Click here to read WIDA’s response to this article
To download the full white paper, visit https://www.languagemagazine.com/the-struggle-with-aligning-wida-based-esol-programs-to-the-science-of-reading-a-call-to-action-for-wida/
A district reading specialist was responsible for implementing changes mandated by the Georgia Department of Education concerning structured literacy training and dyslexia screening procedures. According to the new Georgia law—S. B. 48—students who do not pass the literacy screener must be placed in a reading intervention program. Recognizing the dual risk of over-identifying multilingual learners (MLs) as dyslexic and the possibility of failing to identify MLs who genuinely have characteristics associated with dyslexia, the new reading specialist sought a balanced approach. To develop a support plan for appropriately screening multilingual students, she reached out to the ESOL specialist. Because dyslexia identification relies heavily on word recognition skills, which are neither taught nor assessed in the ESOL program under WIDA guidance, the ESOL specialist initially found it challenging to contribute meaningfully to the discussion. The two specialists found themselves unable to have a collaborative conversation with one another. They were coming from different perspectives and had completely different approaches to the same problem. The reading specialist simply asked, “Then how can ESOL teachers help a nonreader?” The ESOL specialist paused for a very long time… and that’s when the real conversation started.
WIDA-based ESOL programs face significant challenges in aligning with state literacy laws that emphasize structured literacy and the science of reading. WIDA-based ESOL programs show gaps in (1) standards-based instructional practices, (2) comprehensive assessment, and (3) setting language expectations. To bridge these gaps, it is imperative for WIDA to explicitly integrate phonological awareness and word recognition skills into their standards, proficiency level descriptors, and assessments. This integration would ensure that ESOL programs can better support multilingual learners by aligning their instructional approaches with the structured literacy training that educators are receiving under recent literacy legislation.
Phonological awareness and decoding are foundational, as addressed in structured literacy. By addressing these critical areas, WIDA can provide a more comprehensive framework that not only aligns with state mandates but also empowers ESOL educators to effectively support the literacy development of all students.
Figure 1. Reading Rope for Multilingual Learners
Description of the Problem
Phonological instruction—such as decoding and phonemic awareness, which are crucial for early reading development (Boyer and Ehri, 2011; Castiglioni-Spalten and Ehri, 2003; Chen et al., 2018; Ehri, 2020; Hatcher et al., 2004; Martínez, 2011; Rehfeld et al., 2022)—is missing from WIDA’s ELD Standards Framework, proficiency level descriptors (PLDs), and assessments. This gap means that while the WIDA framework supports overall language proficiency, it does not address the foundational skills required for word recognition and phonics, and thus leads to confusion and misalignment with literacy laws.
In Georgia, early-grade ELA standards (Georgia Standards of Excellence, n.d.), new literacy legislation (Georgia H. B. 538, 2023), and curricula aligned with structured literacy ensure comprehensive coverage of all critical literacy areas defined in Figure 1, which is the “Reading Rope for Multilingual Learners” (Cavazos and Goldenberg, 2024).
Consequently, ELA teachers address all areas of the two major strands of the reading rope: language comprehension and word recognition skills. ESOL educators in Georgia, who develop lessons that align with the 2020 WIDA ELD Standards Framework, primarily address language comprehension, represented in the upper strands. According to the structured literacy training modules in Georgia, Ilk et al. (2022) emphasize that “Both components of reading—word recognition and language comprehension—should be addressed in instruction… [and] assessments should address each component of reading” (p. 75). However, WIDA standards do not directly encompass linguistic elements smaller than a word, leaving out key aspects of word recognition such as syllables, phonemes, the alphabetic principle, and spelling–sound correspondence. As a result, the WIDA 2020 Standards Framework does not fully align with Georgia’s ELA standards, or the structured literacy training required under H. B. 538. The adapted version of Scarborough’s reading rope for multilingual learners, as illustrated by Cavazos and Goldenberg (2024; Figure 1), asserts that oral language development should be integrated into every strand of reading competence.
In this adaptation, oral language—represented by the yellow rope—takes a leading role in the literacy development of multilingual learners. ESOL teachers should ideally lead in providing oral language instruction for ELs across all literacy elements. However, using the WIDA ELD (2020) standards, oral language instruction is limited to the upper strands of language comprehension, as there are no ELD standards that address the lower strands of word recognition. This limitation means that in WIDA states, the comprehensive integration depicted in the adapted reading rope cannot be fully realized in classrooms. Neither ESOL nor ELA teachers have standards for developing the oral language of word recognition, resulting in these skills often being neglected and critical L1-to-L2 connections remaining unmade.
The reading domain of the ACCESS for ELLs (WIDA, 2024) test measures reading proficiency through various assessments, evaluating comprehension and literacy skills across social and academic contexts. It includes multiple-choice items covering main ideas, details, inferences, and vocabulary in context. Administered in both paper-based and adaptive online formats, the test is available for grades K–12. However, challenges such as decoding difficulties and insufficient English proficiency can affect the accuracy of these assessments. According to the Center for Applied Linguistics (2023), the reading domain has relatively high conditional standard errors of measurement (CSEM), especially for students in lower proficiency levels. This indicates that the ability of this reading assessment to accurately measure reading proficiency for students with lower proficiency levels is less reliable. The variability in CSEM is largely driven by the adaptive nature of the test and the characteristics of the items students encounter. This is particularly noticeable at the extremes of the score distribution, where students who answer very few or very many items correctly are more likely to experience higher measurement errors. The higher CSEM values for students at a lower proficiency in the reading domain suggest that WIDA’s ACCESS for ELLs reading assessment potentially provides less accurate and reliable measures of proficiency for these students. This underscores the challenge of assessing students who are still developing basic academic language skills and points to areas for potential improvement in future iterations of the test to better capture early reading proficiency.
The proficiency level descriptors (PLDs) for reading offer a framework for assessing and supporting student progress, detailing what students can understand and do with written language at each proficiency level. They emphasize functional language skills necessary for academic success. However, PLDs lack explicit references to phonological awareness and decoding, crucial for reading development. Incorporating these skills into the descriptors would align them more closely with Halliday’s stratified model of systemic functional linguistics (Martin and Matthiessen, 1991)—the theoretical underpinning of WIDA—and provide a comprehensive evaluation of a student’s reading proficiency.\
Figure 2. Comparison of Theoretical Approaches toward SFL
Note. WIDA’s Interpretation comes from WIDA (2020), p. 32.
Conclusion
While WIDA’s assessments and resources provide states with a structured approach to meeting federal guidelines, the glaring disconnect between WIDA’s foundational resources and Georgia’s efforts to incorporate structured literacy instruction is deeply concerning. In an era where leading educational institutions have embraced and integrated structured literacy research, WIDA’s silence on this matter is not just a missed opportunity—it is unacceptable. As John Parker, assistant superintendent of Floyd County Schools, aptly states, “We see this as an equity issue.”
WIDA’s lack of alignment with the body of research on structured literacy, particularly in addressing the critical word recognition needs of multilingual learners, calls for an immediate and decisive response. It is imperative that WIDA assures its member states that efforts are underway to align the WIDA ELD standards, proficiency level descriptors, and ACCESS assessments with the latest evidence-based practices. This is not merely a recommendation; it is a demand for WIDA to acknowledge and respond to the irrefutable research on what multilingual learners require to become proficient readers.
In essence, this is a clarion call for WIDA to refine their approach by incorporating English phonological elements into their dimensions of language, aligning more closely with Halliday’s model of systemic functional linguistics (see Figure 2 above)—the very foundation cited in WIDA’s theoretical framework (WIDA, 2020). The time for WIDA to act is now, for anything less would be an abdication of their responsibility to the learners they are meant to serve.
References
Boyer, N., & Ehri, L. C. (2011). Contribution of phonemic segmentation instruction with letters and articulation pictures to word reading and spelling in beginners. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(5), 440-470, https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2010.520778
Castiglioni-Spalten, M. L., & Ehri, L. C. (2003). Phonemic awareness instruction: Contribution of articulatory segmentation to novice beginners’ reading and spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(1), 25–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0701_03
Cavazos, L., & Goldenberg, C. (2024, June 10). The Science of Teaching Reading for Multilingual Learners. [Professional Learning Workshop]. Floyd County District Office, Rome, Georgia. Center for Applied Linguistics (2023). Annual Technical Report ACCESS for ELLs Online
English Language Proficiency Test Series 601, 2022-2023 Administration. In wida.wisc.edu (pp. 467-477). 2024 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System on behalf of the WIDA Consortium. https://wida.wisc.edu/resources/annual-technical-report-access-ells-online-english-language-proficiency-test-series-601
Chen,Y. I., Irey, R. & Cunningham, A.E. (2018). Word-level evidence of the role of phonological decoding during orthographic learning: A direct test of the item-based assumption, Scientific Studies of Reading, 22(6), 517-526, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2018.1473403
Ehri, L. C. (2020). The science of learning to read words: A case for systematic phonics instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), 45-60. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.334
Georgia House Bill 538. (2023). Georgia Literacy Act. Retrieved from https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20232024/220431](https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20232024/220431)
Georgia Standards of Excellence. (n.d.). English Language Arts (ELA) Georgia Standards of Excellence. Retrieved from https://www.georgiastandards.org/Georgia-Standards/Pages/ELA.aspx](https://www.georgiastandards.org/Georgia-Standards/Pages/ELA.aspx)
Hatcher, P. J., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Explicit phoneme training combined with phonic reading instruction helps young children at risk of reading failure. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 45(2), 338–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004. 00225.x
Ilk, M., Whitney, A., & Motes, L. C. (2022). Universal Instruction at the Word Recognition Level. In LETRS for Administrators (pp. 75–75). Lexia.
Martin, J.R. & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (1991). Systemic typology and topology. In Frances Christie (ed.), Literacy in Social Processes: Papers from the Inaugural Australian Systemic Functional Linguistics Conference, Deakin University, January 1990. (Centre for Studies of Language in Education, Northern Territory University, 1991), pp. 345–84.
Martínez, A. M. M. (2011). Explicit and differentiated phonics instruction as a tool to improve literacy skills for children learning English as a foreign language. GIST Education and Learning Research Journal, 5, 25–49.
Rehfeld, D. M., Kirkpatrick, M., O’Guinn, N., & Renbarger, R. (2022). A meta-analysis of phonemic awareness instruction provided to children suspected of having a reading disability. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 53(4), 1177–1201. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_LSHSS-21-00160
WIDA. (2024). ACCESS for ELLs. Retrieved from: https://wida.wisc.edu/assess/access.
WIDA. (2020). English Language Development (ELD) Standards Framework, 2020 Edition. Retrieved from https://wida.wisc.edu/teach/standards/eld
Jennifer Pendergrass-Bennefield, EdD, is the ESOL/Title III coordinator for Floyd County Schools in Northwest Georgia. In this role, she oversees the alignment of ESOL services to structured literacy initiatives. She is a former president of GATESOL. She’s served that board in a variety of roles and continues to serve as a current board member.
Tabatha Tierce, EdD in instructional leadership, serves as reading specialist for grades K–4 with Floyd County Schools in Rome, GA. With a strong commitment to equitable education, her work centers on ensuring every student has the fundamental right to read and on developing teachers who can provide that instruction.
Dr. David L. Chiesa is a clinical assistant professor in the Department of Language and Literacy Education at the Mary Frances Early College of Education, University of Georgia. His research concentrates on second-language acquisition, language teacher cognition, and language assessment and testing within applied linguistics.
