Why do so many ML/EL advocates reject reading research?

Reading research can actually help accomplish bilingual education goals.

I want to get back to some great ideas resulting from the zoom chat earlier this week, but first I want to put a marker down on an issue I’ve been asked about recently and has been on my mind for a while: Why do so many Multilingual Learner (ML, aka EL) advocates reject reading research?

Maybe “reject” is not quite right. Maybe it’s “feel threatened by.” Or “think it harms ML/EL students.” Or something else I’m not getting.

Whatever we call it, I don’t get it because I’m pretty sure that what we know from reading research could help accomplish the goal of biliteracy, which is obviously an important aspect of bilingualism (or multilingualism more generally), which is obviously an important goal of ML/EL advocates (myself included, btw). So why the antipathy from so many?

I recently had a brief email exchange with the CEO of the California Association for Bilingual Education (CABE). He had called me out in one of CABE’s “anti-Science of Reading” webinars, saying that since I was not involved in producing California’s English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework, people shouldn’t pay attention to me. My dad would probably have called that “una falta de respeto,” but I don’t take things personally.

Besides, the CEO said some things during the webinar that I agreed with. So I emailed him, suggesting that we have a chat to see whether we couldn’t build on some common ground and move toward mutually desirable goals, e.g., promoting bilingual education and putting literacy instruction—regardless of the language—on a more solid research-based footing.

Long and short of it, he said he was too busy, but maybe he’d have time in a few months.

I really do think that reading research—the whole of it, not just cherry-pickings here and there—can help accomplish many educational goals the CEO and I share, including bilingualism and biliteracy for all, not just MLs/ELs. I want to explain why I think this in my next post.

For now, I just want to put this out there and elicit your thoughts: Why do so many ML/EL advocates reject reading research?

(Notice I’m avoiding “science of reading” because it’s one of those DEADLY TERMS—the uber killer that immediately annihilates thought and shuts down discussion. Case in point: The CABE CEO explicitly told me he had no interest in discussing “the science of reading.” Fine by me, I replied. Let’s banish those words from our conversation. I’m still waiting to hear back from him.)

So please send in your thoughts. Why the rejection (if that’s the right word) of reading research by ML/EL advocates and, perhaps more important, what can be done about it?

Or maybe someone thinks the rejection is legitimate because the goals of ML/EL advocates, and/or ML/EL research, are fundamentally at odds with findings from reading research. If so, I’d be especially interested in hearing more about this.

In any case, please, please, please…..