to the family members’ perceptions and attitudes toward a specific language, whereas language practices emphasize how the language is implemented by family members within the home environment. Language management involves interventions for language use and outcomes (see Spolsky 2009). As pointed out by Spolsky (2004), these components are highly influenced by the sociocultural and sociopolitical contexts in which families are situated. FLP serves as a valuable analytical framework for elucidating a nuanced understanding of “child language learning and use as functions of parental ideologies, decision-making and strategies concerning languages and literacies, as well as the broader social and cultural context of family life” (King and Fogle 2013: 172). Based on Spolsky’s three components, the data from Jay’s family were analyzed to examine their FLP, which reflects “a complex ecological relationship among a wide range of linguistic and non-linguistic elements, variables and factors” (Spolsky 2004: 41). These data were triangulated with artifacts such as Jay’s English workbooks and progress reports written by his teachers to enhance the trustworthiness of the qualitative study (Merriam 2009; Patton 2015).

5 Findings

5.3 Language practices and management to nurture a bilingual child

Although Min-hee and Hyun-woo may have slightly different ideologies regarding acquiring the Korean language, they share similar perspectives on the importance of English. According to Min-hee, their goal as parents is to assist Jay in becoming “a well-rounded bilingual speaker with a similar level of proficiency in all four language skills in both English and Korean.” In this respect, Hyun-woo asserts, “경제적 상황과 관계없이, 저는 한국의 모든 부모님이 비슷한 생각을 하고 있다고 믿어요. 자기 아이들이 모두 유창하게 두 언어를 구사하는 이중 언어 사용자가 되기를 바라고 있는 거죠. [Regardless of their financial situation, I believe that all parents in Korea have similar thoughts. They all wish for their children to become bilingual kids who can speak both languages with equal fluency.]” This shared belief in bilingualism as an essential goal for Jay sets the stage for exploring how they translate these beliefs into action within their home. The following section discusses the specific strategies they employ in their bilingual parenting approach.

5.3.1 The role of parenting

Jay’s weekday schedule is highly consistent, with extensive exposure to English compared to Korean. According to Min-hee, Jay spends his time in the English language institute from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. After returning home, he has a rest period until 7 p.m., during which he has dinner, takes a shower, and watches his preferred children’s TV programs, which are mostly in English. From 7 p.m. to 8 p.m., he completes his homework and reads some books. Following this, he spends some quality time with his father, Hyun-woo, before going to bed at 9 p.m. Conversely, on weekends, Min-hee says that they try to engage in family outdoor activities, and Jay rarely uses English aside from doing homework. Table 1 provides a summary of our weekly observations, conducted on a thrice-weekly basis, concerning Jay’s language use and practices.

Table 1:

Summary of weekly observations on Jay’s language use and practices.

Date and time (approx.)	Activity	Primary interlocutor	Primary language
03/19/23 Sunday
11:30 a.m.	Playing on the playground	Hyun-woo	Korean
12:07 p.m.	Watching Super Simple Songs		English
12:35 p.m.	Lunchtime	Min-hee/Hyun-woo	Korean
1:25 p.m.	Riding a bicycle	Hyun-woo	Korean
2:00 p.m.	Observation completed
03/22/23 Wednesday
5:30 p.m.	Dinner time	Min-hee	English
6:12 p.m.	Watching Sesame Street		English
6:38 p.m.	Taking a shower [no record]
7:05 p.m.	Doing homework	Min-hee	English
7:35 p.m.	Reading books	Min-hee	English
8:05 p.m.	Observation completed
03/24/23 Friday
5:00 p.m.	Watching 한글용사 아이야 [Hangeul hero, A. I. YA]	Noah	Korean
5:25 p.m.	Dinner time	Min-hee	English
6:10 p.m.	Watching Sesame Street		English
6:35 p.m.	Taking a shower [no record]
6:57 p.m.	Doing homework	Min-hee	English
7:33 p.m.	Observation completed

Based on our observations, the precise and formal extent of Jay’s involvement in his Korean learning practices remains undetermined. According to Min-hee, Jay’s exposure to Korean began around the age of two when he started speaking. He began acquiring the language through interactions with Min-hee, despite not receiving formal instruction on the Korean alphabet and its system from her. During this period, he attended the daycare center until he turned four, but he did not prioritize learning any language there. Following this phase, subsequent to his enrollment in the English institute, Jay did not have the opportunity to enrich his proficiency in the Korean language.

Our observations provide evidence that Jay’s acquisition of Korean predominantly occurs through his interactions with Hyun-woo, though Jay often enjoys reading books written in Korean, which further contributes to his acquisition of the Korean language through regular self-directed reading. Since Hyun-woo expresses dissatisfaction with his own English-speaking skills, he feels unable to help Jay develop “a clear and perfect English accent.” Therefore, he focuses on improving Jay’s writing skills, which are weaker than those of his peers. According to Hyun-woo, Jay has a strong interest in reading and vocabulary acquisition, but he is not interested in developing writing skills. As shown in Figure 1, Jay’s teachers have also informed the parents that Jay needs to improve his motor skills, including writing practice. Therefore, when Hyun-woo returns home from work, he tries to provide guidance to Jay in written language skills, as shown in Figure 2. Specifically, Figure 2 (left) indicates that Jay, who has an aversion to writing in general, writes a short phrase in English, “Thank you,” and his father guides him by adding “for helping me.” In Figure 2 (right), Hyun-woo uses a lined notebook to correct Jay’s uneven letter sizes in his English writing, using sentences such as “Which dress do you like?” as prompts and encouraging Jay to repeat them.

Figure 1:

Teachers’ bi-monthly progress reports on Jay.

Figure 2:

Jay’s writing practice with Hyun-woo.

Unlike Hyun-woo, Min-hee states that her English is advanced enough to communicate with Jay in English at home on a daily basis. One of the most important tasks for her is helping Jay improve his speaking skills, as she would like him to have proficiency to the extent that he can “express his opinions confidently in English by the time he enters middle school.” Her communication with Jay clearly reflects her aspiration. The conversation between Min-hee and Jay during his math homework is summarized as follows:

1	Jay:	엄마 (.) 사 곱하기 사는 뭐예요? [Mommy (.) What is four times four?]
2	Min-hee:	Four times four equals (.) sixteen (.) What is four times five, Jay? (2.5)
3		Can you tell me?
4	Jay:	Um (6.0) eighteen (1.5) 맞아요? [Am I correct?]
5	Min-hee:	((pointing out the book)) Look at this book (.) How many blocks are there?
6		((pointing out the book)) Look at this
7	Jay:	Um (4.5) eighteen (.) nineteen (2.0) twenty?
8	Min-hee:	YES (.) TWENTY (.) AWESOME (1.5) So (.) you can say (.) four times
9		five is
10	Jay:	(3.0) TWENTY
11	Min-hee:	Great, Jay (.) Which one is greater? (.) Sixteen or twenty?
12	Jay:	(2.0) 이십 [TWENTY]
13	Min-hee:	Which one is greater (.) sixteen or twenty?
14	Jay:	(3.0) TWENTY (.) Twenty is greater (5.0)
15	Min-hee:	than sixteen (.) 이십이 십육보다 큰 거지? [Is twenty greater than sixteen?]
16		(2.0) So (.) you can say (1.0) twenty is greater than sixteen
17	Jay:	엄마 [Mommy] (.) We see this on NUMBERBLOCKS yesterday!
18	Min-hee:	YES (.) We SAW (1.0) this (.) on Numberblocks (.) LAST NIGHT (.) We
19		WATCHED this (.) on Numberblocks (.) LAST NIGHT (.) You are right
20	Jay:	Twenty is greater than sixteen (.) We saw [it] YESTERDAY

The aforementioned excerpt demonstrates how Min-hee assists Jay in his English learning. First, it shows how she provides opportunities for Jay to use English. For instance, when Jay asks her in Korean, “사 곱하기 사는 뭐예요?” (line 1), Min-hee promptly responds in English, saying, “Four times four equals sixteen” (line 2). Consequently, Jay replies to her in English as well. Additionally, it highlights how Min-hee corrects Jay’s incorrect usage of English. Instead of using the past tense verb “saw,” Jay uses “see” (line 17). In line 18, Min-hee implicitly provides corrective feedback (Lyster 1998). She also emphasizes the past tense by using the adverb “last night” (lines 18–19), so that Jay can identify present and past events. Another excerpt, during dinner time, showcases how Min-hee communicates with Jay in English. Additionally, it shows that once she starts speaking English, she continues to do so fluently for a young child who expresses his displeasure with a vegetable in English:

1	Jay:	엄마 (.) 나 시금치 싫어요! [Mommy (.) I hate spinach!]
2	Min-hee:	Spinach is yummy, Jay (.) You know POPEYE! You should eat spinach (.)
3		Spinach can help you become strong and healthy (1.5) just like Popeye!
4	Jay:	No! Spinach is ((funny voice:)) YUCKY YUCKY
5	Min-hee:	그만! [Stop it!]
6	Jay:	((holding up a piece of spinach with his hand)) Spinach is green color
7		(1.5) > yucky yucky <
8	Min-hee:	Spinach HAS A green color (3.0) Spinach IS A green vegetable (1.0)
9		Spinach is GREEN (.) It’s YUMMY (3.0) Spinach is GREEN (.) and
10		YUMMY
11	Jay:	엄마! [Mommy!] (.) Spinach is green (1.5) Spinach is (1.0) NOT (.)
12		yummy!

As seen in the excerpt above, it is evident that Min-hee not only smoothly leads the conversation in English to help Jay practice English but also corrects his grammatical errors. In line 8, Min-hee uses “has” instead of “is” because spinach is an object that possesses the characteristic of being green. At the moment, she reformulates Jay’s statement into more accurate expressions by saying, “Spinach is a green vegetable” (line 8) and “Spinach is green” (line 9), thereby rectifying the article usage error present in Jay’s original phrase, “Spinach is green color” (line 6). Min-hee provides the following details about her experience practicing English with Jay:

Interestingly, once Jay starts conversing in English, he responds without hesitation. Personally, I find this very impressive. I try to speak English with him as much as possible. Although he makes many grammatical errors, I correct them as much as I can. Above all, I’m pleased to see that Jay has a positive attitude toward English because I believe it is a key to effective learning.

In line with their language beliefs and aspirations, Jay’s parents are committed to supporting him in his pursuit of English competence and proficiency. In this light, they view their daily efforts to support Jay’s English education not only as a key responsibility but also as an important investment in his long-term academic success. To do so effectively, they plan and divide responsibilities based on their individual strengths and language proficiency. Each parent focuses on the areas where they feel most confident while being mindful not to put excessive pressure on Jay. Hyun-woo takes a more structured approach, providing simple, focused steps to support Jay’s English literacy development, particularly in writing, which is the area Jay finds most challenging. Meanwhile, Min-hee fosters natural conversations, subtly teaching the finer points of English usage through these interactions. As evidenced by their practices, Jay’s parents are keenly aware of the challenge of providing full English language exposure at such a young age while ensuring that his learning experience remains free from psychological strain.

6 Discussion

7 Conclusion

This study shows the inevitable interconnectivity between the global trends and local imperatives within the English language by detailing an early academic journey of a single family and their child, Jay. The main finding of this study highlights a steadfast pursuit of academic excellence in Korea, where families, including Jay’s, find themselves compelled to invest significantly in private education. The intense pressures exerted by overbearing parents – driven by a high-pressure FLP – may give rise to what has been described as “unhealthy English educational practices” (Kim and Choi 2024: 14), particularly within high-cost private English immersion programs designed for young children. This high-pressure FLP is not necessarily confined to families with preschool-aged children. Mothers of elementary school-aged children in Korea often assert that “academic achievement depends upon whether or not children receive a quality private education” (Shin et al. 2019: 346). Here, “quality private education,” which requires substantial financial resources and time involvement by parents, is generally linked to an increased likelihood of improved test scores and overall academic performance (Shin et al. 2019). What is particularly important is the fact that the high-pressure FLP should not be overlooked, as it can sometimes result in practices that may be detrimental to the physical and psychological well-being of children (Phosaly et al. 2019). Therefore, it is crucial to account for not only the emotional and psychological well-being of children but also the resilience cultivated in the parent–child relationship within the framework of FLP. This scenario further prompts an observation of a potential trajectory wherein, as students advance through academic levels, the prevalent adoption of private education – fueled by intense competition and societal pressures – poses challenges to the effectiveness of public education policies (Brutt-Griffler and Kim 2023). In this context, it becomes evident that integrating insights from micro-level language planning, as evidenced by Jay’s FLP, is crucial for shaping and revitalizing broader public education policies in Korea. This study is significant because it offers essential perspectives on how high-pressure FLP dynamics can help develop more effective and inclusive language education policies. Therefore, we reiterate the importance of this holistic perspective, which recognizes the interconnectedness of individual language practices within families and the broader educational landscape. Such recognition forms the basis for meaningful reforms in English education policies, ultimately fostering and navigating excellence in bilingualism. Looking ahead, we anticipate that such policy initiatives would not only deepen bi/multilingual awareness and sensitivity but also enhance language skills, aligning with the foresight of “how to best promote multilingual proficiency up to advanced knowledge of several languages” (Brutt-Griffler 2020: 151).

Conversational features