Cautious optimism. Again.

(Click on the pict, and sorry for the ads.)

I see promising signs that we might be turning a corner in the fraught world of reading policies and practices for English Leaners (ELs). This is the world where many EL advocates routinely argue that the “science of reading”^[1] is dangerous and harmful to English Learners.

The opening salvo in this latest front of the reading wars was a 2022 white paper by the National Committed for Effective Literacy (NCEL), an organization “formed in response to the narrow approach of the science of reading and to expand thinking on literacy instruction for English learners/emergent bilinguals.”

There have since been regular updates and installations in various venues and from different participants, all characterized by some idiosyncratic definition of the science of reading (SOR) and how it disadvantages ELs. I discussed some of these in two Substack entries, one reporting on an NCEL paper entitled “Voices from the Field” and a more recent post about a claim of “ontological differences” between ELs and monolingual English speakers.

But lately I’ve been thinking maybe a corner is being turned. If so, it might have begun—ever so subtly—with a report by Sarah Marie Howard in late 2025 from the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL), “Legislating Literacy Instruction: Where are Multilingual Learners?” I was expecting the report to be pretty much in the mold of other reports from organizations typically advocating for ELs and against the SOR.

But I was wrong

Instead of being limited to relentless SOR-bashing (e.g., “one-size-fits-all curricula”), there was also a subtle shift. The paper argued for “consideration of Multilingual Learners (MLs)^[2] and their learning needs within this push for Science of Reading approaches” and “ensuring that the needs of MLs are intentionally considered in the integration of science of literacy approaches” (p. 2; emphases added).

Perhaps most refreshingly—still very subtle—was the recognition that “conceptions of SoR” are associated with “complex perspectives and nuances” (p. 3).

Compare those statements with the NCEL 2022 white paper:

“One-Size-Fits-All “Science Of Reading” Fails to Address the Unique Needs of EL/EB Students and Does Not Capitalize on Their Strengths” (p. 12)

“… the danger now in policies driven by the so-called ‘Science of Reading.’” (p. 13)

Was I imagining things?

I thought I might have been engaging in wishful thinking, but then I looked up an article cited in the CAL report that maybe had made an impact. Three researchers from the University of Delaware, Jonathan Kittle, Steve Amendum, and Christina Budde, had published an excellent article (“What Does Research Say About the Science of Reading for K-5 Multilingual Learners?”) where they had made a very similar argument to the CAL report’s, which is that the SOR is relevant to ELs, but there are elements that remain inadequately emphasized for ELs:

On one hand, the findings related to evidence-based components provide support for the SVR (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) and Scarborough’s (2001) Reading Rope as many of the components identified for MLs align with those from those two models. On the other hand, questions remain about whether the SVR and the Reading Rope adequately capture the complexity of reading in an additional language without explicit reference to L1 components related to L2 reading. (p. 108)

In other words, the 2022 white paper and numerous publications and presentations released in its wake created a false and illogically rigid determination on some version of SOR that would “fail” ELs and put them in “danger.” The Kittle et al. article and the CAL report suggested that “complex perspectives and nuances” might replace categorically damning judgments.

Some of us have been trying to address these challenging issues for some time^[3]. In 2023, Elsa Cardenas-Hagan and I published an article bringing together literacy research for monolingual English speaking students and English Learners learning to read in English or in their home language. Yet, many of the most vocal EL advocates have failed to recognize that literacy research comprises research about and relevant for all learners.

The CAL paper and the Kittle et al. article suggested the possibility of a productive shift.

But wait! There’s more

Around the time the CAL paper appeared, a brilliant first-grade bilingual teacher and literacy advocate, Rafely Palacios, wrote a post on this Substack (“What Works for English Learners: A Journey from Whole Language to Effective Reading Instruction”) describing how she helped lead a group of teachers in her Bay Area elementary school on a quest to improve literacy outcomes for their mostly Latino English Learner students.

Some of the students were receiving bilingual instruction and learning to read in Spanish. Others were receiving English only instruction and learning to read in English. Principles and materials grounded in “the science of reading” provided the basis for how she and her colleagues taught children to read in Spanish, in a straightforward way, or in English, using English language development instruction to support children’s acquisition of English literacy skills. Taking several pages from neurolinguistic and neurocognitive research, Rafely envisioned a path forward:

Reading comprehension, the ultimate goal of literacy, requires activating the complete reading circuit. We must seamlessly connect decoding, language, and meaning through powerful, intentional instruction that doesn’t just teach students to sound out words but empowers them to read with understanding and purpose. As Maryanne Wolf describes in her Elbow Room framework, students need space and time to develop these interconnected reading circuits, allowing foundational skills and higher-level comprehension to grow together.

Since her post’s publication, Rafely has received numerous requests from districts and individual teachers eager to learn in greater detail what she and her colleagues did, and how. This suggests there is an unmet need in the field for practical approaches, grounded in literacy research comprehensively understood, that will help teachers help students attain literacy levels well beyond where they currently stand.

More recently, Larry Ferlazzo, a prominent columnist for Education Week, published a piece earlier this month featuring commentary from three experienced educators, all EL advocates, arguing that the science of reading has provided important understandings of how children—including ELs—learn to read.

Altagracia Delgado, for example, director of Texas initiatives for the English Learners Success Forum, wrote:

Rooted in decades of cognitive science and reading research, [the “science of reading”] movement emphasizes explicit, systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. As an educator and advocate for multilingual learners, I recognize the value this body of research brings in clarifying what students need to become proficient readers. …

One of the most significant shifts I’ve seen is the increased emphasis on structured literacy instruction, particularly in foundational skills. This has brought a welcome sense of clarity and consistency in phonics instruction, which is critical for early reading development, especially for students who are decoding English for the first time.

At the same time, Delgado writes, “it is essential to apply these principles through an equity- and language-conscious lens, which also acknowledges the linguistic assets multilingual learners bring to the classroom.” This is consistent with the CAL report and the Kittle et al. article, both of which express concern for state policies’ failure to consider ELs’ home language assets and the “lack of policy-driven equitable support” in state legislation around the country (Kittle et al., p. 27).

I’ll resist the temptation to quote extensively and instead encourage you to read the entire column to see what Angel Martinez Sanchez, a teacher in the Norwich, CT public schools, and Emelia Ahmed, a biliteracy consultant, have to say. Then you can check for my understanding. In essence, I believe they’re all saying that the science of reading provides important foundational knowledge and understanding for teachers of ELs and that home language assets, English language development instruction, and students’ home culture and experiences also form part of the professional knowledge base for helping ELs become successful readers and writers.

Bilingual SOR

Finally, and not least, the April 16, 2026 issue of Language Magazine recently appeared in my inbox. In it I found an article entitled “The Best of Both Worlds.” Author Alexandra Güílamo “suggests how dual language program leaders can best integrate science of reading legislation” (p. 26). Güílamo describes how dual language education (DLE) can “attend to phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension as essential components of literacy instruction” while also creating “space for oracy, transfer, writing and the distinct but interconnected worlds of language comprehension and reading comprehension” (p. 26). The result, Güílamo writes, is “bilingual SOR.”

This is not an oxymoron! Bilingual SOR includes “direct, explicit, and systematic instruction in foundational skills… coordinate[d] … across both partner languages,” combined with “transfer, contrastive analysis, connection to language comprehension, and bilingual SOR practices.”

Implementations Güílamo describes “made space for much-needed guidance and tools highlighting how the components of their district-wide structured literacy approach (IDA, 2021,2013^[4]) aligned within and across both program languages” along with “integrated literacy-based ELD” (p. 27).

The path these “bilingual SOR” districts are traveling “involves making sure DLE excellence and SOR implementation are not adversaries but partners” (p. 28).

Finally finally…

I’d be remiss if I didn’t return to the post I published on this site five weeks ago, where in a fit of optimism I cited a blog post (originally published in Forbes) by Linda Darling-Hammond, “Improving Student Achievement: What Red and Blue States Are Doing Right.”

Darling-Hammond argued for an end to red-state/blue-state squabbles about reading policy, pointing out that success is not limited by the (political) color of states. Blue states such as Massachusetts and Connecticut have followed successful policies in the past, and more recently, so have red states such as Mississippi, Darling-Hammond wrote:

Much like Connecticut and Massachusetts had previously done, Mississippi used insights from research to establish the components of a robust, multifaceted literacy policy [that] include the elements described in a recent synthesis of evidence from the science of reading.

Although her post was not specifically about ELs, Darling-Hammond’s endorsement of what Mississippi and other red states have accomplished is highly significant. Just as the presumed blue state vs. red state clash around reading policies is unproductive, even nonsensical, the comparable “progressive” education vs. “conservative” split stands in the way of making actual progress in promoting widespread literacy gains. What matters, or should matter, is the evidence, nuanced and complex as it can be.

No matter how challenging to gather, analyze, and interpret well, evidence must trounce ideology when it comes to developing productive reading policies—for everyone, not just ELs.

I’ll give the last word to fellow cockeyed optimist Grace Delgado:

What gives me hope is that the national dialogue around the science of reading is beginning to evolve. More educators, researchers, and policymakers are recognizing that multilingual learners require a tailored approach that integrates the evidence-based practices of reading science with research on second-language acquisition and biliteracy development.

Leave a comment

^[1] I’m no fan of the term “science of reading,” since it’s been mis-used to signify different things to different people, leading to counterproductive and misinformed discourse about science, what counts as science, and assorted other dead ends. I prefer to think in terms of literacy research comprehensively understood. But I also realize this does not save us of from rhetorical and ideological bogs.

^[2] As many readers probably know, many terms are used to refer to the populations of students I’m discussing here—English Learners (ELs), English Language Learners (ELLs), Emergent Bilinguals (EBs), Mulitilingual Learners (MLLs or MLs). Each term means something somewhat different, but all are used to refer to students in the U.S. who come from homes where a language other than English is spoken and who are not yet fully proficient in English.

^[3] See, e.g., “English Learners/Emergent Bilingual Community of Practice”; “Understanding the Difference: The Science of Reading and Implementation for English Learners/Emergent Bilinguals (ELs/EBs)”; “Can common ground be found on teaching reading in California?”

^[4] International Dyslexia Association. (2021). “Structured Literacy: An introductory guide.” Educator Training Initiatives Brief. https://app.box.com/s/mvuvhel6qaj8tghvu1nl75i0ndnlp0yz

International Dyslexia Association Ontario Branch. (2023). “Effective Reading Instruction.” www.idaontario.com/effective-reading-instruction