SUBSCRIBE

Yes, Structured Literacy and Multilingualism Go Together


Literacy is foundational—not only for academic success but as a fundamental skill for navigating life. Yet literacy rates in the US paint a troubling picture: about 21% of adults are illiterate, and 54% read below a sixth-grade level, with 45 million Americans considered functionally illiterate. This urgent reality calls for evidence-based literacy practices, like explicit foundational skills and vocabulary instruction, developing background-knowledge comprehension strategies, and effective spoken language teaching for multilingual learners (MLs).

It Starts with Language

Yes, our brains are wired for language. From birth, exposure to language, combined with caregivers’ intentional interactions—like repeating words, allowing practice through babbling, and providing affirming and corrective feedback—builds a foundation for language development. While our brains are wired for language, learning requires explicit instruction (Arrendondo and Cárdenas-Hagan, 2021).

Without explicit teaching, we won’t be able to learn to speak. Sometimes it’s confusing when we hear that learning to speak is natural. It seems like instruction is not required. It is. We have to be taught the language we are meant to learn.

For educators, this means that simply exposing students to a new language isn’t enough. This is true for monolinguals. And this is true for multilingual learners. Language acquisition demands effective, intentional teaching. Sequential bilinguals, those who learn a second language five or more years after their first, benefit from mapping their new language onto existing knowledge of their first.

Many monolingual and bilingual advocates have long held beliefs that a first language must be fully mastered before one learns a second. Contrary to this belief, research now shows that bilingual learners can simultaneously develop speaking, reading, and writing skills in two languages (Bialystok, 2011).

Even infants as young as six months old can distinguish between languages, demonstrating the brain’s remarkable capacity for multilingualism (Kuhl, 2011). This supports the case for early and concurrent instruction in multiple languages through programs like dual immersion, where language acquisition is intentional and explicit.

Oral Language Is the Foundation

Oral language must be actively taught, practiced, and used daily. Immersion in a language environment alone is insufficient. Structured opportunities for speaking build the foundation for oral comprehension. Understanding language—how to speak it, how to use it, what words mean, how to put those words into an order that makes sense—is essential to both decoding and reading comprehension. Learners must have time to connect sounds and spellings to words and meanings. These spoken-language practices have a direct, positive impact on reading instruction.

Explicitly teaching oral language and text-based skills within the same lesson is critical. For example, a lesson might include time for speaking practice, either practicing new sentence structures or about academic content, followed by introducing text that connects to those spoken words. Knowing what the cognitive task is—sentence structures, vocabulary, or overall content—will help keep the lesson and affirming feedback focused. This integration ensures that students strengthen both their oracy and decoding skills simultaneously, building a robust foundation for literacy.

Mapping Language onto Text

Our spoken language has a written counterpart: text. Through explicit teaching, learners can connect sounds to letters and see how spoken words materialize on the page. This spoken-language mapping to text applies to any language with an orthography and is fundamental for all learners (Ehri, 2005; Scarborough, 2001).

 We can learn about text and how it maps to spoken language while also learning to speak the language. Think about a baby: we can expose babies to books long before they know how to read. We don’t have to wait until they speak the language before we start teaching them about text mapping. No matter when it starts, teaching about text mapping has to be explicit.

Learning about sounds and letters and how they make up words can’t be skipped. This part, sometimes called foundational skills, which include decoding, is an essential part of learning to read. However, these are a set of finite skills that, once learned, don’t have to be belabored. It’s like learning the skill of addition in mathematics. Once you learn the concept and the rules, you can apply that skill to any numbers that you wish to add. The same is true for decoding. Once you understand the rules, you can apply the skills to any word.

More importantly, the more practice one has with reading, the faster and easier it becomes. In fact, our brains will store words in our long-term memories once we become familiar with them, so that they are read automatically (Ehri, 2005). However, whenever we encounter an unfamiliar word, we can rely on our decoding skills to help us read it.

Think of a medical text and names of medicines. There are likely words that are unfamiliar that even as adults we will have to “sound out.” The skill of decoding stays with us even as we become more and more fluent in our reading. Without this skill, it would be nearly impossible for us to comprehend or read the words on the page.

Comprehension, of Course

Language comprehension requires understanding meanings of words and sentences, registers, and the nuances within languages. This happens during spoken exchanges and can be mapped when reading. Here’s the thing: comprehension of spoken language is essential to comprehension of written language. And we have to remember that we can’t comprehend anything we can’t decode. We have to be able to decode before we can comprehend the words in written form. Therefore, we can’t have one without the other. We need effective instruction that is explicit in teaching how to decode, comprehend, and use language for various purposes (Hammond, 2015; Goldenberg, 2008).

Reading comprehension, the ability to derive meaning from text, is the goal of effective literacy instruction. To comprehend, learners must first decode, but decoding alone isn’t enough.

Successfully developing reading comprehension involves helping students understand nuances, register, and meaning within both spoken and written language.

Comprehension isn’t just an academic skill—it’s the heart of communication. It enables us to connect with others, share ideas, and build relationships. Teaching students to use language effectively and to decode and comprehend text equips them with the tools for lifelong learning and engagement.

Structured Literacy and Multilingualism: A Pathway to Educational Success

Structured literacy and multilingualism are not just compatible; they are powerful allies in fostering academic success and lifelong learning. Together, they unlock the full potential of learners, enabling them to navigate and excel in a world increasingly defined by linguistic and cultural diversity. Grounded in evidence-based practices, structured literacy provides a robust foundation for reading, writing, and comprehension, while multilingualism enriches cognitive flexibility, cultural awareness, and academic achievement. These approaches, when intertwined, create a transformative pathway for students to thrive in a multilingual society.

Structured Literacy as a Foundation for Multilingualism

Scarborough’s Reading Rope (2001) vividly illustrates the interconnected components of literacy: oral language, decoding, and comprehension. These elements form a sturdy braid that supports reading proficiency. Structured literacy, with its focus on word recognition, comprehension, and explicit instruction, provides the essential threads for this rope. But what makes structured literacy truly transformative is its adaptability—because of its grounding in the domains of language, it works across languages, making it a critical tool for MLs.

MLs often draw on their first language as a cognitive scaffold to learn additional languages. This process, known as cross-linguistic transfer, allows students to apply what they know about phonemes, syntax, and vocabulary in one language to others (Bialystok, 2011). Structured literacy supports this transfer by providing clear, explicit instruction in foundational skills and language comprehension, enabling learners to map sounds to text and to learn academic vocabulary and complex sentence structures that support them in building fluency in multiple languages simultaneously.

Consider a classroom where a student is learning both Spanish and English. Structured literacy ensures that the student learns to decode words like gato and cat using similar phonics rules. This approach not only strengthens their reading abilities in both languages but also reinforces their confidence and motivation, key drivers of academic success.

In addition, the focus on comprehension in structured literacy, how words and sentences work, ensures that students will be able not only to decode words but to experience the meaning of the text via comprehension. The reading rope doesn’t just give us insight into reading but also into language learning. The same components in the word recognition and comprehension strands are applicable to both written text and spoken language.

Multilingualism Enhances Cognitive and Academic Growth

Bilingualism is more than just an asset; it is a cognitive superpower. Research shows that bilingual individuals often exhibit enhanced executive functioning, problem-solving skills, and mental flexibility (Kuhl, 2011). These benefits are particularly pronounced in educational settings, where multilingual students use their diverse linguistic backgrounds to approach problems from multiple
perspectives.

MLs also bring a wealth of cultural knowledge and experiences to the classroom, enriching the learning environment for all students. Dual immersion programs, which integrate instruction in two languages, exemplify how leveraging multilingualism fosters inclusivity, equity, and excellence.

These programs demonstrate that students can achieve proficiency both in their home languages and in a second language without sacrificing academic achievement. In fact, studies show that students in dual immersion programs often outperform their monolingual peers in both languages.

Structured literacy enhances these benefits by providing a systematic approach to developing language skills. When educators explicitly teach the rules and structures of language, students gain the tools to decode, comprehend, and engage with text
across languages.

This dual focus on structured literacy and multilingualism prepares students not only for academic success but also for active participation in a globalized society.

A New Era of Multilingual Education

The US stands at a pivotal moment in education. With over 40 states adopting science-of-reading legislation, there is a growing commitment to evidence-based practices that support all learners, including the 11% of students identified as MLs nationally (Swain and Long, 2023). This legislative shift represents a unique opportunity to embrace a multilingual vision for the US, one that values linguistic diversity as a strength rather than perceiving it as a barrier.

Structured literacy and multilingualism are central to this vision. Programs like dual immersion demonstrate the potential to create multilingual societies where all students have access to high-quality education. These programs show that it is not only possible but advantageous to teach students to read, write, and think in multiple languages simultaneously. Neuroscience supports this approach, revealing that the human brain is wired for multilingualism, capable of distinguishing between and learning multiple languages from an early age (Kuhl, 2011).


The Role of Structured Literacy in a Multilingual Society

To fully realize the promise of multilingual education, structured literacy must be a cornerstone of instructional practice for language and literacy development. This means providing explicit, systematic instruction in both foundational reading skills and language comprehension while leveraging the linguistic assets students bring to the classroom. It also means recognizing that decoding, comprehension, and oral language development are not separate processes but interconnected components of literacy that transcend language boundaries.

For educators, this requires a shift in mindset and practice. Educators must move away from outdated notions that students need to master one language before learning another. Instead, we must embrace a simultaneous approach, where students develop skills both in their heritage languages and in the language of instruction. Structured literacy provides the framework for this approach, ensuring that all students, regardless of their linguistic backgrounds, have the tools they need to succeed.


A Vision for Multilingualism in the US

The US has the potential to become a world leader in multilingual education. By aligning structured literacy practices with programs that promote bilingualism and biliteracy, we can create an education system that values and builds on the strengths of all learners. Dual immersion programs, paired with science-of-reading principles, can serve as models for this transformation, demonstrating how to nurture linguistic diversity while achieving high academic standards.

Imagine a future where every child in America has the opportunity to become bilingual or even multilingual, where literacy instruction is evidence-based and inclusive, and where linguistic diversity is celebrated as a national strength. This is not just an aspirational vision—it is an achievable reality. By investing in structured literacy and multilingual education, we can prepare students to thrive in a world where communication, collaboration, and cultural understanding are more important than ever.

References

Arrendondo, M., and Cárdenas Hagan, E. (2021). “Advancing Literacy for Bilingual and Multilingual Students: The role of structured literacy.” Journal of Literacy Research.

Bialystok, E. (2011). “Reshaping the Mind: The benefits of bilingualism.” Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(4), 229–235.

Cárdenas Hagan, E. (2020). Literacy Foundations for English Learners: A Comprehensive Guide to Evidence-Based Instruction. Brookes Publishing.

Ehri, L. C. (2005). “Learning to Read Words: Theory, findings, and issues.” Scientific Studies of Reading.

Goldenberg, C. (2008). “Teaching English Language Learners: What the research does—and does not—say.” American Educator.

Goldenberg, C., and Coleman, R. (2010). Promoting Academic Achievement among English Learners: A Guide to the Research. Corwin.

Hammond, Z. (2015). Culturally Responsive Teaching and the Brain: Promoting Authentic Engagement and Rigor among Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students. Corwin.

Kuhl, P. K. (2011). “Early Language Learning and the Social Brain.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(Supplement 3), 13516–13521.

Long, M. H. (1996). “The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition.” Handbook of Second Language Acquisition.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2020). “Adult Literacy in the United States.” US Department of Education.

Rogers, J., and Gutiérrez, M. (2023). “Explicit Instruction and the Science of Reading for Multilingual Learners.” International Journal of Multilingual Education.

Scarborough, H. S. (2001). “Connecting Early Language and Literacy to Later Reading (Dis)Abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice.” Handbook of Early Literacy Research, Vol. 1.

Swain, M., and Lapkin, S. (1995). “Problems in Output and the Cognitive Processes They Generate: A step towards second language learning.” Applied Linguistics.

Maya Valencia Goodall is co-creator OL&LA chief strategy officer | CORE

Indiana Saves Seal of Biliteracy Program

Under pressure from language learning advocates, Rep. Robert Behning, the Chairman of Indiana’s House Education Committee, has introduced an amendment to his own bill to remove the language that would have eliminated the state’s eight year-old Certificate of Multilingual Proficiency (CoMP) program. This amendment was later passed by Indiana’s House of Representatives. the bill’s lead author and the Committee’s chair. If CoMP had been eliminated, Indiana would have become the only state without a Seal of Biliteracy program.

In January, Behning introduced House Bill 1002 as an attempt to remove outdated educational regulations that supported optional educational programs. The original version of HB 1002 would have eliminated the bipartisan and thriving CoMP program on the grounds that it was not a state required program.

When the bill was introduced, Indiana Foreign Language Teachers Association (IFLTA) and the Joint National Committee for Languages/ National Council for Languages and International Studies (JNCL-NCLIS) sent letters to the House Education Committee objecting to H.B. 1002’s proposal to eliminate CoMP. They also launched a grassroots campaign to alert language educators and encourage them to email state Education Committee members. 

JNCL-NCLIS’s January 14th letter stated that CoMP’s “certificate is of real value as it enables colleges and universities, as well as employers, to see that students with certificates have acquired an important, in-demand and marketable skill.” IFLTA’s letter declared: “Currently all 50 States and Washington, D.C. have a state Seal of Biliteracy which allows students to prove their proficiency level in both English and another language.  If we repeal [CoMP] now, we will be taking a giant step backwards in comparison to the states around us.”

“This powerful advocacy effort in Indiana demonstrates how state and national language education advocates can work together and positively impact state legislation,” said JNCL-NCLIS executive director Amanda Seewald. “Our seamless collaboration with IFLTA combined with Megan Worcester’s tireless efforts, even while teaching a full course-load, prevented CoMP’s elimination and ensured that Seal of Biliteracy programs will continue to operate in all 50 states.”

Megan Worcester, president of the Indiana Foreign Language Teachers Association shared, “Major strides have been made in the past few years to encourage more participation in the CoMP, which has doubled in participants since its inception.  We are currently working with leaders across multiple fields to continue to prove its value to lawmakers and the general public as we seek its inclusion in the new High School Redesign.  Thanks to JNCL-NCLIS, INTESOL, Central States Conference, and our hundreds of advocates across the state for helping us ensure that this valuable certificate can continue to let students show that multilingualism is truly an asset.”  

JNCL-NCLIS and IFLTA will continue to collaborate to protect Indiana’s dual language immersion grants which also face potential cuts.

Grammar Aids Early Vocab Building

A new study carried out at the MIT Language Acquisition Lab offers a novel insight into the early acquisition of vocabulary—sentences contain subtle hints in their grammar that tell young children about the meaning of new words. The finding, based on experiments with two-year-olds, suggests that even very young kids are capable of absorbing grammatical cues from language and leveraging that information to acquire new words.

Even by age one, many infants seem to think that if they hear a new word, it means something different from the words they already know. But why they think so has remained subject to inquiry among scholars for the last 40 years.
“Even at a surprisingly young age, kids have sophisticated knowledge of the grammar of sentences and can use that to learn the meanings of new words,” says Athulya Aravind, an associate professor of linguistics at MIT.

The new insight stands in contrast to a prior explanation for how children build vocabulary: that they rely on the concept of “mutual exclusivity,” meaning they treat each new word as corresponding to a new object or category. Instead, the new research shows how extensively children respond directly to grammatical information when interpreting words.

“For us it’s very exciting because it’s a very simple idea that explains so much about how children understand language,” says Gabor Brody, a postdoc at Brown University, who is the first author of the paper. The paper is titled, “Why Do Children Think Words Are Mutually Exclusive?” It is published in advance online form in Psychological Science. The authors are Brody; Roman Feiman, the Thomas J. and Alice M. Tisch Assistant Professor of cognitive and psychological sciences and linguistics at Brown; and Aravind, the Alfred Henry and Jean Morrison Hayes Career Development Associate Professor in MIT’s Department of Linguistics and Philosophy.

Focusing on Focus
Many scholars have thought that young children, when learning new words, have an innate bias toward mutual exclusivity, which could explain how children learn some of their new words. However, the concept of mutual exclusivity has never been airtight: Words like bat refer to multiple kinds of objects, while any object can be described using countlessly many words. For instance, a rabbit can be called not only a rabbit or a bunny but also an animal or a beauty, and in some contexts even a delicacy. Despite this lack of perfect one-to-one mapping between words and objects, mutual exclusivity has still been posited as a strong tendency in children’s word learning.
What Aravind, Brody, and Feiman propose is that children have no such tendency and instead rely on so-called focus signals to decide what a new word means. Linguists use the term focus to refer to the way we emphasize or stress certain words to signal some kind of contrast. Depending on what is focused, the same sentence can have different implications. “Carlos gave Lewis a Ferrari” implies contrast with other possible cars—he could have given Lewis a Mercedes. But “Carlos gave Lewis a Ferrari” implies contrast with other people—he could have given Alexandra a Ferrari.

Aravind explained: “The particular claim we’re making is that there is no inherent bias in children toward mutual exclusivity. The only reason we make the corresponding inference is because focus tells you that the word means something different from another word. When focus goes away, children don’t draw those exclusivity inferences anymore.”

“Earlier explanations of mutual exclusivity introduced a whole new problem,” Feiman says. “If kids assume words are mutually exclusive, how do they learn words that are not? After all, you can call the same animal either a rabbit or a bunny, and kids have to learn both of those at some point. Our finding explains why this isn’t actually a problem. Kids won’t think the new word is mutually exclusive with the old word by default, unless adults tell them that it is—all adults have to do if the new word is not mutually exclusive is just say it without focusing it, and they’ll naturally do that if they’re thinking about it as compatible.”

Learning Language from Language
The experiment, the researchers note, is the result of interdisciplinary research bridging psychology and linguistics—in this case, mobilizing the linguistics concept of focus to address an issue of interest in both fields.

“We are hopeful this will be a paper that shows that small, simple theories have a place in psychology,” Brody says. “It is a very small theory, not a huge model of the mind, but it completely flips the switch on some phenomena we thought we understood.”
If the new hypothesis is correct, the researchers may have developed a more robust explanation about how children correctly apply new words.

“An influential idea in language development is that children can use their existing knowledge of language to learn more language,” Aravind says. “We’re in a sense building on that idea, and saying that even in the simplest cases, aspects of language that children already know, in this case an understanding of focus, help them grasp the meanings of unknown words.”

Virtual Visit with Vista

Vista Higher Learning’s Patricia Acosta welcomes us to their World Languages Expo booth @ACTFL2025

Tailor Learning to Students’ Interests

A recent study from the McGovern Institute for Brain Research, which appears in Imaging Neuroscience, shows how interests can modulate language processing in children’s brains and paves the way for personalized brain research.

“Traditional studies give subjects identical stimuli to avoid confounding the results,” says of MIT professor and McGovern Institute investigator John Gabrieli, who is the Grover Hermann Professor of Health Sciences and Technology and a professor of brain and cognitive sciences at MIT. “However, our research tailored stimuli to each child’s interest, eliciting stronger—and more consistent—activity patterns in the brain’s language regions across individuals.” 

This work unveils a new paradigm that challenges current methods and shows how personalization can be a powerful strategy in neuroscience. The paper’s co-first authors are Halie Olson, a postdoc at the McGovern Institute, and Kristina Johnson, PhD ‘21, an assistant professor at Northeastern University and former doctoral student at the MIT Media Lab. “Our research integrates participants’ lived experiences into the study design,” says Johnson. “This approach not only enhances the validity of our findings but also captures the diversity of individual perspectives, often overlooked in traditional research.”

Taking Interest into Account

When it comes to language, our interests are like operators behind the switchboard. They guide what we talk about and whom we talk to. Research suggests that interests are also potent motivators and can help improve language skills. For instance, children score higher on reading tests when the material covers topics that are interesting to them. But neuroscience has shied away from using personal interests to study the brain, especially in the realm of language. This is mainly because interests, which vary between people, could throw a wrench into experimental control—a core principle that drives scientists to limit factors that can muddle the results.

Senior author Anila D’Mello, a recent McGovern postdoc, Gabrieli, Olson, and Johnson ventured into this unexplored territory. The team wondered if tailoring language stimuli to children’s interests might lead to higher responses in language regions of the brain.

“Our study is unique in its approach to control the kind of brain activity our experiments yield, rather than control the stimuli we give subjects,” says D’Mello. “This stands in stark contrast to most neuroimaging studies that control the stimuli but might introduce differences in each subject’s level of interest in the material.”

In their study, the authors recruited a cohort of 20 children to investigate how personal interests affected the way the brain processes language. Caregivers described their children’s interests to the researchers, spanning baseball, train lines, Minecraft, and musicals. During the study, children listened to audio stories tuned to their unique interests. They were also presented with audio stories about nature (this was not an interest among the children) for comparison. To capture brain activity patterns, the team used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), which measures changes in blood flow caused by underlying neural activity.

New Insights into the Brain

“We found that, when children listened to stories about topics they were really interested in, they showed stronger neural responses in language areas than when they listened to generic stories that weren’t tailored to their interests,” says Olson. “Not only does this tell us how interests affect the brain, but it also shows that personalizing our experimental stimuli can have a profound impact on neuroimaging results.”

The researchers noticed a particularly striking result. “Even though the children listened to completely different stories, their brain activation patterns were more overlapping with their peers when they listened to idiosyncratic stories compared to when they listened to the same generic stories about nature,” says D’Mello. This, she notes, points to how interests can boost both the magnitude and consistency of signals in language regions across subjects without changing how these areas communicate with each other.

Gabrieli noted another finding: “In addition to the stronger engagement of language regions for content of interest, there was also stronger activation in brain regions associated with reward and also with self-reflection.” Personal interests are individually relevant and can be rewarding, potentially driving higher activation in these regions during personalized stories.

These personalized paradigms might be particularly well suited to studies of the brain in unique or neurodivergent populations. Indeed, the team is already applying these methods to study language in the brains of autistic children.

This study breaks new ground in neuroscience and serves as a prototype for future work that personalizes research to unearth further knowledge of the brain. In doing so, scientists can compile a more complete understanding of the type of information that is processed by specific brain circuits and more fully grasp complex functions such as language.

Visions for 2025: Getting Future Ready

Career exploration and exposure to real-world experiences are essential in today’s education for students in K–12 as they consider postsecondary and career opportunities after high school graduation. UnidosUS and the National Urban League co-authored a white paper in 2024, “A Community-Based Approach to Career Pathways Navigation,” to elevate the promise of career pathways as a transformative force for learners to navigate a future demanding a skilled and adaptable workforce.1 Yet our research found that Black, Latino, and other student populations such as English learners (ELs) have limited access to high-quality career pathways that can help them to develop marketable skills and acquire the credentials necessary to be competitive in our nation’s economy.

The current approach to administering federally funded career pathways is often fragmented, resulting in inconsistent levels of quality, recruitment and retention strategies, transition procedures, and navigation support systems for learners. However, this does not have to remain the status quo. By equipping students such as English learners with the necessary skills and guidance, career pathways can offer a critical path to economic mobility, breaking the cycle of intergenerational poverty and creating a more level playing field for communities from all backgrounds to succeed.

A recently published resource from the US Department of Education’s Office of English Language Acquisition advances the notion that language development is a core aspect of career-connected learning. OELA’s “English Learner Playbook: Unlocking Career Success for Special Populations” cites that ELs are underrepresented in career technical education (CTE) programs—nationally, of the one million English learners (ELs) in grades 9–12, only 8% were CTE participants in school year 2021–22.2 Promoting career-connected learning for ELs not only allows them to gain real-world career experience but can also contribute to meeting our country’s workforce needs.

It is in the best interest of the nation’s economic success to build on the concept of multilingualism as an asset not only in the classroom but in the job market. As we prepare to usher in a change in government under the Trump administration and a new Congress, policy opportunities to strengthen navigation support for all learners could emerge through reauthorization of Perkins and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). Robust federal investment can also help. Specifically, the president-elect’s FY26 budget request for the US Department of Education should support expansion of CTE programs at the secondary or high school level that give students access and navigation support to industry-recognized credentials or certification. The president-elect’s FY26 budget request should also leverage Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to provide supplemental support for ELs’ access to high-quality CTE and career-connected learning such as dual enrollment, which allows high school students to earn college credits.

To ensure the US’ competitive edge in a global economy, smart investments in access and navigation supports for all students, including ELs, are needed to develop the workforce that our employers need and our economy demands.

References

https://unidosus.org/publications/a-community-based-approach-to-career-pathways-navigation

https://s3.amazonaws.com/PCRN/unlockingcareersuccess/Unlocking_Career_Success_Special_Population_English_Learners_2024-08-30.pdf

Amalia Chamorro is education policy director at UnidosUS (www.unidosus.org).

Colorado Assesses Multilingual Learners

Early this month, the Colorado Department of Education is presenting a “state of the state on multilingual learners” (MLLs)—a sign of more focus on their needs by the state.In the 2023–24 school year, Colorado identified 114,482 MLLs, up from 109,780 in 2022–23 but lower than the 122,976 in 2019–20—that equates to about 13% of all Colorado students learning English as a new language.

That figure is similar to the last few years, but a larger percentage of these students are considered not English proficient—at the lowest level of fluency. In 2023–24, there were 38,036 students identified as not English proficient, up from 29,147 in 2019.The update confirmed previous reports showing that MLLs have struggled to recover academically from pandemic disruptions compared to other students.It also showed that statewide, fewer students are reaching English-proficiency test levels that allow them to be reassessed for federally required support services.

However, it also showed that students who do reach English proficiency and exit support services typically score similarly to native English speakers.Colorado education commissioner Susana Córdova said one of the biggest challenges is in finding enough highly qualified staff members who are trained or bilingual. State Board members suggested that one of the ways to look at the effectiveness of school programs to educate English learners would be to look at how students move through language proficiency levels. The department is also attempting to highlight more good work schools are doing with English learners.

AI Biased by User Language


A new study, “How User Language Affects Conflict Fatality Estimates in ChatGPT,” published in Journal of Peace, suggests that the language used to ask questions of large language models (LLMs) can significantly affect the information provided by them, potentially deepening biases.

Conducted by researchers from the University of Zurich and the University of Konstanz, the study highlights how ChatGPT generates differing responses when asked about armed conflicts depending on the language of the query.

Researchers Christoph Steinert from the University of Zurich and Daniel Kazenwadel from the University of Konstanz tested the theory by asking ChatGPT questions in different languages about conflicts.

In the study, they addressed the issue in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian and Turkish–Kurdish conflicts. Using GPT-3.5, they employed an automated query procedure to inquire about casualties in specific airstrikes, in both Hebrew and Arabic for the former conflict and Turkish and Kurdish for the latter. Their analysis revealed that GPT-3.5 provides 34 ± 11% lower fatality estimates when queried in the language of the attacker than in the language of the targeted group. Evasive answers denying the existence of such attacks further increased the discrepancy. A simplified analysis on the current GPT-4 model showed the same trends.

To explain the origin of the bias, they conducted a systematic media content analysis of Arabic news sources. The media analysis suggests that the LLM fails to link specific attacks to the corresponding fatality numbers reported in the Arabic news. Due to its reliance on co-occurring words, the LLM may provide death tolls from different attacks with greater news impact or cumulative death counts that are prevalent in the training data. Given that LLMs may shape information dissemination in the future, the language bias identified in the study has the potential to amplify existing biases along linguistic dyads and contribute to information bubbles.

Using automated queries, the researchers posed identical questions in Hebrew and Arabic, focusing on fatality numbers in airstrikes, such as the Israeli attack on the Nuseirat refugee camp in 2014.

“We found that ChatGPT systematically provided higher fatality numbers when asked in Arabic compared to questions in Hebrew. On average, fatality estimates were 34% higher,” Steinert explained.

In Arabic, ChatGPT mentioned civilian casualties twice as often and children six times more often than in Hebrew. Similar patterns emerged in questions about Turkish airstrikes, where answers varied between Turkish and Kurdish. What’s more, the researchers highlighted that these disparities go beyond mere factual errors.

“Our results also show that ChatGPT is more likely to deny the existence of such airstrikes in the language of the attacker,” Steinert added. This means users speaking the attacker’s language might receive downplayed or entirely different information about the same events.

Steinert explained his concern: “If people who speak different languages obtain different information through these technologies, it has a crucial influence on their perception of the world.”

He added that this bias could deepen divides, especially in the Middle East, where the narratives around armed conflicts already vary widely based on perspective. For instance, Israeli users may perceive Gaza airstrikes as less deadly than do Arabic-speaking users exposed to ChatGPT’s higher fatality estimates.

Compounding the problem, language-based biases in AI responses are harder to spot for the average user than in traditional media.

“There is a risk that the increasing implementation of large language models in search engines reinforces different perceptions, biases, and information bubbles along linguistic divides,” Steinert warned.

The study highlights how language-driven biases in AI systems can deepen divides, shaping conflicting narratives around sensitive topics like war.

The scientists worry that this could unintentionally escalate conflicts by shaping opposing views of the same events. As LLMs play an ever-growing role in shaping public discourse, scientists believe that addressing these biases will be paramount. If left unchecked, the study suggests, the technologies designed to inform and connect people could actually amplify division and misunderstanding, especially in the context of armed conflicts.

Visions for 2025: Multilingual Experiences Matter


Walk into any classroom in the US, you’ll likely encounter students who speak a language other than English at home, who might have learned to read in another language before coming to school, or who are learning to read in more than one language in their classroom. Regardless of the language of the teacher, multilingual learners, including 10% students who are categorized as English Learners (Center for Educational Statistics, 2024) come to school every day and bring with them their valuable multilingual experiences and assets. In 2020, the NEA predicted that by 2025, one in four students in American classrooms will be an English Learner. (NEA, July 2020)

Educators are currently being asked to change the way we teach English literacy as State and local authorities follow one after the other to overhaul English Reading Instruction according to the Science of Reading (SoR). Strangely absent in the conversation about the best ways to teach foundational English reading skills is the discussion about what pedagogical approach might be best for multilingual learners.  Although a robust body of research in bilingual development and biliteracy exists in the reading research corpus, it is largely tokenized, dismissed or ignored by SoR advocates (Rios, C. and Castillon, C. 2018; Escamilla, K. ; Olson, L. & Slavick, J. 2022; Mora, J.; Flores, B. and Diaz, E. 2024). As the new President of the Center of Applied Linguistics, I bring a long career of curating and translating research information into effective classroom support for bilingual teachers and students. For me, several questions remain unanswered by the advocates of Science of Reading: How is learning to read the same or different for multilingual learners? What are the ways in which English foundational reading skills can be best taught to students who come with multilingual skills?  What is the role of the multilingual learners’ bilingual development in boosting English foundational literacy skills? To what extent do currently established school policies and practices in reading instruction help or delay multilingual learners’ literacy development? What is the evidence that SoR aligned approaches work effectively with multilingual learners?

In fact, evidence seems to point to the contrary. As SoR policies and practices gain popularity, bilingual researchers and advocates of ELs began to raise concerns that many of the one-size -fit all approaches to teaching reading imposed by State and schools adopting Science of Reading policies did not work well for multilingual learners. The National Committee on Effective Literacy released reports and resources sounding alarms to the harm that it may cause to multilingual learners.

Based on a recent study conducted with teachers of multilingual learners across the US implementing SoR approaches, NCEL researchers reported that while teachers agree on the importance of developing phonemic awareness and phonics as a part of foundational reading skills in English, they found many other required practices from SoR to be inadequate and/or harmful to their multilingual learners reading development (Strong, K.; Escamilla, K.; Hernandez, M. and Coleman-Spiegel, J.,  2024). They noted that the experiences of multilingual students as literacy learners are largely ignored and need to be re-centered in the quest for effective reading instruction for all students.

Multilingual learners’ experiences is undoubtedly the missing piece to help solve the current pedagogical puzzle.  In order to claim that SoR benefits all students, we must a) take into account the experiences of multilingual individuals who teach and learn in the multilingual classroom as valid and valuable information, b) incorporate research on bilingual, biliteracy development into the Science of Reading research central corpus and c) center multilingual learners experiences to inform effective reading policies and practices. To do otherwise is to fail in our responsibilities to educate these students.

References

Escamilla, K.; Olsen, L. and Slavick, J. (2022). Toward Comprehensive Effective Policy and Instruction for English Learner/Emergent Bilingual Students. (National Committee for Effective Literacy www.multiliteracy.org)

Mora, J.; Flores, B. and Diaz, E. ( 2024) , Response to “English Learners and Science of Reading”. Kaplan: the Grade.

National Center for Education Statistics (2024) The Condition of Education: English Learners in Public Schools. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgf/english-learners#suggested-citation (Washington DC: Center for Educational Statistics)

National Educational Association (2020). English Language Learners Toolkit.

Strong, K.; Escamilla, K.; Hernandez, M. , and Spiegel- Coleman (2024).  Voices from the field: the impact of Science of Reading implementation on bilingual/English Learners programs and teachers. Plenary Presentation (Santa Fe, NM: La Cosecha Conference, November 2024)

Ríos, Cristina and Catalina Castillón. (2018). “Bilingual Literacy Development: Trends and Critical Issues,” International Research and Review: Journal of Phi Beta Delta 7, no. 2: 85–96.

Diep Nguyen, Ph.D., serves as president and CEO of the Center for Applied Linguistics.

Addressing the US Shortage of Bilingual School Psychologists

Picture a school where nearly half the students speak a language other than English at home. Now imagine there’s only one psychologist available—and they only speak English. This is the reality for many US schools today. The national ratio stands at one school psychologist per 1,119 students, more than double the National Association of School Psychologists’ (NASP) recommended 1:500 ratio.1 Even more troubling, 92% of these professionals are fluent only in English. As multilingual learners (MLLs) rapidly become the fastest-growing student population in the US—projected to comprise one in four students in classrooms by next year—the need for more bilingual school psychologists is glaring. This shortage in culturally and linguistically diverse services creates a widening gap, leaving many MLLs without the academic and emotional support they need to succeed. Their academic success depends not only on understanding course materials but also on receiving psychological and cultural support that resonates with their backgrounds and unique needs.

The Role and Impact of Bilingual School Psychologists
Research consistently reveals what many of us know instinctively: mental health support and counseling are most effective when they connect with the individual— when they can acknowledge and resonate with a student’s background. In many cultures, mental health issues are often misunderstood, leading to negative attitudes, fear, and discrimination. This stigma can make it even more challenging for students to share their concerns openly or seek help, especially if they feel their cultural or ethnic backgrounds can lead to judgment or unfair treatment. To understand the significance and impact of bilingual professionals, it’s important to consider how their expertise extends beyond mere language proficiency.

• Cultural competency: Multilingual school psychologists bring a nuanced understanding of how cultural values, traditions, and communication styles shape a student’s perception of mental health and their willingness to seek help. This cultural competency allows them to develop and implement interventions that are not only linguistically appropriate but also resonate with the student’s lived experiences.

• Accurate assessments: The integrity of psychological assessments is compromised when cultural and linguistic factors are not considered. Bilingual psychologists mitigate this risk by conducting assessments that account for these variables to ensure that evaluations are both accurate and equitable. This can lead to more informed decisions regarding student support and placement.

• Facilitating communication: Effective communication is the foundation of a successful educational experience, especially in diverse school settings. Bilingual school psychologists are the connectors who make sure that everyone—students, parents, teachers, administrators—is on the same page. By speaking the same language as students and their families, they help build strong, trusting relationships that contribute to the students’ well-being and academic success.

Top Factors Contributing to the Workforce Shortage
The shortage of bilingual or multilingual school psychologists is a longstanding issue, exacerbated by several key factors:

• Limited diversity: The demographic makeup of school psychologists does not reflect the increasingly diverse student population. Currently, 76.4% of school psychologists are White, while Hispanic or Latino professionals make up 10.4%, Black or African American professionals represent 6.2%, and 3.4% are of unknown ethnicity.2 This lack of representation can hinder the development of culturally responsive services, as students may struggle to connect with professionals and practitioners who don’t share or understand their backgrounds

• Regional disparities: The shortage of school psychologists is more acute in regions such as the Northwest, Rocky Mountain, and Southern states, with rural areas experiencing the most severe shortages compared to their urban counterparts. This disparity means students in underserved districts—especially those with diverse populations—are less likely to receive the support they need.

• Ongoing high stress and burnout: The intense stress of school environments contributes to substantial burnout among school psychologists, with up to 90% reporting burnout at some level.3 Key factors include heavy workloads, inadequate support, challenging interactions with administrators, and insufficient resources. This persistent issue not only depletes the current workforce but also discourages new professionals from entering the field.

• Worsened retention issues: Retention of school psychologists is a growing concern, exacerbated by poor working conditions, lack of professional development, and insufficient peer mentoring. Addressing these issues is crucial to maintaining a stable and effective workforce capable of supporting all students.

Addressing the Urgent Needs of a Growing, Vulnerable Student Population
The path to becoming a school psychologist is lengthy, often taking six years or more to complete, while producing only a small number of graduates each year. To effectively recruit and retain bilingual school psychologists, schools and districts must explore proactive approaches that go beyond conventional hiring methods.

1. Enhance training programs and professional development.
Investing in the training of current school professionals, including bilingual professionals, can be essential to effectively supporting MLLs. Ongoing professional development in cultural competence and linguistic skills not only helps retain school psychologists but also ensures they’re equipped to handle language barriers with students who speak less common languages. Offering dual language certification or specialized training in culturally responsive practices can impact their ability to better connect with and support students with diverse backgrounds. School psychologists can also explore credit-bearing opportunities through organizations like their state’s school psychology association, NASP, or universities with strong TESOL programs to continue honing their skills.

2. Strengthen early outreach and recruitment initiatives.
School psychology often suffers from a lack of visibility. Many are unaware that it is a career option, which hinders interest in the profession. Building and supporting a diverse future workforce starts with engaging multilingual students early in their educational journeys. Schools should implement outreach programs starting as early as high school to inspire interest in school psychology as a career path, especially among students who are passionate about serving diverse communities. Providing access to mentoring opportunities and available scholarships can also help attract and support a steady pipeline of future professionals.

3. Leverage external resources and expertise to fill roles proactively.
School districts are often confined to professionals within their regions, limiting their access to a wider, more diverse talent pool. This has prompted many districts to turn to external resources, such as staffing firms and educational placement services, to ensure service continuity and compliance and alleviate strain on existing staff. External resources often provide a broader talent pool that enables districts to swiftly deploy professionals to cover unexpected vacancies and planned absences, like parental leave. These partners typically offer flexible arrangements, including short-term contracts that serve as “working interviews” leading to longer-term assignments tailored to the school or district’s specific needs.

4. Support systematic incentives.
Effective policy advocacy should focus on creating systemic incentives for both recruitment and retention. This could include advocating for state-level funding that supports bilingual certification for school psychologists, making it more accessible to current professionals who desire to expand their skill sets. Another approach could be to push for policies that integrate mental health services into the curriculum, with a focus on cultural competency to ensure that future professionals are well prepared to support diverse student populations. Additionally, policy changes that reduce the administrative burdens on school psychologists—such as simplifying reporting requirements and streamlining referral processes— can help reduce burnout and improve job satisfaction, allowing them to focus more on direct student support.

Ensuring that every child, regardless of their background, feels safe and supported when seeking help is not just a goal—it’s a necessity. We can build a more inclusive and sustainable future for students, their families, and the schools and professionals who serve them by implementing proactive and holistic strategies today. Every action we take now is a step toward a future where every student can thrive without fear or barriers.

Resources
1. www.nasponline.org/about-school-psychology/state-shortages-data-dashboard
2. www.zippia.com/school-psychologist-jobs/demographics
3. www.apa.org/monitor/2024/01/trends-more-school-psychologists-needed

Lesley Slaughter, SVP of Soliant (www.soliant.com), has nearly two decades of experience connecting dedicated education and healthcare professionals with school districts and hospitals nationwide. Through fostering meaningful relationships across diverse specialties, Lesley and her team at Soliant are dedicated to addressing the expanding demand for services by ensuring qualified professionals are positioned to positively impact the lives of students and patients daily.

1...345...340Page 4 of 340

Subscribe for exclusive content

Language Magazine is a monthly print and online publication that provides cutting-edge information for language learners, educators, and professionals around the world.

Subscribe

LanguageMagazine 2023