Holding the Pendulum Steady | Language Magazine

A moderated dialogue on multilingual literacy, language development, and the science of reading

Abstract
As states and districts increasingly adopt policies aligned with the science of reading, questions persist about how these shifts intersect with the education of multilingual learners. This article presents a moderated dialogue among leaders from WIDA, educators and administrators from Floyd County Schools in Georgia, and a university-based linguist from the University of Georgia, which took place during The Reading League’s Ninth Annual Conference in Chicago, IL. Through structured discussion, participants explored points of alignment and questions related to language development standards, literacy instruction, assessment, and equity. Moderated by Kari Kurto, national director of policy and partnerships at The Reading League, the conversation surfaced shared commitments and suggested future communication, illustrating the complexity—and necessity—of cross-sector collaboration in multilingual literacy. The dialogue also brought specific, actionable recommendations for cross-sector collaboration in multilingual literacy.

Introduction: Why This Conversation, and Why Now

The education of multilingual learners sits at the intersection of language, literacy, policy, and equity. As states accelerate the adoption of evidence-aligned literacy practices grounded in decades of reading research, educators are grappling with how to ensure that multilingual students are not only included in these reforms but fully served by them.

This moderated conversation brought together leaders from WIDA, an organization that provides language development resources to those who support the academic success of multilingual learners, and a Georgia-based team made up of leaders in instruction, ESOL, and literacy from Floyd County Schools, a Georgia school district, along with a linguist from the University of Georgia. While participants shared a commitment to improving outcomes for multilingual learners, they approached the challenge from different institutional roles, theoretical frameworks, and policy responsibilities. Rather than seeking consensus, the discussion aimed to “hold the pendulum” steady—resisting oversimplified binaries and instead examining how systems might better work together.From the outset, moderator Kurto established both urgency and care. Framing the science of reading as an interdisciplinary body of research (The Reading League, 2022) that does apply to multilingual learners—when implemented with attention to language development and cultural assets—Kurto emphasized that the work ahead requires collaboration, humility, and a willingness to ask difficult questions.

WIDA’s Perspective: A Language-Centered Framework Within Policy Constraints

Representing WIDA, executive director Dr. Jenni Torres, director of professional learning Dr. Teresa Krastel, assistant director of standards Maya Martinez‑Hart, and WIDA standards and assessment developer/researcher Dr. Lynn Shafer Willner articulated a clear and consistent position: WIDA’s role is to support multilingual learners’ language development—not to prescribe local literacy curriculum or assess decoding skills. Torres emphasized WIDA’s identity as a learning organization—one that continuously evolves by listening to research, policy shifts, and classroom realities across its 42 consortium member states.

A key emphasis from WIDA leaders was collaboration. Krastel highlighted the idea that “all teachers are language development teachers,” stressing the importance of prioritizing student talk, shared instructional tools, and coordinated practices across classrooms. Yet she also acknowledged the challenges posed by widely varying state literacy policies and the need for local agencies in implementation.

Shafer Willner provided a detailed explanation of WIDA ACCESS, WIDA’s suite of summative English language proficiency assessments. Federal law requires monitoring and reporting English language learners’ progress toward proficiency. ACCESS, given annually, is not a literacy test and should not be interpreted as such. Instead, it measures students’ ability to use the English language to participate in multiple academic contexts across reading, writing, listening, and speaking. ACCESS tasks are designed to be authentic and purposeful, and scoring targets language development rather than content mastery.

Anchored in the can-do philosophy (WIDA, n.d.), WIDA speakers emphasized the assets and resources of multilingual learners rather than characterizing them through monolingual norms that measure academic understanding only through a lens of English abilities. They emphasized parity through explicit foundational literacy and rich academic language, with decisions grounded in multiple measures. They reiterated that ACCESS measures English language use, not reading proficiency, and should be interpreted alongside multiple data sources, particularly when making high-stakes decisions.

Georgia’s Perspective: When Systems Don’t Mesh in Classrooms

The Georgia team spoke from the vantage point of district‑level accountability and classroom implementation. Floyd County ESOL coordinator Dr. Jennifer Pendergrass-Bennefield described work aligning ESOL services with structured literacy—and gaps when standards, assessments, and instructional expectations fail to align.

Expressing support for WIDA and its language‑through ‑content approach, Pendergrass also pointed to a persistent classroom gap in Georgia’s ELA content standards: by upper elementary and beyond, explicit foundational reading instruction does not exist. This means that for multilingual students who enter US schools after second grade, direct instruction in decoding/encoding is not guaranteed. Her district’s response is to infuse ESOL instruction of English at the sound dimension in grades K–12. They implemented this change by providing structured literacy training for all ESOL teachers, instructional resources for teaching parts of English smaller than a word, and a district process for assessing foundational literacy skills for multilingual learners across all grade levels. Floyd County’s ESOL program now moves beyond WIDA’s framework, which addresses word, sentence, and discourse dimensions, and also addresses the sound dimension, supporting foundational literacy needs through the instruction in both language and content.

Assistant superintendent John Parker noted that, after a district pivot to the science of reading, the percentage of third‑grade students reading on grade level in Floyd County Schools rose from 59% to 86.4%. Floyd County’s math and reading achievement now exceed prepandemic levels. Yet multilingual learners haven’t gained at the same rate—about 33% are not making progress in reading, with multilingual learners in upper grades most affected. In reviewing Georgia literacy data, statewide literacy gaps between multilingual and monolingual learners are progressively widening at the fifth, seventh, and eleventh grades, with 80% of Georgia’s eleventh-grade multilingual learners unable to read on grade level (Reading Readiness—GaDOE Insights, 2025). The data indicate the existing literacy needs of Georgia’s multilingual learners at all grade levels.

Dr. Tabatha Tierce, literacy specialist and coach, provided a classroom perspective on how WIDA’s decision to leave the instruction of English phonemes to ELA content instruction creates confusion in the classroom. She read aloud a message from a school administrator: “Would you mind coming to our school to work with our ESOL teachers? We’ve asked them to collaborate with K–1 teachers, but they’re struggling to support students with decoding and encoding.” She also read aloud a question from a secondary teacher seeking ideas for appropriate movies or other alternatives to books for teaching elements of literature to older multilingual learners who were not literate. She highlighted that in both elementary and secondary classrooms, teachers and administrators struggle to meet student needs and uphold high expectations when alignment is absent.

Dr. David Chiesa, associate professor of language and literacy education at the University of Georgia, framed the discussion through systemic functional linguistics (SFL), a theory in which meaning is realized across interdependent strata, from context and discourse to grammar and lexis and ultimately to expression through phonology and graphology (Halliday and Matthiessen, 2014). He explained that SFL does not permit the separation of meaning from sound and print, because decoding and orthographic knowledge are themselves meaning-making resources within the system. Chiesa emphasized that while WIDA’s 2020 ELD Standards Framework is informed by SFL, it excludes the phonological and graphological levels, which is not grounded in linguistic theory; rather, he described it as a policy boundary drawn between ELD and ELA. He cautioned that this truncates the foundation upon which meaning is built, effectively requiring educators to support comprehension and academic language development without access to the full semiotic system. He concluded that when phonology and graphology are treated as external to language development, multilingual learners are denied access to the complete cycle through which meaning is realized. Reintegrating code and meaning through coherent ELA–ELD alignment, he argued, is not an instructional preference but a theoretical necessity if SFL is to be applied with integrity.

Assessment, Equity, and the Question of ACCESS 

One of the most sustained areas of discussion centered on ACCESS and its role in student trajectories. Georgia participants noted that students are expected to read and write in English without explicit decoding instruction, particularly when foundational literacy is not embedded in ESOL services. In states like Georgia, where exit from the ESOL program is determined by ACCESS score, students whose reading skills aren’t high enough to pass the reading portion of the test often can’t exit the program. Those multilingual learners score poorly in the ACCESS domains of reading and writing, which significantly impacts their overall ACCESS score. This often leaves them essentially stuck in the ESOL program for another year, during which the existing ESOL program’s standards do not address the phonological level and are therefore not preparing them to read the test that will be administered again.

Shafer Willner affirmed the importance of explicit decoding instruction, while clarifying that ELD standards are to be used with content standards (not as standalone curricula). She recommended co-planned, integrated units (ELA + ELD) so sound–symbol work and academic language grow together and cautioned that ACCESS should be interpreted alongside literacy measures and classroom evidence—not used as a proxy for reading ability. (See Shafer Willner, 2025, for an example of integrated ELA–ELD unit planning using responsible AI workflows such as Google NotebookLM.)

From a standards development perspective, structured literacy indicators do not map neatly to WIDA’s Key Language Uses (narrate, inform, explain, argue) or Language Expectations. The 2020 WIDA ELD Standards Framework is informed by a K–12 variant of SFL called genre‑based pedagogy, which draws from the K–12 work of Derewianka and Jones (2016), de Oliveira (2016, 2023), and Schleppegrell (2020), among others. For classroom usability, genre-based pedagogy focuses educators’ attention on genres and the communicative purposes for language use across ELA, mathematics, science, and social studies.

WIDA also offers Marco de los estándares del desarrollo auténtico del lenguaje español de WIDA (Marco DALE), which guides the teaching of Spanish language development in grades K–12 within a bilingual education context. The same principles described above for the WIDA ELD Standards Framework apply here, while recognizing that different linguistic systems of English and Spanish bring differences in the literacy journey. The same commitments to learners and learning should hold true when planning lessons with either standard set.

Holding the Pendulum Steady

Throughout the conversation, Kari Kurto anchored the group in shared commitments and invited direct responses. Her holding‑the‑pendulum‑steady metaphor prevented swings into false dichotomies (language vs. literacy; policy vs. practice; standards vs. classrooms) and cast participants as co‑stewards of a complex system, prompting reflection on how multiple “pixels” of data and expertise can form a clearer picture of multilingual learners.

Equally important was the group’s asset‑based stance. By foregrounding students’ linguistic resources and the ethical imperative to provide comprehensive instruction, participants collectively kept the focus on learners rather than institutions.

The panel summarized the key complexities as:

• Grade of entry and prior literacy in the home language
• Program models and staffing (ESOL/ELA collaboration structures)
• Policy constraints (e.g., ESSA requirements for English language proficiency)
• Assessment validity and appropriate use of results
• Local capacity for integrated planning and scheduling

Conclusion: Toward Shared Responsibility

This dialogue did not resolve all tensions, nor did it attempt to. It modeled productive cross‑sector conversation in which participants listened, clarified, and remained in relationship despite disagreement. WIDA leaders articulated national‑level constraints and responsibilities; Georgia educators illuminated classroom and theoretical consequences when systems don’t align. Equity for multilingual learners will not be achieved through isolated frameworks or single measures, but through sustained collaboration—holding the pendulum steady—so that no layer of language, literacy, or content knowledge is treated as optional.

Recommendations From WIDA Representative

• Use ACCESS alongside literacy assessments and classroom evidence; interpret reading and writing domain scores as language use, not decoding.
• Plan integrated ELA–ELD units: co‑design foundational literacy targets with academic language goals tied to Key Language Uses.
• Provide explicit decoding/encoding instruction for older newcomers and long‑term English learners, coordinated with ESOL services.
• Adopt a multi‑measure dashboard to avoid single‑test decisions; include ELP, literacy, and course performance.
• Create collaboration structures (shared planning time, common tools) so ESOL and content teachers co‑own outcomes.

Recommendations from Georgia Representatives

In contexts where states are implementing structured literacy approaches, educators may need to take additional, intentional steps to ensure multilingual learners have access to foundational literacy instruction alongside language development support.

• Implement literacy screening for newly arrived multilingual learners.
• Monitor literacy development for MLs whose English language proficiency reading scores show limited progress over time.
• Provide structured literacy training for K–12 ESOL teachers.
• Support integrated ELA–ELD instructional planning.
• Equip K–12 ESOL teachers with literacy resources that support instruction at all levels smaller than the word.

• Moderator: Kari Kurto, national director of policy and partnerships, The Reading League
• WIDA: Dr. Jenni Torres (executive director); Dr. Teresa Krastel (director of professional learning); Dr. Lynn Shafer Willner (researcher/assessment and standards developer); Maya Martinez‑Hart (assistant director of standards)
• Floyd County Schools (GA): Dr. Jennifer Pendergrass-Bennefield (coordinator of ESOL/Title III and literacy legislation); John Parker (assistant superintendent); Dr. Tabatha Tierce (literacy specialist/coach)
• University of Georgia: Dr. David Chiesa (clinical associate professor in the Department of Language and Literacy Education)

References

Derewianka, B., and Jones, P. (2016). Teaching Language in Context (2^nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K., and Matthiessen, C. M. I. (2014). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (4^th ed.). London: Routledge.

de Oliveira, L. C. (2016). “The Common Core State Standards and English Language Learners: Implications for writing instruction.” In T. Ruecker and C. Ortmeier-Hooper (Eds.), Linguistically Diverse Immigrant and Resident Writers: Transitions from High School to College (pp. 36-49). Routledge.

de Oliveira, L. C. (2023). Supporting Multilingual Learners’ Academic Language Development: A Language-Based Approach to Content Instruction. Routledge.

Reading Readiness—GaDOE Insights. (2025). Georgia Insights. https://georgiainsights.gadoe.org/dashboards/reading-readiness

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2020). “The Knowledge Base for Language Teaching: What is the English to be taught as content?” Language Teaching Research, 24(1), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818777519

Shafer Willner, L. (2025). “AI-Powered, Integrated Unit Goals and Lesson Objectives for K–12 English Learners.” GATESOL Journal, 34(1), 17–34. https://georgiatesoljournal.org/index.php/GATESOL/article/view/199/127

The Reading League. (2022). Science of Reading: Defining Guide. www.thereadingleague.org/what-is-the-science-of-reading

WIDA. (2020). WIDA English Language Development Standards Framework, 2020 Edition: Kindergarten–Grade 12. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. https://wida.wisc.edu/teach/standards/eld

WIDA. (2023). Marco de los estándares del desarrollo auténtico del lenguaje español de WIDA (Marco DALE). Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. https://wida.wisc.edu/teach/spanish/marco-dale

WIDA. (n.d.). “Understanding What Students Can Do.” https://wida.wisc.edu/teach/can-do