INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
Critical Gap Analysis: Current Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual  
Education Model Versus Proposed Heritage Language Bilingual  
Education Framework in Bangladesh  
Borendra Lal Tripura  
Department of English, American International University-Bangladesh,  
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91100251  
Received: 18 November 2025; Accepted: 27 November 2025; Published: 06 December 2025  
ABSTRACT  
This study analyzes disparities between Bangladesh’s current Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education  
(MTB-MLE) model, introduced in 2017, and the comprehensive bilingual framework proposed in 2008. Through  
comparative policy analysis across ten dimensions—from philosophy to resource allocation—the research finds  
that the existing model constitutes weak bilingual education, providing limited indigenous language instruction  
(10–15%), whereas the proposed model envisions co-equal mediums (50%). The findings reveal symbolic rather  
than substantive inclusion, constraining educational and cultural outcomes. Evidence-based recommendations  
outline a six-year phased reform pathway, drawing on global best practices to advance equity and linguistic rights  
for indigenous communities in Bangladesh.  
Keywords: mother tongue-based multilingual education, heritage language education, bilingual education  
policy, indigenous languages, gap analysis  
INTRODUCTION  
Bangladesh encompasses remarkable linguistic diversity with 45 distinct languages beyond Bengali, the highest  
concentration residing in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), where eleven ethnic indigenous communities  
maintain ten unique languages (Lewis et al., 2016). This multilingual reality presents profound educational  
challenges, as indigenous ethnic minority children must navigate formal schooling conducted exclusively in  
Bengali—a language foreign to their home environments. The consequences manifest starkly: the CHT region  
reports the highest primary school dropout rates in Bangladesh, with literacy rates below 20% compared to the  
national average of 62% (Asian Development Bank, 2001; Begum et al., 2006).  
The Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord of 1997 explicitly recognized indigenous peoples' rights to primary  
education in their mother tongues (Clause 33a), representing a historic policy breakthrough following decades  
of political conflict (Government of Bangladesh, 1997). Subsequently, the National Education Policy 2010  
acknowledged the importance of mother tongue education and authorized textbook development in indigenous  
languages (Ministry of Primary and Mass Education, 2010). These policy commitments culminated in  
Bangladesh initiating Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) in 2012, with pilot  
implementation beginning in 2017 for five indigenous languages: Chakma, Marma, Tripura, Garo, and Santal  
(Tripura, 2025).  
While this MTB-MLE initiative represents historic progress in recognizing indigenous language rights, the  
current model's limited scope contrasts sharply with the comprehensive heritage language bilingual education  
framework proposed in seminal 2008 policy research (Tripura, 2008). The current implementation treats  
indigenous languages as a single additional subject, allocating approximately 10-15% of instructional time while  
maintaining Bengali as the dominant medium for all core academic content. This "language-as-subject" approach  
differs fundamentally from the proposed "language-as-medium" model, which advocates for indigenous  
languages serving as mediums of instruction for 50% of curriculum time in a strong heritage language bilingual  
education framework.  
Page 3151  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
This research addresses four central questions:  
(i) What are the critical gaps between current MTB-MLE implementation and the proposed heritage language  
bilingual education framework?  
(ii) How do these gaps affect educational equity and outcomes for indigenous students?  
(iii) What evidence-based improvements can bridge these gaps?  
(iv) What lessons from international contexts are applicable to Bangladesh?  
Through systematic comparative policy analysis across ten dimensions, this study identifies critical deficiencies  
in the current model and proposes evidence-based pathways for transformation aligned with international best  
practices and research evidence on effective bilingual education.  
The significance extends across multiple domains. For policy development, this analysis provides empirical  
foundations for MTB-MLE reform efforts currently under consideration. Theoretically, the research contributes  
to bilingual education scholarship by applying established theoretical frameworks to the Bangladesh context.  
Practically, evidence-based recommendations offer actionable guidance for improving educational outcomes for  
indigenous children who continue facing language barriers, high dropout rates, and cultural marginalization.  
From a social justice perspective, this analysis advances discourse on linguistic human rights and educational  
equity in multilingual societies.  
Theoretical Framework and Literature Review  
Bilingual Education Theory  
The theoretical foundation draws from established theories of bilingual education and second language  
acquisition. Cummins' (1979, 2000) linguistic interdependence hypothesis posits that well-developed first-  
language skills transfer to second-language learning, creating common underlying proficiency that supports  
academic development in both languages. This theory holds profound implications for educational policy: strong  
mother tongue foundations facilitate rather than impede second-language acquisition and academic achievement.  
Cummins (2000) distinguishes between Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive  
Academic Language Proficiency (CALP), demonstrating that while conversational fluency develops within two  
years, academic language proficiency requires five to seven years of sustained instruction.  
Baker's (2011) comprehensive typology distinguishes between "weak" and "strong" forms of bilingual education  
based on their linguistic goals and outcomes. Weak forms—including submersion, segregationist, and  
transitional programs—aim for monolingualism in the majority language through subtractive bilingualism,  
where the minority language is replaced. Strong forms—including maintenance, heritage language, immersion,  
and two-way bilingual programs—promote additive bilingualism, developing proficiency in both languages  
while preserving cultural identity and heritage language vitality. Research consistently demonstrates that strong  
bilingual education programs produce superior academic outcomes compared to weak transitional approaches  
(Thomas & Collier, 2002).  
Lambert's (1974) distinction between additive and subtractive bilingualism illuminates the cultural and cognitive  
dimensions of language education policy. Additive bilingualism occurs when a second language is acquired  
without loss of the first language and culture, resulting in enhanced cognitive flexibility and metalinguistic  
awareness. In contrast, subtractive bilingualism occurs when second language acquisition diminishes first  
language competency, often accompanied by cultural alienation and academic underachievement. Educational  
programs promoting additive bilingualism demonstrate consistent advantages in cognitive development,  
academic achievement, and cultural identity formation (Bialystok, 2001; García, 2009).  
Page 3152  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
Empirical Evidence on Bilingual Education Effectiveness  
Thomas and Collier's (2002) landmark longitudinal study, examining over 7.5 million student records across 36  
school districts in 16 U.S. states, provides compelling evidence for bilingual education effectiveness. Their  
findings demonstrate that English-only and short-term transitional bilingual programs close only half the  
achievement gap between English learners and native speakers, while high-quality long-term bilingual programs  
close the entire gap after five to six years of schooling through students' first and second languages. The research  
establishes that the strongest predictor of second language achievement is the amount of formal first language  
schooling, directly supporting the linguistic interdependence hypothesis.  
International meta-analyses consistently confirm bilingual education benefits across diverse contexts.  
UNESCO's (2016) comprehensive review of mother tongue-based multilingual education programs worldwide  
demonstrates positive outcomes in academic achievement, literacy development, school retention, and cultural  
identity. Benson and Kosonen's (2013) examination of MTB-MLE programs in Asia identifies critical success  
factors including sufficient instructional time in mother tongue (minimum 50%), adequate teacher training,  
appropriate curriculum materials, and community support. These findings establish empirical foundations for  
evaluating policy effectiveness.  
Heritage Language Bilingual Education Models  
Heritage language bilingual education represents a specific strong form of bilingual education designed for  
indigenous and immigrant communities whose languages face endangerment pressures in dominant-language  
environments (Hornberger, 2008; Valdés, 2001). Successful international examples provide relevant models for  
Bangladesh. New Zealand's Māori-medium education system demonstrates how indigenous language  
revitalization can be achieved through coordinated policy efforts, sustained resource investment, and community  
mobilization (May, 2012). The program allocates 51-80% of instructional time to Māori language, achieving  
remarkable success in language revitalization while maintaining academic standards.  
Wales' bilingual education system offers insights into minority language education within dominant national  
language contexts (Baker, 2011). The Welsh Language Act and subsequent education policies have successfully  
increased Welsh language competency from 18% to 30% of the population over three decades through  
comprehensive bilingual education provision. Peru's intercultural bilingual education program addresses diverse  
indigenous communities through flexible curriculum frameworks and community-based implementation  
strategies (Hornberger, 2000), demonstrating that heritage language education is achievable even in resource-  
constrained developing country contexts.  
Comparative analysis reveals common success factors: explicit policy commitments with legal frameworks;  
adequate resource allocation for teacher training and materials development; community involvement and  
ownership; flexible implementation strategies adapted to local contexts; and sustained political support across  
electoral cycles (García & Lin, 2017; McCarty, 2013). These international examples establish benchmarks for  
evaluating Bangladesh's MTB-MLE program and identifying improvement pathways.  
METHODOLOGY  
This research employs qualitative comparative policy analysis grounded in critical discourse analysis and social  
constructionist theory (Fairclough, 2003). The methodology recognizes that educational policies are socially  
constructed phenomena reflecting and reproducing power relationships, ideological positions, and cultural  
values within society.  
Analytical Framework  
The analysis utilizes a multi-dimensional comparative framework examining ten critical dimensions-(i)  
Philosophical and pedagogical approach, (ii) legal and constitutional framework, (iii) language coverage and  
inclusivity, (iv) curriculum design and content, (v) medium of instruction, (vi) instructional time allocation,(vii)  
Page 3153  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
teacher training and professional development, (viii) administrative structure, (ix) community participation and  
governance, (x) resource allocation and sustainability.  
This comprehensive framework enables systematic comparison identifying gaps, contradictions, and  
inconsistencies between current implementation and proposed model.Gap identification follows four criteria- (i)  
alignment with international best practices documented in comparative bilingual education research, (ii)  
consistency with research evidence on effective bilingual education, (iii) adequacy for achieving stated policy  
goals articulated in the cht peace accord and national education policy (2010); and (iv) equity and human rights  
considerations grounded in international frameworks including the universal declaration of linguistic rights  
(1996) and convention on the rights of the child (1989).  
Data Sources and Analysis  
Primary data sources include key policy documents: the Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord (1997), National  
Education Policy (2010), government orders and circulars related to MTB-MLE implementation, and indigenous  
language textbooks and curriculum materials. Research literature comprises Tripura's (2008) master’s thesis  
proposing the comprehensive bilingual education framework, Tripura's (2025) recent article analyzing current  
MTB-MLE challenges, academic literature on bilingual education theory and practice, and international program  
evaluations. Secondary sources include NGO reports from UNDP, Save the Children, and UNICEF, media  
coverage of MTB-MLE implementation, and government education statistics.  
Document analysis procedures involve systematic coding of policy documents identifying key provisions,  
mandates, and resource allocations; critical discourse analysis examining policy language and underlying  
assumptions; and comparative analysis conducting side-by-side comparison across ten dimensions. Synthesis  
and interpretation identify patterns across dimensions, analyze cross-cutting themes, and develop evidence-based  
recommendations grounded in international best practices.  
Findings: Critical Gap Analysis  
Gap 1: Philosophical and Pedagogical Approach  
The current MTB-MLE model embodies a "language-as-subject" approach, treating indigenous languages as an  
additional subject rather than as mediums of instruction (Tripura, 2025). This model allocates indigenous  
languages to one subject period, approximately 10-15% of total instructional time, while maintaining Bengali as  
the dominant medium for all core academic content including mathematics, science, social studies, and Bengali  
language arts. The textbooks developed focus primarily on basic literacy skills and cultural content specific to  
each language community.  
This approach aligns with what Baker (2011) characterizes as "weak bilingual education," which may preserve  
languages symbolically but does not provide sufficient exposure for cognitive and academic development. The  
underlying philosophy reflects what might be termed a "preservationist" orientation—recognizing indigenous  
languages' cultural value while maintaining the primacy of Bengali-medium education. The model essentially  
adds indigenous language content to an otherwise unchanged Bengali-medium curriculum without  
fundamentally reconceptualizing pedagogical approaches or power relationships.  
In contrast, the proposed heritage language bilingual education model advocates a "language-as-medium"  
approach, establishing indigenous languages as co-equal mediums of instruction alongside Bengali (Tripura,  
2008). The framework allocates instructional time as follows:  
Pre-primary (100% indigenous language),  
Grade 1 (80% indigenous, 10% Bengali, 10% English),  
Grade 2 (70% indigenous, 15% Bengali, 15% English),  
Grade 3 (60% indigenous, 25% Bengali, 15% English),  
Page 3154  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
Grade 4 (55% indigenous, 30% Bengali, 15% English), and  
Grade 5 (50% indigenous, 35% Bengali, 15% English).  
This gradual transition model follows the "developmental bilingual education" approach validated by  
longitudinal research (Thomas & Collier, 2002).  
The philosophical difference extends beyond instructional time to encompass educational goals. The proposed  
model embodies a "developmental" orientation, recognizing that indigenous children require substantial mother  
tongue instruction—typically 50% or more—to develop the cognitive and linguistic foundations that facilitate  
academic achievement and second language acquisition (Cummins, 2000). The model aims for additive  
bilingualism, developing full proficiency in heritage languages, Bengali, and English, rather than transitional  
replacement of indigenous languages with Bengali.  
Gap Implications: Research consistently demonstrates that bilingual programs allocating less than 30% of  
instructional time to minority languages fail to produce the cognitive, academic, and linguistic benefits  
associated with bilingual education (Baker, 2011; García, 2009). The current 10-15% allocation falls  
significantly below this threshold, limiting potential for cognitive development benefits, academic language  
proficiency in heritage languages, and effective transfer of skills to Bengali. The symbolic recognition provided  
by the current model, while historically significant, cannot address the fundamental language barriers and  
educational disadvantages facing indigenous students.  
Gap 2: Medium of Instruction  
The current MTB-MLE model maintains what Baker (2006) terms "submersion education”where minority  
children are "thrown into the deep end" of majority language instruction without adequate linguistic scaffolding.  
Despite introducing indigenous language textbooks for one subject, Bengali remains the medium of instruction  
for all core academic content. Students must comprehend complex concepts in mathematics, understand  
scientific principles, analyze social studies content, and develop Bengali literacy—all through a language most  
do not speak fluently upon entering school.  
The proposed model establishes indigenous languages as co-equal mediums of instruction through subject-  
specific allocation (Tripura, 2008). Indigenous languages serve as mediums for literature and language arts  
(developing reading, writing, and oracy in heritage language), social studies (incorporating indigenous history,  
political structures, traditional knowledge), and health education (including traditional healing practices and  
community health approaches). Bengali serves as medium for mathematics and science, with English taught as  
a subject rather than as medium of instruction. This dual-medium approach follows the "heritage language  
bilingual education" model demonstrating success in maintaining endangered languages while ensuring  
academic achievement (Hornberger, 2008; McCarty, 2013).  
Gap Implications: The medium of instruction gap represents a fundamental difference in educational  
philosophy and practice. Research on language-in-education policy implementation demonstrates that treating  
minority languages merely as subjects rather than mediums of instruction fails to address the cognitive and  
academic barriers faced by linguistic minority students (Benson, 2005; García, 2009). The current submersion  
approach places indigenous children at immediate disadvantage, requiring them to learn complex academic  
content simultaneously with learning the language of instruction—a double burden not faced by Bengali-  
speaking peers. The proposed dual-medium approach provides comprehensible input and linguistic scaffolding  
necessary for academic success while developing bilingualism and biliteracy.  
Gap 3: Legal and Constitutional Framework  
The current MTB-MLE program operates under the CHT Peace Accord (1997) Clause 33(a)2 and National  
Education Policy (2010) provisions but lacks specific enabling legislation or constitutional recognition (Tripura,  
2025). This weak legal foundation creates implementation vulnerabilities. The ten-year delay between Peace  
Accord signing and actual program initiation illustrates this weakness. Without explicit constitutional protection  
Page 3155  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
or legislative mandates, MTB-MLE remains vulnerable to political changes, budget cuts, and administrative  
neglect. Research participants consistently note that "No one gives importance to any program that does not have  
legal recognition" (cited in Tripura, 2008, p. 87).  
The proposed model advocates comprehensive legal architecture including constitutional amendment  
recognizing linguistic diversity and minority language rights; Indigenous Education Act establishing clear  
mandates, timelines, and accountability mechanisms; Regional Council Act amendments transferring full  
educational authority to Hill District Councils; and government orders authorizing specific budget allocations  
and administrative structures (Tripura, 2008). This legal framework mirrors successful minority language  
education provisions in India (Constitutional Articles 29a, 30, 350A), New Zealand (Te Aho Matua principles  
for Māori education), and Wales (Welsh Language Acts).  
Gap Implications: International experience demonstrates that minority language education programs without  
explicit constitutional protection and legislative mandates remain vulnerable to political instability (May, 2012;  
Hornberger & Johnson, 2011). The 1984 Marma language initiative in Banderban District, which collapsed due  
to lack of legal foundation, illustrates this vulnerability within the Bangladesh context (Tripura, 2008).  
Comprehensive legal architecture is essential for long-term program sustainability, resource allocation  
predictability, and governmental accountability. Without such foundations, even well-designed programs face  
existential threats with each political transition or budget crisis.  
Gap 4: Teacher Training and Professional Development  
The current MTB-MLE program relies on minimal, ad-hoc teacher training without systematic professional  
development frameworks (Tripura, 2025). Most teachers receive brief orientations on using indigenous language  
textbooks but lack comprehensive training in bilingual pedagogical methodologies, cultural competency, or  
second language acquisition theory. Many teachers, while fluent in indigenous languages, lack training in literacy  
instruction, curriculum adaptation, or bilingual classroom management. This training deficit represents a critical  
implementation barrier consistently identified in research (García & Lin, 2017).  
The proposed framework establishes comprehensive teacher training architecture including pre-service bilingual  
education curriculum integrated into Primary Teacher Training Institute (PTTI) programs; alternative  
certification pathways for community members with indigenous language expertise but lacking formal teacher  
credentials; in-service professional development focused on bilingual pedagogical techniques, cultural  
competency, content knowledge in both languages, and assessment strategies for bilingual learners; mentoring  
systems pairing experienced bilingual teachers with new educators; and transfer of PTTI to Regional Council  
authority enabling localized curriculum control and culturally responsive training (Tripura, 2008).  
Gap Implications: International research consistently identifies inadequate teacher preparation as a primary  
barrier to successful bilingual education implementation (de Jong, 2011; Benson, 2005). Teachers require  
specialized knowledge and skills beyond simple language proficiency, including understanding of bilingual  
cognitive development, strategies for scaffolding content learning through two languages, culturally responsive  
pedagogical approaches, and techniques for developing academic language proficiency. The current minimal  
training approach cannot develop these competencies. Research demonstrates that effective bilingual teachers  
require both linguistic proficiency and pedagogical expertise specifically focused on bilingual contexts—  
competencies developed only through systematic, comprehensive professional development (García, 2009).  
Gap 5: Curriculum Design and Content  
The current model provides one textbook per indigenous language, focusing primarily on basic literacy and  
cultural content (Tripura, 2025). This single-subject approach limits curriculum integration and fails to  
incorporate indigenous knowledge systems, cultural practices, and community values across the broader  
curriculum. Current Bengali-medium textbooks predominantly reflect Bengali culture while marginalizing  
indigenous cultural perspectives, creating what research participants describe as "cultural discontinuity" between  
home and school environments (Tripura, 2008).  
Page 3156  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
The proposed framework requires full curriculum redesign incorporating subject-specific textbooks in  
indigenous languages for literature, social studies, and health education; Bengali-medium textbooks for  
mathematics and science incorporating culturally relevant examples and contexts; English language textbooks  
appropriate for indigenous learners; cultural content integration across all subjects ensuring indigenous  
knowledge systems, historical narratives, and cultural practices permeate the curriculum; and community  
involvement in curriculum development ensuring cultural authenticity and relevance (Tripura, 2008). This  
comprehensive approach follows models established in successful indigenous education programs including  
New Zealand's Te Marautanga o Aotearoa (Māori-medium curriculum) and Native American language  
immersion programs (McCarty, 2013).  
Gap Implications: Single-subject curriculum approaches cannot provide the breadth and depth of linguistic  
exposure necessary for academic language development, nor can they adequately represent the richness and  
complexity of indigenous knowledge systems (Hornberger, 2008). Research demonstrates that comprehensive  
bilingual curricula integrating indigenous content across subject areas produce superior outcomes in cultural  
identity development, academic achievement, and bilingual competency development compared to  
supplementary single-subject models (García, 2009). The curriculum gap limits both language acquisition  
effectiveness and cultural preservation goals central to MTB-MLE's stated purposes.  
Cross-Cutting Themes  
Three fundamental tensions underline the identified gaps.  
Firstly, assimilationist versus pluralist ideology: the current model's limitations reflect governmental  
assimilationist stance viewing linguistic diversity as obstacle to national unity, while the proposed model  
embodies pluralist vision celebrating multilingualism as national asset (Tripura, 2008). As Cope and Kalantzis  
(1997) argue, "Those nations that are able to adapt and facilitate these differences are the ones that will go  
forward without blood on the streets" (p. 262).  
Secondly, rights-based versus charity-based approach: the current model treats indigenous language  
education as governmental concession or favor, while the proposed model adopts rights-based framework  
grounded in Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights, Convention on the Rights of the Child, UNESCO  
Guidelines for Language Policies, and CHT Peace Accord commitments (UNESCO, 2003). This distinction  
fundamentally changes the nature of government responsibility and accountability.  
Thirdly, symbolic versus substantive change: the current MTB-MLE program represents what Shohamy  
(2006) characterizes as "symbolic policy"—government actions creating appearance of addressing indigenous  
language issues without substantively changing power relationships or educational outcomes. The proposed  
model demands substantive transformation of educational structures, resource allocations, and governance  
arrangements.  
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS  
Interpretation of Findings  
The ten gaps collectively illustrate the difference between peripheral recognition of indigenous languages  
(current model) and central integration of indigenous languages into educational systems (proposed model). This  
fundamental distinction determines whether MTB-MLE serves primarily symbolic purposes or generates  
meaningful educational, cognitive, cultural, and political benefits for indigenous communities. The current  
approach maintains the status quo of Bengali-medium education with token recognition, while the proposed  
framework demands fundamental reconceptualization of educational philosophy, structures, and practices.  
Implications for Educational Outcomes  
The gap between current and proposed models carries profound implications for indigenous students' educational  
trajectories. Research consistently demonstrates that children beginning formal education in their mother tongue  
Page 3157  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
demonstrate superior cognitive development, academic performance, and school engagement compared to those  
forced into immediate second-language instruction (Thomas & Collier, 2002; Cummins, 2000). The cognitive  
advantages extend beyond language development to encompass enhanced executive function, problem-solving  
abilities, and metalinguistic awareness (Bialystok, 2001).  
The current minimal model cannot provide sufficient exposure for these benefits. International research  
establishes that effective bilingual education requires 50% or more instructional time in minority languages,  
typically four to seven years—to develop the linguistic and cognitive foundations supporting academic  
achievement (Thomas & Collier, 2002). The current 10-15% allocation falls dramatically below this evidence-  
based threshold, limiting program effectiveness.  
Phased Implementation Roadmap  
Recognizing that immediate transition from current to comprehensive model would overwhelm existing  
capacity, evidence-based recommendations propose a six-year phased approach:  
Phase 1: Immediate Actions (Years 1-2) focuses on legal foundations, capacity building, and expansion. Critical  
actions include drafting and enacting Indigenous Education Act; establishing bilingual education cells in relevant  
ministries; transferring PTTI to Regional Council authority (in the case of the CHT); extending MTB-MLE to  
remaining indigenous languages; and initiating comprehensive teacher training programs.  
Phase 2: Institutional Development (Years 2-4) emphasizes instructional time expansion and curriculum  
development. Key activities include increasing indigenous language instructional time from 15% to 30-40%;  
introducing heritage languages as medium for social studies; completing full curriculum development in all ten  
languages; establishing community curriculum committees; and implementing monitoring and evaluation  
frameworks.  
Phase 3: Full Implementation (Years 4-6) achieves complete transition to heritage language bilingual education.  
Activities include reaching 50% instructional time in heritage languages; implementing full dual-medium  
instruction in all CHT primary schools; achieving constitutional recognition of linguistic diversity; establishing  
Regional Council full authority; and developing continuous improvement mechanisms based on evaluation data.  
This phased approach allows for systematic capacity development while demonstrating early successes building  
political support and community confidence. International experience demonstrates that successful bilingual  
education transformation requires sustained commitment over multiple years, with patience for program  
maturation before expecting full outcomes (García & Lin, 2017).  
CONCLUSION  
This comprehensive gap analysis demonstrates profound disparities between Bangladesh's current MTB-MLE  
model and the evidence-based heritage language bilingual education framework. The current model represents  
minimal intervention—adding indigenous language as single subject while maintaining Bengali-dominant  
submersion education—providing symbolic recognition without substantive transformation. This "language-as-  
subject" approach cannot deliver cognitive, academic, cultural, and political benefits documented in international  
bilingual education research.  
The proposed heritage language bilingual education model offers comprehensive framework for transformative  
change. By allocating 50% instructional time to indigenous languages as mediums of instruction, establishing  
robust legal foundations, developing comprehensive bilingual curricula, empowering communities, and securing  
sustainable funding, the proposed model aligns with international best practices and can generate meaningful  
educational outcomes while preserving endangered indigenous languages.  
Bridging the identified gaps requires political will, sustained resources, and systematic implementation  
following the phased roadmap outlined. International experience demonstrates that heritage-language-bilingual  
education is achievable even in resource-constrained contexts when governments demonstrate genuine  
Page 3158  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
commitment to linguistic diversity and educational equity. The stakes are high: indigenous children in the  
Chittagong Hill Tracts continue facing educational barriers, high dropout rates, and cultural marginalization.  
Only comprehensive heritage language bilingual education, implemented with fidelity to evidence-based  
practices, can fulfill the promises of the CHT Peace Accord and create equitable, culturally responsive education  
for Bangladesh's indigenous peoples.  
Bangladesh can become a regional leader in indigenous language education, demonstrating that linguistic  
diversity strengthens rather than threatens national unity. The path forward is clear, the research evidence  
overwhelming, and international models proven. What remains is political courage to embrace pluralism,  
allocate necessary resources, and empower communities to shape their educational futures. The time for  
transformative action is now.  
REFERENCES  
1. Asian Development Bank. (2001). Country strategy and program: Bangladesh 2001-2005. Asian  
Development Bank.  
2. Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th ed.). Multilingual Matters.  
3. Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Multilingual Matters.  
4. Begum, H. A., Akhter, S., & Ara, I. (2006). An analysis of the primary education scenario of ethnic  
minority children in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Journal of Bangladesh Studies, 8(2), 45-62.  
5. Benson, C. (2005). From experimentation to implementation: Bilingual schooling as educational  
development. In J. Cohen, K. T. McAlister, K. Rolstad, & J. MacSwan (Eds.), ISB4: Proceedings of the  
4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (pp. 249-258). Cascadilla Press.  
6. Benson, C., & Kosonen, K. (Eds.). (2013). Language issues in comparative education: Inclusive teaching  
and learning in non-dominant languages and cultures. Sense Publishers.  
7. Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. Cambridge  
University Press.  
8. Convention on the Rights of the Child. (1989). United Nations General Assembly.  
9. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (1997). White noise: The attack on political correctness and the struggle for  
the Western canon. Interchange, 28(4), 283-329.  
10. Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children.  
Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222-251.  
11. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual  
Matters.  
12. de Jong, E. J. (2011). Foundations for multilingualism in education: From principles to practice. Caslon  
Publishing.  
13. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Routledge.  
14. García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Wiley-Blackwell.  
15. García, O., & Lin, A. M. Y. (Eds.). (2017). Translanguaging in multilingual education. Springer.  
16. Government of Bangladesh. (1997). Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord. Government of Bangladesh.  
17. Hornberger, N. H. (2000). Bilingual education policy and practice in the Andes: Ideological paradox and  
intercultural possibility. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 31(2), 173-201.  
18. Hornberger, N. H. (2008). Can schools save indigenous languages? Policy and practice on four  
continents. Palgrave Macmillan.  
19. Hornberger, N. H., & Johnson, D. C. (2011). The ethnography of language policy. In T. L. McCarty (Ed.),  
Ethnography and language policy (pp. 273-289). Routledge.  
20. Lambert, W. E. (1974). Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In F. E. Aboud & R.  
D. Meade (Eds.), Cultural factors in learning and education (pp. 91-122). 5th Western Washington  
Symposium on Learning.  
21. Lewis, M. P., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (Eds.). (2016). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (19th  
ed.). SIL International.  
22. May, S. (2012). Language and minority rights: Ethnicity, nationalism and the politics of language (2nd  
ed.). Routledge.  
Page 3159  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
23. McCarty, T. L. (2013). Language planning and policy in Native America: History, theory, praxis.  
Multilingual Matters.  
24. Ministry of Primary and Mass Education. (2010). National Education Policy 2010. Government of  
Bangladesh.  
25. Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. Routledge.  
26. Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority  
students' long-term academic achievement. Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.  
27. Tripura, B. L. (2008). Languages of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh: Policy research for  
implementing primary school bilingual education program in local schools [Master's thesis, Monash  
University]. Kudra Nrigusthir Sangskritik Institute.  
28. Tripura, B. L. (2025). The Bangladesh initiative of mother tongue-based multilingual education:  
Exploring the significance, challenges, and way forwards. International Journal of Research and  
Innovation in Social Science, 9(2), 3285-3292. https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.9020255  
29. UNESCO. (2003). Education in a multilingual world: UNESCO Education Position Paper. UNESCO.  
30. UNESCO. (2016). *If you don't understand, how can you learn? UNESCO.  
31. Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights. (1996). PEN International & Centre Internacional Escarré  
per a les Minories Ètniques i les Nacions.  
32. Valdés, G. (2001). Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard,  
& S. McGinnis (Eds.), *Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource* (pp. 37-77).  
Center for Applied Linguistics & Delta Systems.  
Page 3160  
www.rsisinternational.org