Diep Nguyen focuses on advice from teachers on how best to implement the Science of Reading for Multilingual Learners
For the past several years, a revolution in how we teach English reading has spread across the US, mainly through state policies that mandated a reading curriculum based on the Science of Reading (SoR) that requires teachers to prioritize prescribed literacy-teaching practices meeting the criteria of the SoR framework. Among students being affected by these policies, more than 10%, or roughly 5.3 million, are English Learners (ELs) (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2024). Many more are Multilingual Learners (MLs).
As policies are passed that have direct impact in classrooms, we fail to give the appropriate weight to the voices and experiences of the individuals directly on the frontlines: the teachers in those classrooms.
A review of state-by-state SoR policies and how MLs are considered found that MLs are mostly absent or peripherally addressed (Howard, 2025). This lack of inclusion at the policy level, it turns out, resulted in negative consequences for these students when policies were implemented in the form of mandated curricula and instructional practices.
While the SoR momentum of implementation spread, bilingual and ESL educators began to notice that their SoR-prescribed curricula did not always serve their MLs well. Teachers serving MLs across the nation struggled to follow their respective state and district mandates, which are often described as “one size fits all,” while also tending to the everyday literacy development needs of their Multilingual Learners.
Escamilla and Strong (2024) documented 77 educators’ experiences as they tried to implement SoR curricula with their MLs. While understanding the importance of teaching foundational skills, teachers struggled with the excessive efforts required for the teaching of English phonics that interfered with other skill development for their MLs. The top-down, one-size-fits-all SoR-mandated curriculum also prevented teachers from exercising their professional agency to integrate other instructional strategies to support their students’ literacy development. Teachers in dual language and bilingual programs particularly worried about how the SoR curriculum was harmful for their students’ biliteracy development. What is compelling about these stories is that they came from competent educators who were sincerely trying to follow the mandated curriculum yet still noticed their students were not benefiting as much as they should have. Their classroom assessments of their own students showed a different result than what the experts claim about the benefits of SoR instruction.
When Zoeller and Castro (2024) interviewed three teachers about their professional development on SoR and their experiences implementing mandated SoR instruction with their bilingual students, these educators questioned the application of the Simple View of Reading to Spanish literacy and the use of a monolingual literacy approach with Multilingual Learners. They also noticed the gap between the mandated curriculum and the type of instruction that their students need and deserve.
As a case in point, Kittle et al. (2024) conducted a comprehensive review to identify research evidence on SoR and MLs. What they found confirmed what teachers had suspected and all along. Oral language and reading proficiency in an ML’s first language matter in their English-reading proficiency development and should be considered as major components of the SoR for MLs.
In another case study of four teachers implementing a reading intervention with 94 sixth graders, Gallagher et al. (2023) found that teachers who adapted their curriculum, using different techniques to make lessons more student-centered and linguistically responsive, were able to better help their students build reading competence. The case study highlights the way teachers’ ability to adapt lessons using students’ multilingual assets is a key ingredient to student reading success, something many teachers probably recognize in their day-to-day classroom experience.
Recently, the SoR movement reached the doorsteps of federal policymakers. On Sept. 21, 2026, the Science of Reading Act of 2026 (HR 7890) passed the House of Representatives. Its twin legislation, the READ ACT (S 4689) is making its way through the US Senate at the time of this writing, sending a new wave of concerns among school leaders and researchers concerned with literacy education (Shanahan, 2026).
As policymakers debate the merits of the READ ACT and as we consider its benefits for every student, it’s time for us to call attention again to MLs and uplift the experiences and voices of those who are closest to these students: their teachers.
While acknowledging the importance of foundational skills instruction, teachers of MLs who implemented mandated SoR curricula are asking policymakers to consider the following:
- Include research about second-language and literacy development in the SoR corpus as evidence-based instruction. Without the inclusion of the Science of Multiliteracies research, the evidence that constitutes the basis of SoR is incomplete. Teachers need to rely on a more comprehensive body of research evidence to help provide the best reading instruction for all students.
- Factor in student first-language oral and literacy development as equally important and positive contributors to literacy instruction. Teachers working with MLs know from experience that the paths to literacy competence for these students are deeply connected to their first-language proficiency and their oral-language development. Teachers need to be able to use students’ full linguistic repertoires in helping them learn to read.
- Remove the top-down model of implementation that took away teachers’ professional flexibility and their ability to make contextually responsive decisions for their students. The choice for teachers should not be whether to follow a curriculum rigidly or simply abandon it. With flexibility, teachers would be able to follow the mandated curriculum thoughtfully, making necessary adaptations to be responsive to their MLs.
If we take the time to listen to the voices of teachers—those who work the most closely with students—their questions and feedback might point us to an array of solutions that would improve SoR for MLs.
References
Escamilla, K. & Strong, K. (2024). Voices from the Field: Impact of the Implementation of the Science of Reading Instruction and Policy on Emergent Bilingual/English Learner Literacy Programs and Teachers. National Committee for Effective Literacy. https://multilingualliteracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Voices-from-the-Field-2024-FINAL.pdf
Gallagher, M. A., Beck, J. S., Ramirez, E. M., Taboada Barber, A., & Buehl, M. M. (2023). “Supporting Multilingual Learners’ Reading Competence: A multiple case study of teachers’ instruction and student learning and motivation.” Frontiers in Education, 8, 1085909. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1085909
Howard, S. (2025). Legislating Literacy Instruction: Where Are Multilingual Learners? Research brief. Center for Applied Linguistics. www.cal.org/publications/legislating-literacy-instruction-where-are-multilingual-learners
Kittle, J. M., Amendum, S. J., & Budde, C. M. (2024). “What Does Research Say About the Science of Reading for K–5 Multilingual Learners? A systematic review of systematic reviews.” Educational Psychology Review, 36, article 108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09942-6
National Center for Education Statistics. (2024). “English Learners in Public Schools.” In The Condition of Education 2024. US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgf
Shanahan, T. (2026). “Why Congress’s Latest Foray into the Reading Wars Is Too Sloppy to Work.” Education Week. www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/opinion-why-congresss-latest-foray-into-the-reading-wars-is-too-sloppy-to-work/2026/09
Zoeller, E., & Castro, M. (2024). “‘If We Could Look at Kids as a Whole’: Teachers negotiating Science of Reading approaches with Multilingual Learners.” NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 14(3–4), 96–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/26390043.2024.2442920
Dr. Diep Nguyen is the president and CEO of the Center of Applied Linguistics (CAL), a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting multilingualism and language education. In her current role, she leads professionals to conduct research to inform language policies, develop quality ELD assessments, and provide professional development resources for educators.
