There is a vocal minority of English learner advocates in California who have chosen to argue — without credible evidence — that structured literacy is ineffective for multilingual learners. They sometimes cite “philosophical differences” as their reasoning behind this claim. I have been an educator for 37 years, and I choose to use data-informed decision-making for my students’ instruction rather than subjective beliefs.
Every child I have taught to learn to read — regardless of being a multilingual learner or any other subgroup — has benefited from a structured literacy approach to reading instruction. Structured literacy incorporates explicit (i.e., concept introduction and modeling) and systematic (i.e., building on prior learning) instruction of the five pillars of reading — phonemic awareness, fluency, phonics, vocabulary, and comprehension — on top of foundational oral language development. This approach is grounded in the findings of decades of interdisciplinary reading research, often referred to as the “science of reading,” which explains how the brain learns to read — regardless of native language.
After years of classroom experience, I have come to see each of my students as their own person with individual needs, rather than a broad subgroup. The flexibility that a structured literacy approach offers to differentiate instruction based on a student’s data is a critical part of its effectiveness. To deem scientifically proven principles as ineffective for an entire population of multilingual learners (more than one million in California’s schools) is not only misleading — it’s harmful.
Around half (52%) of multilingual learners in California high schools are long-term multilingual learners (LTELs), meaning they have attended school in the United States for at least six years but have not reclassified as fluent in English. Over half of these students did not make progress toward English language proficiency in 2023-24. Moreover, California ranks 38th (out of 48) in the nation in fourth-grade English learner reading proficiency. Clearly, the status quo is not supporting our English learner students. This lack of literacy progress affects high school graduation rates and, ultimately, future opportunities. LTELs graduated from California high schools in 2020 at a rate 16% lower than those students never classified as multilingual learners.
Before moving to California from Kansas three years ago, I was warned by a colleague that I would receive pushback on how to teach multilingual learners. Since then, I have been on a mission to integrate evidence-based reading instruction and materials into the classrooms I’ve served in Riverside County. Educators began to see the positive impact on multilingual learner progress and are embracing the science of reading across Riverside County.
This year, in my current position, I have tracked the progress of six multilingual learners in fifth grade for whom I provided evidence-based instruction. These students were taught using materials supportive of how the brain learns to read. The results were undeniable. A “realistic” goal for a 5th grader is to gain 18 new words in a school year, and an “ambitious” goal is 28.8 words. Five of my six students achieved ambitious growth, and the sixth student made realistic growth.
Related Articles
Trump is crushing America’s AI leadership. We still have time to fix it. Californians aren’t buying the EV mandate It is hard to maintain a functioning democracy without civil discourse Rebuilding requires reimagining environmentalism Los Angeles mayor and city council need to reshape outdated departments These results are replicable in classrooms across the state. New legislation, Assembly Bill 1121, is an opportunity to do just that. As introduced by former educator, Assemblywoman Blanca Rubio, the bill would fund professional development for all elementary educators in evidence-based instruction and require instructional materials rooted in the principles of the science of reading.There are no shortcuts to reading success. California’s reading crisis is not a student problem or an educator problem – it is a systems problem. The state must provide school systems with the proven tools necessary to best serve their students. I implore our elected officials to choose science over subjectiveness by moving AB 1121 forward.
Holly Aranda is a Structured Literacy Dyslexia Specialist, a Certified Academic Language Therapist, and a Qualified Instructor certified by ALTA, based in Riverside County.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Reading instruction must follow science over subjectiveness )
Also on site :