In this article, we provide a response to the article published in Language Magazine on Oct. 2, 2024, in which authors Jennifer Pendergrass, Tabatha Tierce, and David L. Chiesa were critiquing the WIDA ELD Standards for not being aligned to Scarborough’s Reading Rope, only attending to the upper levels of language comprehension in the Reading Rope and ignoring word recognition and phonemic awareness (Pendergrass et al., 2024). The authors specifically mention that the standards are based on systemic functional linguistics and that in that theory of language, phonology and graphology are one of the layers of meaning, but the WIDA standards failed to address that layer. This response will clarify misconceptions about the role of ELD standards and what systemic functional linguistics is.
We can empathize that systemic functional linguistics (SFL) is a complex theory of language and want to take the opportunity to clarify some key aspects of the theory as well as the role of the WIDA standards in relation to that theory. It is beyond the scope of this article to describe the whole theory. Next, we provide a response to each critique presented in the original article. We draw on SFL and our over 30 combined years of classroom research with teachers of multilingual learners (de Oliveira, 2023; de Oliveira and Schleppegrell, 2015; de Oliveira and Westerlund, 2021; Westerlund and Besser, 2021; Besser and Westerlund, 2024) to inform our responses.
The authors made a point that the WIDA ELD dimensions of language weren’t nuanced enough, only representing discourse, sentence, and word and ignoring phonological and graphological layers present in the SFL stratified model of language. They state: “Figure 1 below illustrates Halliday’s Stratified Model of Systemic Functional Linguistics, which organizes language into different levels of abstraction. At the core of the model is ‘Expression,’ representing the basic sounds (phonemes) and graphemes (letters) of language. This foundational level is crucial because it forms the building blocks for all higher levels of language structure and meaning. Without a solid understanding of phonemes and graphemes, it becomes challenging to grasp more complex language elements” [emphasis in original] (Pendergrass et al., p. 8).
Choosing to organize language by discourse, sentence, and word was definitely not an oversight of the WIDA standards, because their role is not to replace ELA but to complement ELA standards for foundational literacy. In other words, we need both sets of standards to support multilingual learners. The WIDA ELD Standards used SFL as a conceptual framing for informing and defining the way language should be viewed—in the service of learning—and positioning language as a meaning-making resource, not an inventory of rules.
SFL views language as a multilayered system, where different layers work together to construct meaning. The three main layers in SFL are the semantic, lexicogrammatical, and phonological/ graphological levels. At the semantic layer, meaning is expressed through different metafunctions, namely ideational, used to represent experiences; interpersonal, used to enact social relationships and provide perspective; and textual, used to organize discourse and construct a cohesive message. The lexicogrammatical layer deals with how these meanings are encoded into words and grammar. The phonological/ graphological layer shows how these words are realized through sounds or writing. The key is that meaning is constructed through the interrelationship between these layers. Working together, these layers represent an interlocking system of choices, not an inventory of structures but a meaning-making resource. SFL focuses on the semiotics or “meaning potential” of language within social and cultural contexts. We—as language analysts and scholars— identify instances of language use that contribute to the language system, with a focus on “meaning potential” and not on every single possible instance of the system.
In addition, Pendergrass et al. claim, “By integrating SFL into its framework, WIDA helps educators to see language not just as a set of rules, but as a powerful means for students to engage with and understand academic content, interact with peers, and express their ideas effectively with various cultural and situational contexts. This understanding is pivotal in developing instructional strategies that are responsive to the needs of multilingual learners, ensuring they can achieve both language proficiency and academic success” (Pendergrass et al., p. 9).
As a former author (Ruslana) and consultant (Luciana) of the WIDA ELD Standards who contributed the SFL genre theory as a foundation for defining the key language uses, language functions and features, and proficiency level descriptors, we hope that educators view language as a powerful, dynamic meaning-making resource with which students can not only act in the world but also “act upon the world” [emphasis added] (Halliday and Hasan, 2008). It is important to note that the original article states “see language not just as a set of rules.”
This is an incorrect interpretation of what is in the WIDA standards. By using a functional approach, the standards state that language is not a set of rules but a resource for making meaning. The addition of the word “just” to describe language is an incorrect interpretation of what is in the standards and of SFL as a theory.
The authors further state:
According to the Literacy training modules in Georgia, Ilk, Whitney, and Motes (2022)… “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 [emphasis in original]. As a result, the WIDA 2020 Standards Framework does not fully align with Georgia’s ELA standards, or the Structured Literacy training required by the House Bill 538 (p. 10–11).
It is not the role of the WIDA ELD Standards or any other set of ELD standards used across the country (e.g., California, Texas) to replace the foundational literacy skills as delineated by other sets of standards. The role of the WIDA ELD Standards is “a guide for informing the design of linguistically and culturally sustaining curriculum, instruction, and assessment” (WIDA, 2020, p. 35).
Pendergrass et al. claim:
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 section of Figure 3, the language comprehension strands, as there are no word recognition-based ELD standards. This limitation means that in WIDA states, the comprehensive integration depicted in the adapted Reading Rope cannot be fully realized in classrooms (Pendergrass et al., p. 11).
The WIDA ELD Standards were not informed by the Reading Rope but by a comprehensive and meaning-oriented theory of language. While there is no question that phonics and phonemic awareness is an important component of reading, it is only one component of literacy.
The authors further claim:
Given this context, it becomes evident how WIDA standards are used alongside Georgia’s Standards of Excellence. For instance, WIDA’s ELD-SI.K-2.Inform standard requires students to “describe characteristics, patterns, or behavior.” An ESOL teacher might focus on this language comprehension strategy while also addressing Georgia ELA Standard ELAGSE1RL4, which asks students to identify words and phrases in stories or poems that suggest feelings or appeal to the senses. These standards can be effectively integrated because they target similar skill areas, specifically the upper language-comprehension strands of Scarborough’s Reading Rope (see Figure 3)” (Pendergrass, et al., p. 12).
This is exactly the point of the WIDA ELD Standards: they are to be used alongside academic content standards. As contributing authors of the standards, which we call “unapologetically ambitious,” we hope these standards will truly transform the experiences of MLs not by engaging in rote learning of grammar devoid of meaning but by engaging with the world around them—explaining how the science world works around them or expressing their personal experiences through stories or persuading and calling to action to make this world a more just and fair place for them. Those skills of “reading the world” will allow them to engage in reading beyond Scarborough’s Reading Rope.
Pendergrass et al. add:
However, WIDA published a disclaimer in Section 2 of the WIDA (2020) Standards Framework, stating that these ELD standards cannot enumerate most of the language needed in the classroom. (See Figure 4, screenshot of “What the WIDA ELD Standards Framework Is and What It Is Not.”) This statement further emphasizes that the Standards Framework should be paired with a content-rich curriculum and effective pedagogical approaches (WIDA, 2020)” (p. 12).
The WIDA ELD Standards absolutely cannot enumerate all possible instances of language use. This is exactly what the SFL theory of language is all about: each instance contributes to the system, and as language analysts we look at the instances to describe the system. In addition, WIDA selected the most prominent key language uses (KLUs) and sample language functions and features to include—note the word sample. If the selection had included KLUs that are present or prominent in each content area, the standards would have been over 3,000 pages! Therefore, in selecting to include samples, choices were made, just as we make language choices every day in our lives.
Pendergrass et al. state: “When ELD standards exhibit substantial gaps that prevent them from being effectively integrated with many required content standards for literacy, they fall short of functionality. Consequently, one could argue that WIDA standards in their 2020 form do not fully meet the minimum requirements set forth by ESSA” (p. 13). The WIDA ELD Standards include the tables that illustrate how they meet the ESSA requirements in Appendix A: “WIDA English Language Development Standards Framework, 2020 Edition—Meeting ESSA Title 1 Requirements,” pages 233–235.
In summary, literacy, first and foremost, is a meaning-making endeavor. Whether we are decoding, blending, segmenting, or reading phrases, sentences, or whole texts, we do so in pursuit of meaning. Meaning occurs at all levels of language: from the whole text down to a phoneme and back up. SFL provides a comprehensive literacy framework beyond phonics and phonemic awareness—to include:
• oral language development through classroom interactions beyond vocabulary;
• multimodal, digital, and disciplinary literacies;
• critical literacy practices;
• asset-based approaches that honor cultures, backgrounds, and experiences.
It is our hope that the WIDA 2020 ELD Standards framework continues to be a resource for teachers as they enact effective instruction for MLs, recognizing MLs’ experiences as resources for learning.
References available at https://www.languagemagazine.com/references-bridging-wida/
Dr. Ruslana Westerlund is an educational consultant, researcher, and professor with over 25 years of experience, specializing in K–12 education for multilingual learners. She focuses on supporting writing through the teaching and learning cycle for disciplinary genres, rooted in systemic functional linguistics. Dr. Westerlund has contributed to national projects like the WIDA English Language Development Standards and authored multiple publications, including her latest on disciplinary literacy in social studies. She is an active blogger at Making Language Visible, where she writes accessible pieces to help teachers implement the WIDA ELD Standards and understand SFL. She is the founder and main consultant for Westerlund Consulting, LLC. As a volunteer, she serves as president of Friends of Ukraine, Madison, a local nonprofit serving Ukrainian refugee families in Dane County, Wisconsin. She can be reached at [email protected].
Dr. Luciana C. de Oliveira, PhD, is associate dean for academic affairs and graduate studies in the School of Education and professor in the Department of Teaching and Learning at Virginia Commonwealth University. Her research focuses on issues related to teaching multilingual learners in K–12, including the role of language in learning the content areas. She is a pioneer of a functional approach to language development in US classrooms and has conducted research on this approach for over 20 years. She served in the presidential line (2017–2020), served as president (2018–2019), and was a member of the Board of Directors (2013– 2016) of TESOL International Association. She was the very first Latina to serve as president of TESOL. She can be contacted at [email protected].
