I've appreciated your posts and the thoughtful, careful language you use to engage in conversation. Some of what I hear from other advocates for multilingual education is a general frustration around not being heard and often feeling misunderstood. Even when reading research advocates agree that there are nuances around literacy instruction and English language development for ML/ELs, those nuances seldom make the mainstream conversation, training materials, curricula, etc.
Thanks Andrea, you make a very reasonable point. All sides in these ongoing (whatever we call them) make ongoing contributions to the current state we find ourselves in. A prime example is the reading research folks (of the SOR--shudder--persuasion) overreaching to make unsustainable claims sometimes, eg, that we know how to get 95% of kids on grade level in reading *if only* we followed the SOR; or wanting (and succeeding in some cases) to outlaw 3-cueing; etc. Someone could do a whole posting of mis-steps, poor communications, including--especially?--poor listening and not even hearing. So if in fact we want to end these fruitless, needless, and harmful controversies, we all need to think about how we communicate, both the incoming (listening/reading) parts and the outgoing (speaking/writing).
Having said that I personally have found the lack of uptake from my ML/EL colleagues extremely troubling, my recent truncated email interaction with the CABE CEO only the most recent example. Another is a Friday zoom meeting hosted by Kari Kurto of The Reading League (co-hosted by Jana Echevarria and me) that we set up to engage TRL/Reading research folks and ML/EL folks. These monthly meetings were the result of a suggestion made by one of our ML/EL colleagues who saw the value in ongoing conversations around research and practice for ML/ELs. Sadly (and I do mean sadly), there has been very poor turnout among ML/EL colleagues. I honestly don't know why. I can give other examples that I personally have experienced, but I'm not looking to blame or point the finger.
You get the point. It's very hard to have a productive conversation--much less attend to the nuances you mention--when there are too few willing to engage over a sustained period. We need a commitment to create a more productive and healthy arena to build a more solid foundation for literacy education.
Harriet, during my almost 30 years working in Title One building as a teacher and staff developer, I found that good things happen when teachers are allowed some freedom and options (WITHIN THE DISTRICTS PROGRAM). Since the First Grade Studies- there is strong evidence that teachers make more difference than programs. The NAEP scores have been fairly flat for a long time, including the era before Balanced Literacy and during the BL era. That said- how can it be that BL created the problems? Hmmm. I'll have lots more to say in a couple of weeks, and thanks to both you and Claude for taking the notion of finding Common Ground seriously. I am primarily a teacher/staff developer, not a researcher, but my dissertation which was done during the whole language era found that there was much more common ground than most folks realized. We'll be talking about this again soon.
My feeling, and it’s just a hunch, is that those who resist are not ill-intended. I think it comes out of wanting to avoid cookie-cutter solutions. What works in one language may not be the best approach in another. Similarity (or lack therof) between languages and typology needs to be considered before imposing an approach that may be useful in L1 across all other languages. There is a lot of cross-language transfer between similar languages so we would be wise to maximise learning opportunities that are relevant in both languages. But when programs are ‘translated’ and not adapted, or when the adaptation fails to consider language opacity or transparency, it may very well feel like assimilation. I suspect that’s why they resist. But I do my best to help them understand that when you understand how it all comes together and how one’s knowledge in L1 can serve as a springboard to learning L2, teaching MLs to read and spell while searching for cues across all their languages (when relevant) can be a powerfully liberating tool for all.
Michele, all of your points are reasonable and well-taken. But here are the facts as I understand them, at least based on the best research findings I have access to:
1. There are many commonalities in what needs to happen in order for an individual to learn to read, regardless of the language they speak. I can provide references and more details if you like, but the fundamental idea is that to learn to read (and write) you need to connect the spoken language with how it's represented in print. Fundamentally this involves "binding" the sounds of the language to the writing system that represents the language visually. Then that sound-symbol binding must get bound to how the language conveys meaning. If you haven't already, I'd suggest you read earlier posts on this Substack describing how oral and written language are different and how they must connect (in the brain.. where else?) to enable literacy. If you can't locate the posts, just lmk and I'll send the links.
2. At the same time, there are differences in how reading and writing need to be taught, depending on the writing system, the orthography, and other features of the written language. As you say, "What works in one language may not be the best approach in another." There are differences between writing systems, eg alphabetic, logographic, morpho-syntactic, and differences within those, eg transparent alphabetic orthographies such as Spanish and Finnish and opaque alphabetic orthographies such as English and French. But this does not mean every language needs to be taught completely differently. The fundamental idea of "binding" sounds to symbols to meaning is universal, so far as I know.
3. I agree with what you say about the dangers of translating rather than adapting. Adapting would necessarily take into account point #2. There are other considerations as well, eg, cultural factors, false cognates, and whether literal translations are idiomatic. Would you agree?
4. I also agree that L1 can serve as a resource for learning L2. This is true for oral language (speaking and listening) and for written language (reading and writing). Again, pls see my previous posts about the differences between oral and written language. It is generally acknowledged that if you're literate in one language (typical your first one) becoming literate in a second language is much easier than learning to become literate in a second language as you're learning to speak and understand it. But even here, point #1 is still valid: There is a lot of commonality between learning to read (and write) in a language you already know and one you are simultaneously learning. The main difference is that if you are learning to read in a language you are simultaneously learning, you need to learn the writing system/orthography (which everyone learning to read needs to learn) *AND SIMULTANEOUSLY* you need to learn/be taught the oral language--its sounds and how it conveys meaning. This is it a tougher lift for the learner and the teacher. But the same thing needs to happen--binding the language's sounds (its phonology) to the symbols representing those sounds (in alphabetic writing systems, that's its orthography), the binding those connections to the language's meaning system (semantics). This commonality is absolutely fundamental but generally not appreciated or even acknowledged by EL/ML advocates with whom I interact. I believe this is a serious mistake.
In my opinion, what is truly liberating for students is for us to use the best knowledge we have--what's universal and what's particular to different situations--to help all students, regardless of language and whether it's their first, second, or nth language, achieve the very highest level of literacy possible. As Frederick Douglas said, aspirationally, “Once you learn to read, you will be forever free.”
I think sometimes our conversations become binary... Like 3-cueing is bad, looking at pictures to read words is bad. But there is an important place for meaning (and pictures as a tool for word definition) for multilingual learners. So we could become more inclusive by admitting nuance into the picture (e.g. defining predictive texts as harmful, reading pictures instead of words is not great, but using pictures as a vocabulary tool is very helpful to a lot of learners). This is similar to the battle for defining evidence based reading instruction to include knowledge building, not just foundational phonics...
Lindsay, absolutely! The strict binaries are KILLERS. The nuances simply elude us. Or we elude them. Cueing (a DEADLY WORD I previously wrote about) is a case in point. There's nothing wrong with those 3 or some other number--2 or 4--of cues (hints, sources of information, etc). But there is actually a research-based order in which cues should cue the beginning and early reader as to what the word is: First they gotta look at the letters in a word, associate them with their corresponding sounds (starting with words that are as easy as possible, with regular spellings, gradually moving to harder and less regular spelling patterns), THEN use context, including pictures, to confirm--or disconfirm--whether they've read the word correctly. Eventually and ideally the process becomes automatized and fluent so that context can more accurately predict what's coming. But in the final analysis, it's the letters in the word combined with the context that make the final determination as to what the word is, ie, whether /t/ /ē/ /m/ is noun naming a group of individuals working together or a verb meaning things that are swarming with other things.
I am a practicing ML educator- currently working in a K-5 public elementary school with about 50% of students learning English and in English at the same time. A challenge that I notice towards applying reading research is that educators in grades 3-5 are not used to integrating foundational reading skills instruction into their literacy and content area instruction because it has long been the territory of K-1, and they are not well-supported (with professional learning, resources, texts, etc) to implement effective reading instruction.
Literacy "interventions" for students not at "grade level" literacy skills tend to be triage approaches that vary widely across classrooms. Educators see the "gaps", they want to help, but they don't have what they need to be effective. At the same time, those of us who approach literacy instruction through an English Language Development lens also need to make sure that these students have access to robust grade level content learning opportunities that support oral language and content knowledge development (which we know they need for comprehension), and have to make decisions about how to spend limited direct instructional time to that end.
Thank you for opening this conversation. I hope it results in some "productive struggle" among the various stakeholders, whether they be CEOs, researchers, publishers, advocates, educators, etc.
We can't overemphasize what an important point this is. Thank you so much for making it. Although primarily working with first and second graders in reading intervention, over a four-year period I taught third grade once a week and prepared students for the their state exam where they read multiple articles on one topic and synthesized a response. And I knew that the students who would struggle the most were the ones I had in first and/or second grade. Here's how I explain it in From Play-doh to Plato: Allow all students to grapple with grade level text (https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/play-doh-plato-all-students-need-grapple-grade-level-text)
"And here’s an important point: There was nothing easy about this process for any of my students. Therefore, to give my below-level readers a fighting chance, I had to pull them separately in small groups to address the fact that they still struggled with decoding multisyllabic words. So I applied the same instructional techniques I had used with these struggling readers in my second-grade reading intervention program to help them read these grade-level articles. In addition, these students were given multiple opportunities to read and reread the text so that word recognition wasn’t a barrier to accessing the content, and their developing fluency fueled their comprehension. Once this barrier was crossed, they could tackle the text in the same way my other students tackled it."
Warning. This is just my own hypothesis. I would need to attend to CABE and related organization more carefully to better grasp the argument. But here is something I've been thinking about. I've only recently learned about how research is WEIRD from Dr. Julie Washington. She talked about how some 80% of research with humans is conducted with populations that are WEIRD: white, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic. It doesn't fit into the acronym but it got me wondering: what percent of reading research participants are monolingual? Maybe some folks are wary of the research because they don't believe there is sufficient research to represent the multilingual learners and they don't want this population to be painted over in broad strokes.
Assuming for a moment that there is a dearth of research regarding multilingual learners and learning to read, what do you do with a lack of information? Certainly you support efforts to research multilingual students. Don't you also try to garner something of value from the existing research, incomplete as it is? Waiting for better research isn't a viable option for kids who are learning to be literate right now.
My comment did not indicate the slightest disagreement with anything you have stated in this thread - I was merely providing insight on why some teachers resist implementing certain approaches. Often these teachers do follow science, and their administrators are pushing methods that are not conducive to student success.
1. I agree - differences and similarities must be taught. The brain works the same way, even in disordered language - the path is just more resistant and they require intervention. Reading intervention and instruction are one in the same. It's dosage that changes.
2. I was referring to those who teach graphemes that exist in 1 language (i.e. « ui » in English) as graphemes in another when in fact, they are 2 separate graphemes (« ui » in French is not one grapheme and it's much easier to teach as blending than as a separate grapheme - this overcomplicates matters for kids). I just published a guide on the phonetic and orthographic systems of French and English for this very reason. Blending and segmenting are transferable skills. One exemple : putting all one's stock in a program that requires that CVC word chains are mandatory will not be useful in French. Working on verb endings in English will also not be useful though it might be essential in French.
3. In many areas, English norms exist, but French norms do not... yet. Tests are translated or their adaptation misaligned, and norms are 'adjusted' (or not) for lack of a better term which will not yield meaningful results.
4. I'm a Speech-Language Pathologist, so of course I was referring to oral language serving as foundation for learning literacy, but once that is mastered (or well on its way to being mastered), literacy in one language can help master the code in another language, provided the typologies are similar (it is how I learned to speak Spanish as a teenager).
My post in no way negates that reading is essential, or that it happens differently in the brain from one language to another. It's the overarching monolingual perspective that is at times wrongly applied to other languages that causes some teachers' backs to go up. That is the only element that I was speaking to. I share your views and simultaneous instruction must happen as long as exposure to oral language is sufficient to support student learning.
Yes, I believe we do agree, and certainly with this statement: "It's the overarching monolingual perspective that is at times wrongly applied to other languages that causes some teachers' backs to go up." I also appreciate your French/English examples. I don't fully understand them bc I don't speak, read, write French. But they make perfect sense. Thank you again.
This is such an important topic. It’s been an existential question for me since I worked in a district where the Literacy and MLL departments were fiercely at odds. It’s the reason I left.
I do think that it takes “longer” to see “progress” when using research based practices with MLL, such as structured phonics and decodable readers, than, say- leveled books. For the same reasons that our native English speaking students appear to be reading well when reading a level A, B, C text, etc… so do our ML students. ML advocacy has long been centered around an asset based framework- so it makes sense that they’d lean toward an “approach” or tools that appear to show the most progress. This was an argument that I heard time and time again. They didn’t “do well” on assessments like DIBELS but they “did better” on assessments like a DRA or F&P. Add that up with ML teachers lacking a foundation built in reading research, much like other teachers out there, and you have a recipe for avoidance of the research.
Jen I agree so completely with you: "ML advocacy has long been centered around an asset based framework- so it makes sense that they’d lean toward an “approach” or tools that appear to show the most progress." Reminds me of an EL/ML advocate who, when I asked if they did any screening to chk for potential reading difficulties replied, "I see my children thriving. That's my data." It's startlingly short-term thinking and very hard to get around. It comes, obviously, from wanting to see your children thrive.... like NOW! And, as you say: "Add that up with ML teachers lacking a foundation built in reading research, much like other teachers out there, and you have a recipe for avoidance of the research." It's quite a dilemma.
i do believe that part of is not been able to tell if the learners problem is really as a result of language or learning challenge.
this past few years i have had a lot of ML learners in my classroom and i am a co teach class me been the sped . i often do small group and use my sped skill to teach all students. If they grasp what o am teaching with all the visuals and differentiation and by the end of the year there is growth then i can say it’s not language.
on the next end if for the year i am still doing letters and sounds then can we really think it’s language still or is it more.
Jan I sent a reply, or at least I thought I had. But maybe it didn't go through. Still trying to figure out how to navigate Substack. I'm afraid I'm missing a lot of comments that I don't want to ignore.
I'm not sure I fully understand what you are saying here. For example, these are hard to comprehend: " i am a co teach class me been the sped ." "on the next end if for the year i am still doing letters and sounds then can we really think it’s language still or is it more."
Hi Claude. The fact that I’m commenting on your post after reading and learning from you for years is almost too much.
In my work with teachers and school districts, there seems to be this belief that reading instruction for ELs can’t take place in conjunction with language instruction. It’s become this either/or mentality.
I say, why not both? In the case of working with students just learning English, of course we don’t want to forgo language instruction, but when we start with meaning, even in simple PA work, we can begin to lay the foundation that can lead to letter/sound work, blending to read words, phrasing for understanding grammar etc.
I’ve loved using Phonic Books Dandelion World decodable books with students. Once ML/EL teachers see how the routine we’ve created starts with oral language/meaning and then builds from there, many are more open to a structured literacy approach. I’d love to share the routine and get your feedback if you’d be interested. Sarah@craftingmindsgroup.com
Sarah, why not both INDEED! That is the question, or at least one of them, that has me so befuddled. I'd be happy to learn about your books and routine.
This has been the exact question that has been circling my head again and again right now. I agree with CABE's point that money in California can and should be put towards educating teachers around our ELD standards and the EL Roadmap. That was the largest issue I heard about in the rejection of AB 2222. However, in diving into the "research" published by CABE after some of your more recent posts, Dr. Goldenberg, I am shocked and appalled by what CABE and Californians Together are advocating in the name of "research." Their rebuttals to the work of Dr. Stanislaus Dehane and the "Sold a Story" podcast and other pieces do not rely on documented research, but rather are based on intuition and feeling.
There are nuances within structured literacy curricula that can be built upon more explicitly in working with multilingual learners (i.e. a greater focus on articulation, drawing phonemic comparisons to a student's first language, etc.), but the practices themselves are good for all learners and the rejection of all structured literacy work seems an antithesis to our end goals of reading and literacy progress for students. If the concern is in the nuances, then that is where the discussion should be held, rather than in a rejection to all of the science itself. I do not have any answers to any of this, but am interested to see what other comments come in and how to address this issue, so that we can all MOVE FORWARD rather than continuing to argue about what to me seems like settled science at this point.
I agree. Shocked and appalled are not overstatements. I would caution agains the use of "settled science," though. It also tends to be a conversation stopper. The challenge is that there is great diversity among students with regard to how much direct foundational literacy skills instruction they need. That could be seen as "settled science" as well. As is the fact that, in general, programs that feature systematic foundational skills instruction seem to give students an advantage OVERALL. But as I pointed out in a previous post (https://open.substack.com/pub/claudegoldenberg/p/the-trouble-with-research?r=1awjg4&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false), there's a lot of overlap so that a non-trivial number of students who don't get systematic phonics do as well or better than students who do. It's hard to keep those two seemingly contradictory thoughts in your head at the same time... but we need to.
See “The trouble with research” post (link above), where I discuss how research has consistently found positive but “quite modest” effects for systematic phonics instruction. Both of these—“consistently positive” and “quite modest”—are part of “settled science” if you want to use that term. But also keep in mind that “consistently positive” does not mean in every case or even in every study. Effects are stronger for novice readers (vs those who’ve already made a certain amount of progress) and those who have difficulties learning to read (vs. those who learn fairly easily). But even here the effects are not 100% consistent. That’s the nature of science…. Even when it’s settled, and particularly in the social sciences.
"However, in diving into the "research" published by CABE after some of your more recent posts, Dr. Goldenberg, I am shocked and appalled by what CABE and Californians Together are advocating in the name of "research." Their rebuttals to the work of Dr. Stanislaus Dehane and the "Sold a Story" podcast and other pieces do not rely on documented research, but rather are based on intuition and feeling."
As a fellow Californian, I feel your pain! Thank you for expressing this issue so clearly, concisely--and accurately.
I'm a parent advocate for ELL students at my school and have been actively involved in helping them pass the CA English Proficiency test. I’ve tutored many ELL students and worked closely with our reading interventionist. From our conversations, I wanted to share this:
Our district recently adopted a new Science of Reading-based curriculum from HMH. Unfortunately, the ELL curriculum provided was completely inadequate—it was far too advanced for the proficiency levels of the students we serve. Our reading intervention teachers have developed their own curriculum, which has been much more effective in introducing English and helping students build the foundational skills they need to catch up.
Teachers are incredibly frustrated, especially as our district faces a massive budget deficit, with even more cuts looming. We may not even have a reading interventionist next year.
There’s also a growing divide: some veteran teachers are reluctant to abandon methods they believe have worked (like my son's 1st-grade teacher), while many (often more affluent) parents who have had to remediate their own children’s reading are pushing for the science of reading approaches after seeing it work with their kids in private tutoring. The voices are unfortunately not those of parents of historically underserved populations, and teachers want to make sure that conversations are centered around them and not the will of the "nice white parents."
I advocate for the ELL students because I’m the child of Guatemalan immigrants. While I was fortunate to learn English early, thanks to my parents' efforts, I know many children don’t have that same advantage. I want to ensure that my kids’ friends and peers aren't held back simply because of language barriers.
Gen, you raise such important points. There are many constituencies involved and--not surprisingly--they tend to foreground the needs with which they are most familiar and have had the greatest impact on them and their children. This is one of the many reasons we need open, transparent, and collaborative engagement across the divides. And why I was so disappointed--and tbh frustrated--that the CABE CEO would not even engage with me. With leadership like that, how will we ever get past these wars, squabbles, kerfuffles, whatever the label for these seemingly unbridgeable--but in reality, I believe, eminently bridgeable--differences?
I have enjoyed a few of the meetings with Kari Kurto, but I can’t always make it at that hour.
I have some concerns about equity for English learners. I have seen some materials that are poor translations of mainstream English books, so the students get a weaker program. Also, in the “large urban district” from which I recently retired, there are not nearly enough dual language programs. At times, quality instruction is a concern there too. I began in the 90s as a bilingual teacher in a transitional program, and my students always outperformed the English only kids. We should absolutely provide quality instruction for all.
I completely agree your points about translations, lack of good dual language programs, and need for quality instruction across the board.
Some of the comments I wrote in response to Michele (above, or maybe below? still can't figure out how things are displayed) also apply to your comments.
My experience differs from most of the readers of this Substack since my work as a teacher and teacher educator has been entirely with adult immigrants and refugees who are learning English here in the US. Learners who attend adult literacy programs to learn English represent a wide range of educational backgrounds including from highly-trained professionals such as physicians, teachers and engineers to high school graduates. Moreover, there are many adult ML/ELs who have had limited formal schooling prior to coming to the US. In some cases, learners have never been to school and have no print skills in their primary language. It's not uncommon for an incredibly diverse group of learners to attend the same beginning-level English class. Needless to say, addressing such a wide range of needs is challenging, especially for teachers like me who have never been formally trained in how to teach foundational reading skills.
Upon retirement, my goal was to build on what I had learned over the years about teaching reading from my self study of the research literature--including your essential writing-- by working as a volunteer tutor. I am currently tutoring a young woman from Honduras who never had the opportunity to develop print literacy skills in Spanish. I wrote a brief essay about my experience learning to teach reading in the most recent Adult Literacy Education journal which is available here https://www.proliteracy.org/resources/learning-to-teach-reading/
I feel like I've learned a lot, but there is always more to learn.
Susan, I cannot thank you enough for your comment and for linking to your lovely essay. I urge others to read it. I'd like to quote just one thing bc it's so in keeping with the theme of this substack and a callback to my second post about there being so many areas of agreement... why aren't we recognizing and building on them. Here's what Susan wrote:
Importantly, a joint statement of The Reading League
and the National Committee for Effective Literacy (2023)
affirms the growing consensus among experts that
teaching reading to English learners should be aligned with
what the research has shown is needed for all beginning
readers as well as supporting English learners to expand
vocabulary and deepen knowledge in the content areas.
Also essential is to design instruction to build on the
assets learners bring to the classroom including drawing
upon their oral skills in the language they already know.
I keep wondering: Why isn't the consensus Susan cites part of our common knowledge, understanding, and the foundation for building more productive policies and practices to support all learners? Why?
I do want to continue our conversations about Common Ground. I have a presentation to prepare for in two weeks and then will contact you again. However, I want to point out that both sides (all sides) have concerns about telling the WHOLE story using ALL the research. See my latest blog about Paul Thomas's views on that topic. Here is my social media lead in on that topic "Today's blog gives my opinion about Dr. Paul Thomas's recent criticisms of SOR. Those criticisms point out that despite years of using SOR practices, long-term national data indicates a DROP in NAEP scores. This causes him to call for a New Story about the world of literacy."
As for your/Thomas' blog, I can't add much to Harriett's replies, other than I see NAEP scores cited opportunistically to support what we want to support and downplayed, ignored, or rationalized when the story is contrary to what we believe and want to convince others they too should believe. I myself look more at achievement gaps across and within states, since I believe that is a bigger problem for our society (and, not to mention, for kids and families on the wrong end of those gaps) than the ups and downs of national scores. I also engage in state comparisons of these gaps, eg, CA vs. MS, but I do so knowing they are easily waved away on grounds of comparability or other inconveniences, as happened at the CABE webinar I mentioned in the post above.
"I agree with Paul that it is time for a new story. It is time for the WHOLE STORY. It is time to look at ALL the research, not just that research that supports one side or the other’s point of view."
This is a good place to start to find common ground. In his 3-cueing blog (https://claudegoldenberg.substack.com/p/tierney-and-pearson-reply-iii-on) Claude has attempted to contextualize the research by pointing to Linnea Ehri's study where picture support aids in confirming decoding attempts by English Learners. She states:
"Students were encouraged to decode unknown words by relying on their letter–sound knowledge and then cross-checking with meaning and pictures to confirm the identities of the words."
This use of syntax, semantics, and pictures in the CONFIRMATION process--not the DECODING process--is a good example of looking at ALL the research to determine an instructional recommendation. Three-cueing aside, which research would you point to that has been neglected by the SOR community? Thanks!
I feel that your point about using the cueing system for confirmation rather than decoding - a tool for comprehension, rather than word decoding - is echoed by Claude above in the response to Lindsey. I think that the cues themselves are not bad when used that way, but should not be the first go to for our MLLs. But, again, this is part of the nuance that I was referring to in my comment above.
"Here is my social media lead in on that topic 'Today's blog gives my opinion about Dr. Paul Thomas's recent criticisms of SOR. Those criticisms point out that despite years of using SOR practices, long-term national data indicates a DROP in NAEP scores. This causes him to call for a New Story about the world of literacy.'
Thank you. I look forward to reading this, but I want to point out that in a complex system like education, we cannot point to one factor among many and draw conclusions, especially if we have no way of tracking the implementation of that factor. I have either been teaching K-3 or working as a reading specialist since the Reading First era, and I know that many of my colleagues still aren't "using SOR practices"--or are using them ineffectively or inefficiently. I also know that when I taught third grade, I had to remediate phonics gaps while teaching reading and writing related to grade-level text (as opposed to instructional level texts as my balanced literacy training recommended) in order to help my students navigate their state test. How many times do we have to remind ourselves that phonics is NECESSARY but not SUFFICIENT. And too much phonics isn't necessary because it's inefficient.
Interesting indeed! A shout out to my Georgia friends and colleagues trying to get WIDA to pay attention to foundational literacy skills. If WIDA purports to measure reading and writing (as well as listening and speaking), they simply CAN NOT ignore foundational literacy skills, eg, phonemic awareness, phonics, decoding, and fluency for reading, and adding encoding and transcription for writing. If they don't measure these, they should at the very least make it clear and tell their customers they need to make their own arrangements to do so. I'm trying to send this to one of the Georgians. Is this how you do it? By tagging them? @jennpendergrassbennefield
Hi Claude,
I've appreciated your posts and the thoughtful, careful language you use to engage in conversation. Some of what I hear from other advocates for multilingual education is a general frustration around not being heard and often feeling misunderstood. Even when reading research advocates agree that there are nuances around literacy instruction and English language development for ML/ELs, those nuances seldom make the mainstream conversation, training materials, curricula, etc.
Andrea
Thanks Andrea, you make a very reasonable point. All sides in these ongoing (whatever we call them) make ongoing contributions to the current state we find ourselves in. A prime example is the reading research folks (of the SOR--shudder--persuasion) overreaching to make unsustainable claims sometimes, eg, that we know how to get 95% of kids on grade level in reading *if only* we followed the SOR; or wanting (and succeeding in some cases) to outlaw 3-cueing; etc. Someone could do a whole posting of mis-steps, poor communications, including--especially?--poor listening and not even hearing. So if in fact we want to end these fruitless, needless, and harmful controversies, we all need to think about how we communicate, both the incoming (listening/reading) parts and the outgoing (speaking/writing).
Having said that I personally have found the lack of uptake from my ML/EL colleagues extremely troubling, my recent truncated email interaction with the CABE CEO only the most recent example. Another is a Friday zoom meeting hosted by Kari Kurto of The Reading League (co-hosted by Jana Echevarria and me) that we set up to engage TRL/Reading research folks and ML/EL folks. These monthly meetings were the result of a suggestion made by one of our ML/EL colleagues who saw the value in ongoing conversations around research and practice for ML/ELs. Sadly (and I do mean sadly), there has been very poor turnout among ML/EL colleagues. I honestly don't know why. I can give other examples that I personally have experienced, but I'm not looking to blame or point the finger.
You get the point. It's very hard to have a productive conversation--much less attend to the nuances you mention--when there are too few willing to engage over a sustained period. We need a commitment to create a more productive and healthy arena to build a more solid foundation for literacy education.
Harriet, during my almost 30 years working in Title One building as a teacher and staff developer, I found that good things happen when teachers are allowed some freedom and options (WITHIN THE DISTRICTS PROGRAM). Since the First Grade Studies- there is strong evidence that teachers make more difference than programs. The NAEP scores have been fairly flat for a long time, including the era before Balanced Literacy and during the BL era. That said- how can it be that BL created the problems? Hmmm. I'll have lots more to say in a couple of weeks, and thanks to both you and Claude for taking the notion of finding Common Ground seriously. I am primarily a teacher/staff developer, not a researcher, but my dissertation which was done during the whole language era found that there was much more common ground than most folks realized. We'll be talking about this again soon.
"thanks to both you and Claude for taking the notion of finding Common Ground seriously"
I do, I do! But I really want that ground to be solid. Who's going to write the position statement on 3-cueing that we can all sign on to?
My feeling, and it’s just a hunch, is that those who resist are not ill-intended. I think it comes out of wanting to avoid cookie-cutter solutions. What works in one language may not be the best approach in another. Similarity (or lack therof) between languages and typology needs to be considered before imposing an approach that may be useful in L1 across all other languages. There is a lot of cross-language transfer between similar languages so we would be wise to maximise learning opportunities that are relevant in both languages. But when programs are ‘translated’ and not adapted, or when the adaptation fails to consider language opacity or transparency, it may very well feel like assimilation. I suspect that’s why they resist. But I do my best to help them understand that when you understand how it all comes together and how one’s knowledge in L1 can serve as a springboard to learning L2, teaching MLs to read and spell while searching for cues across all their languages (when relevant) can be a powerfully liberating tool for all.
Michele, all of your points are reasonable and well-taken. But here are the facts as I understand them, at least based on the best research findings I have access to:
1. There are many commonalities in what needs to happen in order for an individual to learn to read, regardless of the language they speak. I can provide references and more details if you like, but the fundamental idea is that to learn to read (and write) you need to connect the spoken language with how it's represented in print. Fundamentally this involves "binding" the sounds of the language to the writing system that represents the language visually. Then that sound-symbol binding must get bound to how the language conveys meaning. If you haven't already, I'd suggest you read earlier posts on this Substack describing how oral and written language are different and how they must connect (in the brain.. where else?) to enable literacy. If you can't locate the posts, just lmk and I'll send the links.
2. At the same time, there are differences in how reading and writing need to be taught, depending on the writing system, the orthography, and other features of the written language. As you say, "What works in one language may not be the best approach in another." There are differences between writing systems, eg alphabetic, logographic, morpho-syntactic, and differences within those, eg transparent alphabetic orthographies such as Spanish and Finnish and opaque alphabetic orthographies such as English and French. But this does not mean every language needs to be taught completely differently. The fundamental idea of "binding" sounds to symbols to meaning is universal, so far as I know.
3. I agree with what you say about the dangers of translating rather than adapting. Adapting would necessarily take into account point #2. There are other considerations as well, eg, cultural factors, false cognates, and whether literal translations are idiomatic. Would you agree?
4. I also agree that L1 can serve as a resource for learning L2. This is true for oral language (speaking and listening) and for written language (reading and writing). Again, pls see my previous posts about the differences between oral and written language. It is generally acknowledged that if you're literate in one language (typical your first one) becoming literate in a second language is much easier than learning to become literate in a second language as you're learning to speak and understand it. But even here, point #1 is still valid: There is a lot of commonality between learning to read (and write) in a language you already know and one you are simultaneously learning. The main difference is that if you are learning to read in a language you are simultaneously learning, you need to learn the writing system/orthography (which everyone learning to read needs to learn) *AND SIMULTANEOUSLY* you need to learn/be taught the oral language--its sounds and how it conveys meaning. This is it a tougher lift for the learner and the teacher. But the same thing needs to happen--binding the language's sounds (its phonology) to the symbols representing those sounds (in alphabetic writing systems, that's its orthography), the binding those connections to the language's meaning system (semantics). This commonality is absolutely fundamental but generally not appreciated or even acknowledged by EL/ML advocates with whom I interact. I believe this is a serious mistake.
In my opinion, what is truly liberating for students is for us to use the best knowledge we have--what's universal and what's particular to different situations--to help all students, regardless of language and whether it's their first, second, or nth language, achieve the very highest level of literacy possible. As Frederick Douglas said, aspirationally, “Once you learn to read, you will be forever free.”
I think sometimes our conversations become binary... Like 3-cueing is bad, looking at pictures to read words is bad. But there is an important place for meaning (and pictures as a tool for word definition) for multilingual learners. So we could become more inclusive by admitting nuance into the picture (e.g. defining predictive texts as harmful, reading pictures instead of words is not great, but using pictures as a vocabulary tool is very helpful to a lot of learners). This is similar to the battle for defining evidence based reading instruction to include knowledge building, not just foundational phonics...
Lindsay, absolutely! The strict binaries are KILLERS. The nuances simply elude us. Or we elude them. Cueing (a DEADLY WORD I previously wrote about) is a case in point. There's nothing wrong with those 3 or some other number--2 or 4--of cues (hints, sources of information, etc). But there is actually a research-based order in which cues should cue the beginning and early reader as to what the word is: First they gotta look at the letters in a word, associate them with their corresponding sounds (starting with words that are as easy as possible, with regular spellings, gradually moving to harder and less regular spelling patterns), THEN use context, including pictures, to confirm--or disconfirm--whether they've read the word correctly. Eventually and ideally the process becomes automatized and fluent so that context can more accurately predict what's coming. But in the final analysis, it's the letters in the word combined with the context that make the final determination as to what the word is, ie, whether /t/ /ē/ /m/ is noun naming a group of individuals working together or a verb meaning things that are swarming with other things.
I am a practicing ML educator- currently working in a K-5 public elementary school with about 50% of students learning English and in English at the same time. A challenge that I notice towards applying reading research is that educators in grades 3-5 are not used to integrating foundational reading skills instruction into their literacy and content area instruction because it has long been the territory of K-1, and they are not well-supported (with professional learning, resources, texts, etc) to implement effective reading instruction.
Literacy "interventions" for students not at "grade level" literacy skills tend to be triage approaches that vary widely across classrooms. Educators see the "gaps", they want to help, but they don't have what they need to be effective. At the same time, those of us who approach literacy instruction through an English Language Development lens also need to make sure that these students have access to robust grade level content learning opportunities that support oral language and content knowledge development (which we know they need for comprehension), and have to make decisions about how to spend limited direct instructional time to that end.
Thank you for opening this conversation. I hope it results in some "productive struggle" among the various stakeholders, whether they be CEOs, researchers, publishers, advocates, educators, etc.
We can't overemphasize what an important point this is. Thank you so much for making it. Although primarily working with first and second graders in reading intervention, over a four-year period I taught third grade once a week and prepared students for the their state exam where they read multiple articles on one topic and synthesized a response. And I knew that the students who would struggle the most were the ones I had in first and/or second grade. Here's how I explain it in From Play-doh to Plato: Allow all students to grapple with grade level text (https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/play-doh-plato-all-students-need-grapple-grade-level-text)
"And here’s an important point: There was nothing easy about this process for any of my students. Therefore, to give my below-level readers a fighting chance, I had to pull them separately in small groups to address the fact that they still struggled with decoding multisyllabic words. So I applied the same instructional techniques I had used with these struggling readers in my second-grade reading intervention program to help them read these grade-level articles. In addition, these students were given multiple opportunities to read and reread the text so that word recognition wasn’t a barrier to accessing the content, and their developing fluency fueled their comprehension. Once this barrier was crossed, they could tackle the text in the same way my other students tackled it."
Warning. This is just my own hypothesis. I would need to attend to CABE and related organization more carefully to better grasp the argument. But here is something I've been thinking about. I've only recently learned about how research is WEIRD from Dr. Julie Washington. She talked about how some 80% of research with humans is conducted with populations that are WEIRD: white, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic. It doesn't fit into the acronym but it got me wondering: what percent of reading research participants are monolingual? Maybe some folks are wary of the research because they don't believe there is sufficient research to represent the multilingual learners and they don't want this population to be painted over in broad strokes.
Assuming for a moment that there is a dearth of research regarding multilingual learners and learning to read, what do you do with a lack of information? Certainly you support efforts to research multilingual students. Don't you also try to garner something of value from the existing research, incomplete as it is? Waiting for better research isn't a viable option for kids who are learning to be literate right now.
My comment did not indicate the slightest disagreement with anything you have stated in this thread - I was merely providing insight on why some teachers resist implementing certain approaches. Often these teachers do follow science, and their administrators are pushing methods that are not conducive to student success.
1. I agree - differences and similarities must be taught. The brain works the same way, even in disordered language - the path is just more resistant and they require intervention. Reading intervention and instruction are one in the same. It's dosage that changes.
2. I was referring to those who teach graphemes that exist in 1 language (i.e. « ui » in English) as graphemes in another when in fact, they are 2 separate graphemes (« ui » in French is not one grapheme and it's much easier to teach as blending than as a separate grapheme - this overcomplicates matters for kids). I just published a guide on the phonetic and orthographic systems of French and English for this very reason. Blending and segmenting are transferable skills. One exemple : putting all one's stock in a program that requires that CVC word chains are mandatory will not be useful in French. Working on verb endings in English will also not be useful though it might be essential in French.
3. In many areas, English norms exist, but French norms do not... yet. Tests are translated or their adaptation misaligned, and norms are 'adjusted' (or not) for lack of a better term which will not yield meaningful results.
4. I'm a Speech-Language Pathologist, so of course I was referring to oral language serving as foundation for learning literacy, but once that is mastered (or well on its way to being mastered), literacy in one language can help master the code in another language, provided the typologies are similar (it is how I learned to speak Spanish as a teenager).
My post in no way negates that reading is essential, or that it happens differently in the brain from one language to another. It's the overarching monolingual perspective that is at times wrongly applied to other languages that causes some teachers' backs to go up. That is the only element that I was speaking to. I share your views and simultaneous instruction must happen as long as exposure to oral language is sufficient to support student learning.
Yes, I believe we do agree, and certainly with this statement: "It's the overarching monolingual perspective that is at times wrongly applied to other languages that causes some teachers' backs to go up." I also appreciate your French/English examples. I don't fully understand them bc I don't speak, read, write French. But they make perfect sense. Thank you again.
This is such an important topic. It’s been an existential question for me since I worked in a district where the Literacy and MLL departments were fiercely at odds. It’s the reason I left.
I do think that it takes “longer” to see “progress” when using research based practices with MLL, such as structured phonics and decodable readers, than, say- leveled books. For the same reasons that our native English speaking students appear to be reading well when reading a level A, B, C text, etc… so do our ML students. ML advocacy has long been centered around an asset based framework- so it makes sense that they’d lean toward an “approach” or tools that appear to show the most progress. This was an argument that I heard time and time again. They didn’t “do well” on assessments like DIBELS but they “did better” on assessments like a DRA or F&P. Add that up with ML teachers lacking a foundation built in reading research, much like other teachers out there, and you have a recipe for avoidance of the research.
Jen I agree so completely with you: "ML advocacy has long been centered around an asset based framework- so it makes sense that they’d lean toward an “approach” or tools that appear to show the most progress." Reminds me of an EL/ML advocate who, when I asked if they did any screening to chk for potential reading difficulties replied, "I see my children thriving. That's my data." It's startlingly short-term thinking and very hard to get around. It comes, obviously, from wanting to see your children thrive.... like NOW! And, as you say: "Add that up with ML teachers lacking a foundation built in reading research, much like other teachers out there, and you have a recipe for avoidance of the research." It's quite a dilemma.
hi Claude
i do believe that part of is not been able to tell if the learners problem is really as a result of language or learning challenge.
this past few years i have had a lot of ML learners in my classroom and i am a co teach class me been the sped . i often do small group and use my sped skill to teach all students. If they grasp what o am teaching with all the visuals and differentiation and by the end of the year there is growth then i can say it’s not language.
on the next end if for the year i am still doing letters and sounds then can we really think it’s language still or is it more.
super interested in what you find out.
Jan I sent a reply, or at least I thought I had. But maybe it didn't go through. Still trying to figure out how to navigate Substack. I'm afraid I'm missing a lot of comments that I don't want to ignore.
I'm not sure I fully understand what you are saying here. For example, these are hard to comprehend: " i am a co teach class me been the sped ." "on the next end if for the year i am still doing letters and sounds then can we really think it’s language still or is it more."
Can you pls clarify?
Hi Claude. The fact that I’m commenting on your post after reading and learning from you for years is almost too much.
In my work with teachers and school districts, there seems to be this belief that reading instruction for ELs can’t take place in conjunction with language instruction. It’s become this either/or mentality.
I say, why not both? In the case of working with students just learning English, of course we don’t want to forgo language instruction, but when we start with meaning, even in simple PA work, we can begin to lay the foundation that can lead to letter/sound work, blending to read words, phrasing for understanding grammar etc.
I’ve loved using Phonic Books Dandelion World decodable books with students. Once ML/EL teachers see how the routine we’ve created starts with oral language/meaning and then builds from there, many are more open to a structured literacy approach. I’d love to share the routine and get your feedback if you’d be interested. Sarah@craftingmindsgroup.com
Sarah, why not both INDEED! That is the question, or at least one of them, that has me so befuddled. I'd be happy to learn about your books and routine.
I have some thoughts! I’m happy to email you if it’s easier but I don’t have your contact… You can reach me at sarah@craftingmindsgroup.com
This has been the exact question that has been circling my head again and again right now. I agree with CABE's point that money in California can and should be put towards educating teachers around our ELD standards and the EL Roadmap. That was the largest issue I heard about in the rejection of AB 2222. However, in diving into the "research" published by CABE after some of your more recent posts, Dr. Goldenberg, I am shocked and appalled by what CABE and Californians Together are advocating in the name of "research." Their rebuttals to the work of Dr. Stanislaus Dehane and the "Sold a Story" podcast and other pieces do not rely on documented research, but rather are based on intuition and feeling.
There are nuances within structured literacy curricula that can be built upon more explicitly in working with multilingual learners (i.e. a greater focus on articulation, drawing phonemic comparisons to a student's first language, etc.), but the practices themselves are good for all learners and the rejection of all structured literacy work seems an antithesis to our end goals of reading and literacy progress for students. If the concern is in the nuances, then that is where the discussion should be held, rather than in a rejection to all of the science itself. I do not have any answers to any of this, but am interested to see what other comments come in and how to address this issue, so that we can all MOVE FORWARD rather than continuing to argue about what to me seems like settled science at this point.
I agree. Shocked and appalled are not overstatements. I would caution agains the use of "settled science," though. It also tends to be a conversation stopper. The challenge is that there is great diversity among students with regard to how much direct foundational literacy skills instruction they need. That could be seen as "settled science" as well. As is the fact that, in general, programs that feature systematic foundational skills instruction seem to give students an advantage OVERALL. But as I pointed out in a previous post (https://open.substack.com/pub/claudegoldenberg/p/the-trouble-with-research?r=1awjg4&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false), there's a lot of overlap so that a non-trivial number of students who don't get systematic phonics do as well or better than students who do. It's hard to keep those two seemingly contradictory thoughts in your head at the same time... but we need to.
See “The trouble with research” post (link above), where I discuss how research has consistently found positive but “quite modest” effects for systematic phonics instruction. Both of these—“consistently positive” and “quite modest”—are part of “settled science” if you want to use that term. But also keep in mind that “consistently positive” does not mean in every case or even in every study. Effects are stronger for novice readers (vs those who’ve already made a certain amount of progress) and those who have difficulties learning to read (vs. those who learn fairly easily). But even here the effects are not 100% consistent. That’s the nature of science…. Even when it’s settled, and particularly in the social sciences.
"However, in diving into the "research" published by CABE after some of your more recent posts, Dr. Goldenberg, I am shocked and appalled by what CABE and Californians Together are advocating in the name of "research." Their rebuttals to the work of Dr. Stanislaus Dehane and the "Sold a Story" podcast and other pieces do not rely on documented research, but rather are based on intuition and feeling."
As a fellow Californian, I feel your pain! Thank you for expressing this issue so clearly, concisely--and accurately.
I'm a parent advocate for ELL students at my school and have been actively involved in helping them pass the CA English Proficiency test. I’ve tutored many ELL students and worked closely with our reading interventionist. From our conversations, I wanted to share this:
Our district recently adopted a new Science of Reading-based curriculum from HMH. Unfortunately, the ELL curriculum provided was completely inadequate—it was far too advanced for the proficiency levels of the students we serve. Our reading intervention teachers have developed their own curriculum, which has been much more effective in introducing English and helping students build the foundational skills they need to catch up.
Teachers are incredibly frustrated, especially as our district faces a massive budget deficit, with even more cuts looming. We may not even have a reading interventionist next year.
There’s also a growing divide: some veteran teachers are reluctant to abandon methods they believe have worked (like my son's 1st-grade teacher), while many (often more affluent) parents who have had to remediate their own children’s reading are pushing for the science of reading approaches after seeing it work with their kids in private tutoring. The voices are unfortunately not those of parents of historically underserved populations, and teachers want to make sure that conversations are centered around them and not the will of the "nice white parents."
I advocate for the ELL students because I’m the child of Guatemalan immigrants. While I was fortunate to learn English early, thanks to my parents' efforts, I know many children don’t have that same advantage. I want to ensure that my kids’ friends and peers aren't held back simply because of language barriers.
Gen, you raise such important points. There are many constituencies involved and--not surprisingly--they tend to foreground the needs with which they are most familiar and have had the greatest impact on them and their children. This is one of the many reasons we need open, transparent, and collaborative engagement across the divides. And why I was so disappointed--and tbh frustrated--that the CABE CEO would not even engage with me. With leadership like that, how will we ever get past these wars, squabbles, kerfuffles, whatever the label for these seemingly unbridgeable--but in reality, I believe, eminently bridgeable--differences?
I have enjoyed a few of the meetings with Kari Kurto, but I can’t always make it at that hour.
I have some concerns about equity for English learners. I have seen some materials that are poor translations of mainstream English books, so the students get a weaker program. Also, in the “large urban district” from which I recently retired, there are not nearly enough dual language programs. At times, quality instruction is a concern there too. I began in the 90s as a bilingual teacher in a transitional program, and my students always outperformed the English only kids. We should absolutely provide quality instruction for all.
I completely agree your points about translations, lack of good dual language programs, and need for quality instruction across the board.
Some of the comments I wrote in response to Michele (above, or maybe below? still can't figure out how things are displayed) also apply to your comments.
My experience differs from most of the readers of this Substack since my work as a teacher and teacher educator has been entirely with adult immigrants and refugees who are learning English here in the US. Learners who attend adult literacy programs to learn English represent a wide range of educational backgrounds including from highly-trained professionals such as physicians, teachers and engineers to high school graduates. Moreover, there are many adult ML/ELs who have had limited formal schooling prior to coming to the US. In some cases, learners have never been to school and have no print skills in their primary language. It's not uncommon for an incredibly diverse group of learners to attend the same beginning-level English class. Needless to say, addressing such a wide range of needs is challenging, especially for teachers like me who have never been formally trained in how to teach foundational reading skills.
Upon retirement, my goal was to build on what I had learned over the years about teaching reading from my self study of the research literature--including your essential writing-- by working as a volunteer tutor. I am currently tutoring a young woman from Honduras who never had the opportunity to develop print literacy skills in Spanish. I wrote a brief essay about my experience learning to teach reading in the most recent Adult Literacy Education journal which is available here https://www.proliteracy.org/resources/learning-to-teach-reading/
I feel like I've learned a lot, but there is always more to learn.
Best, Susan
Susan, I cannot thank you enough for your comment and for linking to your lovely essay. I urge others to read it. I'd like to quote just one thing bc it's so in keeping with the theme of this substack and a callback to my second post about there being so many areas of agreement... why aren't we recognizing and building on them. Here's what Susan wrote:
Importantly, a joint statement of The Reading League
and the National Committee for Effective Literacy (2023)
affirms the growing consensus among experts that
teaching reading to English learners should be aligned with
what the research has shown is needed for all beginning
readers as well as supporting English learners to expand
vocabulary and deepen knowledge in the content areas.
Also essential is to design instruction to build on the
assets learners bring to the classroom including drawing
upon their oral skills in the language they already know.
I keep wondering: Why isn't the consensus Susan cites part of our common knowledge, understanding, and the foundation for building more productive policies and practices to support all learners? Why?
I do want to continue our conversations about Common Ground. I have a presentation to prepare for in two weeks and then will contact you again. However, I want to point out that both sides (all sides) have concerns about telling the WHOLE story using ALL the research. See my latest blog about Paul Thomas's views on that topic. Here is my social media lead in on that topic "Today's blog gives my opinion about Dr. Paul Thomas's recent criticisms of SOR. Those criticisms point out that despite years of using SOR practices, long-term national data indicates a DROP in NAEP scores. This causes him to call for a New Story about the world of literacy."
https://doctorsam7.blog/2025/02/08/my-take-on-dr-paul-thomass-idea-that-the-decline-in-naep-reading-scores-shows-it-is-time-for-a-new-story-by-dr-sam-bommarito/
Sam, glad you want to continue the conversation.
As for your/Thomas' blog, I can't add much to Harriett's replies, other than I see NAEP scores cited opportunistically to support what we want to support and downplayed, ignored, or rationalized when the story is contrary to what we believe and want to convince others they too should believe. I myself look more at achievement gaps across and within states, since I believe that is a bigger problem for our society (and, not to mention, for kids and families on the wrong end of those gaps) than the ups and downs of national scores. I also engage in state comparisons of these gaps, eg, CA vs. MS, but I do so knowing they are easily waved away on grounds of comparability or other inconveniences, as happened at the CABE webinar I mentioned in the post above.
I've just read your blog. You say:
"I agree with Paul that it is time for a new story. It is time for the WHOLE STORY. It is time to look at ALL the research, not just that research that supports one side or the other’s point of view."
This is a good place to start to find common ground. In his 3-cueing blog (https://claudegoldenberg.substack.com/p/tierney-and-pearson-reply-iii-on) Claude has attempted to contextualize the research by pointing to Linnea Ehri's study where picture support aids in confirming decoding attempts by English Learners. She states:
"Students were encouraged to decode unknown words by relying on their letter–sound knowledge and then cross-checking with meaning and pictures to confirm the identities of the words."
This use of syntax, semantics, and pictures in the CONFIRMATION process--not the DECODING process--is a good example of looking at ALL the research to determine an instructional recommendation. Three-cueing aside, which research would you point to that has been neglected by the SOR community? Thanks!
I feel that your point about using the cueing system for confirmation rather than decoding - a tool for comprehension, rather than word decoding - is echoed by Claude above in the response to Lindsey. I think that the cues themselves are not bad when used that way, but should not be the first go to for our MLLs. But, again, this is part of the nuance that I was referring to in my comment above.
"Here is my social media lead in on that topic 'Today's blog gives my opinion about Dr. Paul Thomas's recent criticisms of SOR. Those criticisms point out that despite years of using SOR practices, long-term national data indicates a DROP in NAEP scores. This causes him to call for a New Story about the world of literacy.'
Thank you. I look forward to reading this, but I want to point out that in a complex system like education, we cannot point to one factor among many and draw conclusions, especially if we have no way of tracking the implementation of that factor. I have either been teaching K-3 or working as a reading specialist since the Reading First era, and I know that many of my colleagues still aren't "using SOR practices"--or are using them ineffectively or inefficiently. I also know that when I taught third grade, I had to remediate phonics gaps while teaching reading and writing related to grade-level text (as opposed to instructional level texts as my balanced literacy training recommended) in order to help my students navigate their state test. How many times do we have to remind ourselves that phonics is NECESSARY but not SUFFICIENT. And too much phonics isn't necessary because it's inefficient.
This article from Language magazine was very interesting. https://www.languagemagazine.com/2024/10/01/bridging-wida-and-the-science-of-reading-in-esol-programs/
Interesting indeed! A shout out to my Georgia friends and colleagues trying to get WIDA to pay attention to foundational literacy skills. If WIDA purports to measure reading and writing (as well as listening and speaking), they simply CAN NOT ignore foundational literacy skills, eg, phonemic awareness, phonics, decoding, and fluency for reading, and adding encoding and transcription for writing. If they don't measure these, they should at the very least make it clear and tell their customers they need to make their own arrangements to do so. I'm trying to send this to one of the Georgians. Is this how you do it? By tagging them? @jennpendergrassbennefield
Anybody know?