Ester de Jong and Socorro Herrera call for teacher agency amidst science of reading mandates
In Spring of 2023, we wrote a short article in Language Magazine, outlining three areas where the science of reading movement and its implementation rendered the research on and experiences of multilingual learners (MLs) largely invisible. In conversation with expert ML teachers, we questioned the positioning that was happening across the nation of phonics as a silver bullet, the straight jacket of prescribed practices that accompanied the implementation of the science of reading, and the deficit orientations that emerged as part of this effort at reading instruction reform (Herrera & de Jong, 2023). Now another two years later, the voices of ML teachers are still silenced and not integrated into the conversation as policies are formulated in the name of the science of reading (de Jong & Herrera, 2024).
The danger of not explicitly and specifically talking about the intersection of reading and writing research on and with MLs has been noted frequently as the cognitive research on reading is translated into actual policy and practice. The Joint Statement from the Reading League and the National Committee for Effective Literacy (NCEL) cautions us not to assume that the findings from reading research involving monolingual speakers learning to read in their home language would automatically transfer to and apply to those students for whom initial literacy happened in a language other than their home language. While there are indeed studies that include MLs, the Joint Statement notes, “EL/EB students are discussed as an ‘after-thought’ or not referenced at all.” (https:// multilingualliteracy.org/wp-content/ uploads/2023/10/Joint-Statement_SOR- EL_EB.pdf/). Studies that do target MLs specifically are reviewed in several reports (August et al., 2009; NASEM, 2017; Park et al., 2023) and recent articles (e.g., Kittle et al., 2024). A recent report finally also brings in the voices of practitioners. Kathy Escamilla and Kim Strong (2024) report the results of interviews with almost 80 K-12 teachers across the nation. Among others, they find that, while enhanced knowledge base related to reading instruction is helpful, the teachers talked about the dominance of phonics both in professional development and mandated instructional time, the replacement of dedicated time for English language development with reading intervention, the one-size fits all approach without attention to or recognition of cultural differences. These observations are not intended to stop the use of research to inform teaching practices but highlight once more the need to explicitly have a dialogue about what the research says about learning to read in an additional language for students who come from different language backgrounds and literary traditions and whose English oral language foundation varies greatly.
In this article we continue the call for listening to ML teachers and this time we wanted to delve deeper into practice—what happens when ML teachers encounter discrepancies between what they are asked to do and what they know their stu- dents need. We report on the results of interviews with six experienced ML teachers, working in an extraordinarily diverse school district—20 different home languages, 41 countries, 81% eligible for free or reduced lunch. Academically, the majority of the designated English language learners (ELLs) score in the Proficiency Level 1 on the state’s English Language Arts performance assessment. Each of the teachers had completed the required LETRS (Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling) training. We were guided by the following questions.
- How are ML teachers being prepared through LETRS to work with their MLs?
- Where do they see misalignments between curriculum and their MLs’ needs and strengths, and how do they mediate misalignment?
Since we wanted to better understand teacher actions and agency, we are focusing on the second question in this article.
Areas of Misalignment
Two areas were particularly salient for the teachers: the one size fits all approaches that accompanied the pacing guides and the absence of culturally responsive curriculum and pedagogies.
Despite the heterogeneity in their classrooms (e.g., students’ language backgrounds, English proficiency levels), the curriculum expected standardization of instruction. Designed for monolingual speakers, the curriculum did not provide for differentiation and adjustments in response to where students were. The result was student disengagement.
AL: So the pacing is a big thing, not being able to sit and kind of do well in something and really focus on it before you move on to the next thing. That’s difficult.
There are several stories that they like, but they’re very long, and it’s hard to keep their attention during such a long story, even when it’s broken up into sections or when we stand up, share, talk, and walk around the room. I just think it’s not meant for our population, in my opinion.
The mandated curriculum also operated on the assumption that all students come with similar background and cultural experiences and that all students were sufficiently fluent in English to understand what was happening during reading instruction. Neither assumption was appropriate. As a result, ML students’ needs were not met.
CS: It’s not fair to them to sit all day listening to something they don’t understand.
AH: Then, half of the class or the majority of it won’t, won’t get to where you want them to be because of what you deliver, you know.
Moving Toward Closer Alignment
With their experience, these teachers did not hesitate to act to mediate the gap between the mandated curriculum and what their MLs needed. Their agency emerged through three key strategies.
Strategy 1. Provide Comprehensible Input and Scaffolding
Adding visuals, adjusting their presentation chunking, graphic organizers
AH: I provided academic discourse cards and sentence frames, and just a lot of visuals for them to see that it’s okay even if you don’t understand the language, but as long as you’re able to see the pictures to help guide you, to what I’m trying to say… [and] get them to share within their peers.
Strategy 2. Purposefully increase student engagement
They achieved this through increased student interaction, the use of technology, and hands-on activities.
HC: So, I think tweaking all of the curriculum to make it so the kids are more engaged in the sense of like, they’re actually doing more rather than just listening to the teacher.
Strategy 3. Connect to students’ lived experiences
Like the teachers in Strong & Escamilla, our teachers noted the absence of culturally relevant materials and strategies. As they were able to under time constraints, they engaged in background building activities, tapping into students prior learning and cultural experiences, and made connec- tions to their students’ personal lives in an effort to make the lessons more relevant and comprehensible.
AH: just making sure that everyone is included, and talking more about those real world experiences—that everyone can get the opportunity to connect, you know, the curriculum to what their personal experiences are
MB: I have harvested some information from students, but that is going to be a bigger part of my lessons, because I want to connect with that prior knowledge at any time. So, when I introduce a new book, I have a page that has, this is the picture. What do you see?
Clearly, the teachers understood that mediation of the curriculum was necessary for their MLs in order to provide some semblance of equal access for these students as well as their more fluent English speakers.
A Missing Piece
The curriculum and pacing guides also constrained, however, what they could do—their agency had to fit both within the timeframe and the English-only frame of the curriculum. We argue that, as a result, the implementation spaces (Hornberger, 2005) were similarly constrained.
Given the monolingual frame, it is perhaps not surprising that the strategies they choose to use (comprehensible input, peer interaction, cultural connections) resemble common second language teaching strategies advocated in the field. What did not emerge from these interviews was attention to what Lucas & Villegas (2013) have referred to as “linguistically responsive teaching,” involving teacher moves that focus on specific home language backgrounds and English language proficiency levels and features. Thus, while there were multiple languages in the classrooms, there was no time or space to reflect on how the lesson might need to be different for the Japanese-speaking student versus the Spanish-speaking student. Similarly, opportuni- ties for the development of metalinguistic awareness were missed both formally (in the mandated curriculum) and informally (through in the moment of decisions).
Next Steps: Professional Development and Critical Inquiry
Teachers are eager to critically examine the core tenets of the Science of Reading (SoR) through the lens of their multilingual (ML) students. What we need is meaningful professional development that explicitly engages teachers in a dialogue that highlights current disconnects between SoR instructional practices and assessment—especially as they relate to MLs. Through such professional development, teachers will gain greater clarity and are better able to:
- Accurately interpret and follow up on initial screening results
- Take informed action to support appropriate intervention placement
- Identify high-leverage adaptations and strategies that meet the specific needs of multilingual learners
- Confidently advocate for site-level changes that better support all students
To effectively serve MLs, teachers need more than just theoretical knowledge of SoR. They require high-quality professional development that is paired with opportunities for personal and professional reflection as they apply insights in their classrooms and consider the unique assets of their ML students. School leadership is key in creating spaces for such informed teacher agency. In this way, teachers are better positioned to innovate and apply their expertise in ways that benefit all learners, including MLs. In contrast, rigid adherence to scripted programs and one-size-fits- all approaches undermines both teacher capacity and multilingual student potential.
To effectively serve Multilingual learners, teachers need more than just theoretical knowledge of SoR. They require high-quality professional development
References
- August, D., Shanahan, T., & Escamilla, K. (2009). English language learners: Developing literacy in second-language learners—Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Journal of literacy research, 41(4), 432-452.
- de Jong, E. J. & Herrera, S. (2024). Asking the right question. EL Gazette, 488 https://www.elgazette.com/elg_archive/ELG2402/mobile/
- Escamilla, K., & Strong, K. (2024). Voices from the Field. National Committee for Effective Literacy.
- Herrera, S. & de Jong, E. J (2023). English literacy for multilingual learners: Voices from the Field. Language Magazine, April.
- Hornberger, N. (2005). Opening and filling up implementational and ideological spaces
- in heritage language education. Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 605-609.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00331.x/abstract
- Joint Statement: Understanding the Difference: The Science of Reading and Implementation for English Learners/Emergent Bilinguals (ELs/EBs) – chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpca- jpcglclefindmkaj/ https://multilingualliteracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Joint-Statement_SOR-EL_EB.pdf
- Kittle, J.M., Amendum, S. J. and Christina M. Budde, C.M. (2024), What Does Research Say About the Science of Reading for K-5 Multilingual Learners? A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews, Educational Psychology Review 36 (108), https:// doi.org/10.1007/10648-024-09942-6
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medi- cine (2017). Promoting the Educational Success of Children and Youth Learning English: Promising Futures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24677
- Park, B. J., Li, M., Zheng, X., and Zhang, Y. (2023). Early Reading Skill Development and Characteristics of Reading Skill Profiles: Analysis of Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010-11 (ECLS-K:2011) and NAEP 2015 Grade 4 Reading Overlap Sample Data [AIR-NAEP Working Paper #2023-01]. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/2023-08/Early-Reading-Skill-Dev-2023-01_508.pdf
- Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2013). Preparing linguistically responsive teachers: Laying the foundation in preservice teacher education. Theory into practice, 52(2), 98-109.
Ester de Jong is a professor in the Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Education program and associate dean of Research and Academic Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver. Her research focuses on equity and integration in the context of dual language education and preparing teachers to work with bilingual learners in K-12 schools.
Socorro Herrera is a professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education, and executive director of the Center for Intercultural and Multilingual Advocacy at Kansas State University. Her research centers on the role of personal histories of the learner, family, and teacher in literacy development, biography-driven pedagogy, and teacher preparation for diverse classrooms.