Category: Uncategorized

Admittedly, I’ve been somewhat surprised by the pushback expressed on various social media platforms about multilingual learners and what is currently called the science of reading (SOR). First, as I discussed previously, SOR refers to the body of multi-disciplinary research evidence about how individuals learn to read. Many of these empirical studies have been around for decades and have been supported by subsequent research. The term, science of reading, has more recently become popular since an APM podcast went viral prompting the topic to become a prominent discussion in educational circles and in the media. 

It’s possible that the concerns expressed are rooted in past practices where the needs of multilingual learners were not met – or even addressed. Those of us who have been advocates for multilingual learners for decades have worked to raise teacher expectations, provide access to grade-level curricula, promote an asset orientation, and ensure that teachers make content comprehensible for multilingual learners.  

However, some of the comments reflect misconceptions about what SOR is. The most common include:

Phonics. Explicitly teaching sound-symbol correspondence is essential for students to be able to decode words automatically and accurately. But it’s not the whole enchilada. The National Reading Panel Report and the subsequent National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth, as well as the What Works Clearinghouse Practice Guide promote the full complement of literacy skills, including development of oral language, academic vocabulary, and comprehension. 

Perhaps it seems like there is an overemphasis on phonics but that may be because many teachers have not been adequately prepared to teach students how to unlock the code. In our work with multilingual learners, we focus on ways to increase English proficiency, to scaffold instruction and to help students access grade-level text. Teachers may have lots of good ideas for building vocabulary or engaging students in partner talk to develop oral language but teachers themselves report that they typically don’t explicitly teach phonics. In a 2019 Education Week Research Center survey:

86 percent of teachers who train teachers said they teach phonics. But surveyed elementary school teachers often use strategies that contradict a phonics-first approach: Seventy-five percent said they use a technique called three cuing. This method teaches children to guess words they don’t know by using context and picture clues, and has been criticized for getting in the way of learning to decode. More than half of the teachers said they thought students could understand written passages that contained unfamiliar words, even without a good grasp of phonics.

Phonics instruction is only one piece of the complex process of literacy development, but it is critical piece and apparently underemphasized in classrooms. 

A curriculum. There seems to be a perception that SOR is a “thing.” One of my favorite stories in this regard came from a colleague who taught a language and literacy course. Toward the end of the semester a well-meaning student asked, “Do you know of an article that will help me learn what the science of reading is and how to do it?”  The professor took a deep breath and tactfully explained that what they had studied all semester is the science of reading. 

Certainly, reading instruction is most effective when teachers are provided with the necessary guidance and student materials to implement research-based literacy instruction well. The science of reading should be reflected in the materials and resources used, but a curriculum is not SOR, per se. 

“Drill and kill” is a pejorative term referring to decontextualized, repetitive skill practice that takes the fun out of learning. Research confirms that explicit teaching followed by practice is effective for multilingual learners, but practicing a skill seems to have a negative connotation. I’m a tennis player and I continue to take lessons — explicit instruction on a specific skill with lots of practice. I would be a better player if I had more time to practice! Practice builds competence.

Literacy skill practice need not be drudgery. Practice can be made meaningful in a number of ways. For example, by talking about the skill (e.g., decoding short e), reading a text and pointing out words with the sound, asking students to repeat the words, and having students write a sentence with the words and read it to a partner. There is also a vast array of digital resources that offer fun, engaging practice of literacy skills.

One-size-fits-all. This idea is an artifact of the past. Differentiation has become part of the fabric of lesson planning. Teachers have become much more aware that multilingual learners are learning to read in a language they are simultaneously learning to speak and understand so literacy instruction is not the same for every student. 

A “disservice” for multilingual learners. This misconception is unfortunate. In the past several years, I’ve observed in over 200 classrooms and have witnessed firsthand what I would consider a disservice. Too often multilingual learners are languishing as they sit for extended periods of time with a book they cannot read, and they only meet with the teacher for instruction once or twice a week. There has been lots of unproductive, lost instructional time which is a disservice to the very students who can least afford it. 

These many, many students cannot comprehend stories because they cannot decode the words in the story. There is no joy or love of reading unless students are taught to read well. 

Hopefully, with more knowledge and understanding – and with more students learning to read well by using resources that reflect the research — these misconceptions will fade away. After all, we all want the same thing: students who are confident, proficient readers and writers, preferably in more than one language. 

An elaborated podcast on this topic can be found at Leading Literacy https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/leading-literacy/id1566671003?i=1000574657928

When was the last time you were in a situation where colleagues were using an acronym or educational term that everyone seemed to know…except you?  

We use a lot of specific terminology and acronyms in education, and new ones seem to crop up regularly. When it comes to multilingual learners, terms vary by geographic region, and certain terms are preferred over others by some groups or organizations. A version of this topic was posted in 2016 and since its first posting, there have been additional changes which warrant an update. Consider the information here as a resource for those of you who find yourselves perplexed by the wide variety of terms used for students who are not yet fully proficient in academic English and qualify for language support services. (Notice how I had to work hard not to use one of the terms below?!) 

English learners (EL), or English language learners (ELL).  These terms have been commonly used and are straightforward descriptors of students who are learning the English language used in schools. The terms imply that another language is spoken at home and that these students are in the process of becoming English-proficient. 

Multilingual learner (ML). Becoming widely used to acknowledge the home language assets these students possess in addition to acquiring English. For some students, English is their second, third (or more) language making the term more accurate in capturing their linguistic competencies. “Multilingual learner” is used by WIDA, appears in some U.S. Department of Education documents and academic publications. 

Emergent bilingual (EB). Another term for students who are not yet proficient in English but are moving toward becoming fully bilingual. They continue to develop their home language while learning English. The term demonstrates the value of both the home language and English. Emergent bilingual is the official term adopted by, for example, Texas and Illinois. 

Limited English proficient (LEP). No longer used because of its deficit connotation. An artifact of the past, it appears in federal law so it is used for reporting/accountability purposes. 

English for speakers of other languages (ESOL), and English as a second language (ESL). These terms refer to programs but are sometimes applied to students, as in “She is ESOL” or “We have 37 ESL students in fourth grade.”

Second language learner (L2). Used widely internationally and in the literature to indicate a student who is learning the official language used in a country’s schools in addition to the home language.

Dual language learner (DLL). Used specifically for children under the age of five who have at least one parent or guardian who speaks a language other than English at home. These children are developing their native language proficiency while learning English simultaneously. 

Linguistically diverse. A broader term that includes students who are not yet proficient in academic English, and those students who speak a non-standard form of English such as speakers of African American vernacular English (AAVE), Creole or Hawaiian Pidgin English.

English learner student with a disability (ELSWD) or dually identified student. These terms are used for students who have been formally identified as having a disability and have an IEP. Their dual status means that they are entitled to full English learner services including daily English language development (ELD) in addition to special education services.

Long-term English Learners (LTEL). These students have been enrolled in U.S. schools and designated as English learners for six or more years and have not yet met exit criteria. Definitions and exit criteria vary by state and district. Some specify fewer years as EL or differ on criteria needed to exit English learner services. 

Students with interrupted formal education (SIFE) and students with limited or interrupted formal education (SLIFE). These terms are used specifically with Newcomer students who have had interruptions in their educational backgrounds of more than two years or, in the case of SLIFE, may have had limited formal education before enrolling in U.S. schools. The distinction these terms offer is important for providing appropriate programs and services.

Ever-ELL. This term is used typically for research purposes. It is assigned to a student who has been designated as an English learner at some point in his or her school career. The category accounts for students who become English proficient but at some point were English learners. They are distinct from native English-speaking students. 

Never-ELL, English only (EO), or native English speaker. These terms all refer to students whose home language is English and English is the student’s first or native language. Some concern about English Only as a designation is that it connotes monolingualism when that may not be accurate. 

Non-English Language Background (NELB). A school designated term for students in homes in which a language other than or in addition to English is used. That is, any home other than a monolingual English-speaking home. 

Speakers of languages other than English (LOTE) or primary home language other than English (PHLOTE).  These terms describe students who have the asset of one or more languages in their repertoire. Used in dual language programs. 

As you can see, some terms depict the unique needs of subgroups of learners, e.g., LTELs, ELSWD, and SIFE, and are critical for ensuring that schools provide appropriate programs and services for them. However, when referring to other students learning the language of school, it would be helpful to educators, researchers, policy makers, students, and their parents if there were a single agreed-upon term. Uniformity is unlikely though since educational terminology and related acronyms are ever evolving. 

It seems like everywhere you look there are more books, articles, and blogs written about what works with multilingual learners (MLLs), but these resources don’t always reflect research-validated approaches and interventions. Empirical studies provide guidance for achieving desired outcomes that go beyond what intuitively seems like a good idea for teaching students in this population. The following areas of research are of particular importance in informing practice, especially for MLL students. 

1. Academic language. Cummins (1979) introduced the distinction between conversational language and academic language, and others more recently have discussed specific ways that academic language is challenging (Scheppegrell, 2020), particularly for multilingual learners. Academic language is more formal and abstract than conversational language and uses complex sentence structure (e.g., embedded clauses and conjunctions), highly sophisticated, abstract vocabulary (e.g., representational democracy in social studies), and rhetorical forms (e.g., figurative language), and it is encountered almost exclusively in school. 

Research has identified the critical relationship of academic language to reading comprehension, a cognitive and linguistic process needed to acquire and use knowledge in every academic content area. As MLL students become more proficient in English, they become more efficient readers and more similar to their English-speaking peers in their reading ability. Conversely, if EL students don’t become sufficiently proficient in English, they expend more cognitive effort, and their reading remains inefficient which negatively affects achievement and motivation. 

The importance of advancing academic language development is clear. Findings verify that MLLs don’t “pick up” academic language nor will the achievement gap close without explicit instruction in English language development (ELD). A separate ELD time each day focusing on English language instruction is critical but may not be sufficient for expediting English language growth. In every content lesson, teaching key content vocabulary and exploiting teachable academic language-learning opportunities likely will enhance English proficiency. 

2. Student assets. The idea that students come to school as empty vessels in need of filling has been dispelled. Indeed, students begin school with a minimum of 5 years of lived experiences, accumulated knowledge and language development in their home language (L1), and these continue to grow with each subsequent year. This treasure trove should be acknowledged and built upon as students learn academic content in school. 

For multilingual learners, some lived experiences are culturally influenced, such as attending quinceañeras or receiving red envelopes as gifts, and others are common to their age group such as popular social media sites, video games, and sports. Linguistic knowledge in their L1 can be used to bootstrap learning in English. Studies suggest that instructional routines that draw on students’ L1, their knowledge and cultural assets support literacy development in English. Some examples of practices used in studies include previewing and reviewing materials in children’s L1, providing opportunities for students to engage in conversations around text with peers using their L1 when needed, giving definitions for key vocabulary terms in both English and their L1, and introducing key concepts by connecting them to students’ knowledge or experience in the home and community. Teachers who don’t speak the language of their students shouldn’t be apprehensive about using these types of practices. Many technologies assist in translating words and definitions, and peers can be used as supports by grouping students with a common L1 together for discussions, then asking each group to summarize their discussion in English. Further, as teachers practice a dynamic interaction style with students, they will learn about students’ lived experiences which, in turn, can be used to connect lesson content to what students know and have experienced. 

Capitalizing on students’ linguistic and experiential assets by linking them to content, materials, and activities have motivational and engagement benefits, and contributes to MLL students’ sense of belonging and well-being.

3. Reading foundations.  Much has been written recently about the science of reading,

a discussion that spans decades. However, little research specifically addresses multilingual learners and how teaching reading may or may not differ for this population. Goldenberg (2020) conducted a review of research on reading and multilingual learners. He summarizes the findings and draws several conclusions. First, learning to read is similar for multilingual learners and English-speaking students. MLL students must learn the same foundational skills as English-proficient students. As Goldenberg says, “Full-fledged literacy certainly requires more, but there is a reason this group of skills is called foundational: It is required for the literacy edifice under construction. As with any building, if all you have is a foundation, you do not have much. Yet, a solid foundation is still essential” (p.133)

Secondly, along with foundational skills, additional supports are required for MLL students so that instruction in English is made comprehensible to them. They need additional instruction in the vocabulary found in text, especially for beginning speakers who are learning to recognize new words as they are read. Also beneficial is additional repetition and rehearsal as well as opportunities to practice. Specifically, beginning readers need practice in developing oral language, primarily in the form of effective ELD instruction to boost English proficiency.

Lastly, as MLL students advance through the grades, the academic language required to navigate grade-level texts and the disciplinary knowledge students need to comprehend texts becomes increasingly complex and demanding. Oral English language instruction and support needs to match the level of challenge for these students, particularly in language-intensive subjects. 

Future research

Developing English proficiency arguably has the greatest impact on success in school. Understanding and responding to the specific ways that academic language is most efficiently developed might offer ways for teaching ELD most effectively and result in accelerated English acquisition. Current studies show the importance of oral language for MLLs to improve early literacy, but which components of the interventions were most impactful remains unknown. 

Secondly, the effects of different instructional arrangements on multilingual students’ achievement should be explored. Debate continues around issues such as whether pull-out or push-in services are more effective, the optimal amount of time devoted to ELD instruction, and whether to group MLLs together or with English-speaking peers. These are areas of practice that warrant investigation.

(A version of this post appeared in Larry Ferlazzo’s Education Week blog)

Jana Echevarria, Ph.D. is Professor Emerita at CSULB where she was selected as Outstanding Professor. She is co-developer of the SIOP Model of instruction for English learners and co-author of Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners: The SIOP Model and 99 Ideas and Activities for Teaching English Learners among other publications. 

While there are a variety of definitions for social-emotional learning (SEL), essentially SEL is the process of learning and applying skills for recognizing and managing emotions, for developing and maintaining positive relationships, learning to set and achieve goals, making responsible decisions, and accepting responsibility for behavioral outcomes – the competencies individuals need to be successful in life. Addressing the social-emotional needs of students has never been more critical, particularly for multilingual learners who have been disproportionately affected by lost instructional time during the pandemic.

In a survey by Education Week, more than 50% of teachers surveyed cited SEL needs as a challenge to grade-level performance. Sometimes educators mistakenly believe that focusing on SEL competencies adds “one more thing” to their already overburdened schedules. However, SEL skills arguably are more effectively developed during content teaching. A recent report suggests specific practices that integrate social and emotional learning with academic learning rather than treating academic content and SEL as separate subject areas. These practices align with our work that makes content comprehensible for multilingual learners while simultaneously fostering language development. Rigorous academic lessons planned through an SEL lens provide opportunities to enhance students’ social and emotional wellbeing while simultaneously advancing learning.

I suppose it goes without saying that SEL first requires teachers to get to know their students. Learning is enhanced in a classroom environment where students’ linguistic and cultural assets are valued, one that provides a safe community of learning, and encourages students to interact together and build relationships. Further, students are encouraged to take ownership of their learning. When an appropriate learning environment is established, the following specific instructional recommendation may be implemented.

1. Plan intentionally. Incorporating SEL into lessons takes some thought but it is worth the effort since well-planned, focused teaching is effective in promoting learning. First, design and display both content objectives and language objectives for lessons so that learning is transparent and students buy-in to the lesson’s purpose. For example, a language objective may be to practice asking clarifying questions, a skill that helps students take ownership of their learning. The objective is reviewed with students and the importance of asking for clarification inside and outside of school is discussed. Working in pairs, students read their partner’s essay about a significant day in their lives. Partner A ask questions of the author (Partner B) to clarify parts that are unclear or seem to have missing information. This process allows the writer to take ownership of their work and accepting their partner’s feedback offers an opportunity to manage their emotions. Then Partner B listens to Partner A’s essay and provides feedback. The process ensures that their essays are focused and coherent, while at the same time provides practice with collaboration and getting clarification. Setting grade-level objectives, with appropriate scaffolding for success, communicates high expectations to students and engages them in rigorous curriculum. It’s useful to point out to students that setting objectives for a lesson is similar to setting goals for themselves, i.e., what they intend to accomplish in a day, a week, and so forth. 
2. Structure productive group work. The process of working together productively with peers contributes to a caring community of learning. By interacting and working together, mutual respect among students from different cultures and ethnicities develops. Interaction fosters many important SEL competencies such as establishing and maintaining relationships, improving social interaction skills, finding one’s own voice, and respecting others’ perspectives. Sometimes language frames are provided to assist such as, I understand her point but__________ or I respectfully disagree with _________ because __________. Having students talk in pairs or in small groups minimizes the risk that many students feel in whole group discussions and allows ideas to flow more easily. Structured opportunities for discussion also provide important language practice for multilingual learners. Further, during group discussions teachers can circulate and listen in which allows them to get to know their students better – their ideas, perspectives, personal and cultural assets and lived experiences. Positive interactions between teachers and students foster a supportive environment. Studies have shown improvements on practically every measure schools care about: higher student academic engagement, attendance, grades, fewer disruptive behaviors and suspensions, and lower school dropout rates. Feeling connected to school results in positive outcomes. 
3. Create conditions for success. Strong academic skills and content knowledge empower individuals to be more self-assured, to advocate for themselves and others, and to pursue their dreams. Research confirms that well-planned, focused teaching is effective in promoting learning. With multilingual learners, teachers adjust instruction based on language proficiency and educational experience so that each student is successful. All students learn the same grade-level content, but through differentiated texts and tasks. That is, students receive the scaffolds they need to be successful in completing work. Although multilingual learners may not be fully proficient in English, they can still think critically and respond to higher-order questions, such as evaluating and making judgements, comparing/contrasting, and categorizing. Group work is particularly effective when the teacher poses a question or topic for discussion that requires higher-order thinking. Asking simple recall questions conveys low expectations for multilingual students and isn’t intellectually stimulating. Further, there is an emphasis on self-reflection and self-assessment using rubrics, providing opportunities to revise and improve upon their work (see example above), and considering how their learning matched up to the lesson’s content and language objectives. Through the introduction of content and language objectives at the beginning of lessons and reflecting on them at the end, students become aware of their daily, incremental learning — both content and language development – which results in gains over time. 
4. Provide a balance of explicit instruction and practice. Teachers balance direct teaching with opportunities for students to practice new learning, thus deepening their understanding. When students learn the material through clear, explicit instruction, they are better equipped to practice using the language and content independently, with partners or in small groups. Practice and application activities often provide choice in activities that reflect students’ own identities. For example, they may create a presentation, design a game, dramatize the topic, write and perform a song, or generate solutions to real-life problems that represent diverse perspectives. Students have an opportunity to express their knowledge and understanding in a way that is of interest to them. 

The following lesson plan template offers questions to consider in lesson planning, delivery, and reflection. The SIOP Model’s lesson plan ensures that the linguistic and academic needs of multilingual learners are addressed in every lesson. The example here highlights SEL competencies. Other templates can be found here.

SIOP Lesson Plan Template

CONTENT STANDARD: State or District Standard

LESSON TOPIC: Any content area topic including English language development.

OBJECTIVES:

Content – What will students learn or be able to do related to the topic?

Language – What language will students need to advance their English proficiency? Which language forms and/or functions will students encounter in the lessons?

LEARNING STRATEGIES: What higher order questions will you plan to have students ponder? How will you communicate high expectations for your students?

KEY VOCABULARY:  Which terms need to be explicitly taught and practiced so that students can participate successfully in the lesson and complete academic tasks?

MATERIALS: Are the materials culturally relevant to students?

MOTIVATION:

(Building Background)

How will you connect the lesson to students’ lived experiences and background knowledge? What funds of knowledge might be tapped?

PRESENTATION:

(Content and language objectives, comprehensible input, modeling, interaction, feedback)

What aspects of the lesson require explicit instruction for student learning, and which allow for student inquiry, creativity, exploration? 

How will students be grouped for discussion and/or practice?

How will you ensure high levels of student engagement?

PRACTICE & APPLICATION:

(Meaningful activities, interaction, feedback)

What opportunities will students have to practice and apply content information? Which choice of learning experiences will students be offered?

REVIEW & ASSESSMENT:

(Review objectives and vocabulary, assess learning)

Will students conduct self-assessments or self-reflection?

When students struggle academically, schools often employ a multitiered system of support (MTSS), sometimes called RTI (Response to Intervention), to provide assistance to students who are underperforming. The vast majority of academic difficulties involve literacy, and many reading difficulties can be improved when they are identified early and when appropriate support is provided to the student. Difficulties in math can also be addressed through MTSS. 

The MTSS process includes effective instruction in general education (typically called Tier 1), followed by targeted interventions as needed (Tier 2), and, when appropriate, more intensive support through special education services (Tier 3). It’s important to mention that there isn’t a prescribed number of tiers or levels of support. For example, Tier 3 may involve more intensive interventions with special education being Tier 4. The point is to provide the level and intensity of supports students need to be successful. A benefit of MTSS is that it provides educators with a system for helping struggling learners in general education instead of considering referral to special education as the first or only option. 

For multilingual learners, an effective MTSS process takes into account cultural and linguistic considerations as educators search for solutions to the problems these students experience. To illustrate, a hypothetical multilingual learner will move through his school’s MTSS process. 

1. Effective instruction in general education. Enrique is a third grader whose teacher is knowledgeable about and experienced in effective teaching for multilingual learners. Mrs. Nash consistently provides scaffolds for her students such as features of SIOP teaching. She collaborates with the ESL teacher who spends 30 minutes each day working with Enrique in a small group on listening and speaking skills to improve their English proficiency. Typically, they discuss the story being read in class, highlighting key vocabulary terms necessary for understanding the story, explicitly teaching sentence structure by analyzing sentences in the story, making connections between the story and the students’ own experiences, and eliciting language from the students. Lots of opportunities to practice using English are provided for the students. However, over time Enrique remains significantly behind grade level and Mrs. Nash  turns to colleagues for assistance. 

2. Getting support from a grade-level team or professional learning community (PLC). This step in the process is used with multilingual learners since any number of variables may contribute to multilingual learners’ underperformance such ineffective teaching, absenteeism or transiency, inadequate English language development (ELD) or ESL teaching, or the simple fact that these students are learning new information and skills in a new language. This step typically is informal, involving discussion and collaboration amongst colleagues. However, it is important since multilingual learners in many schools are routinely thought to be in need of Tier 2 reading interventions when, in fact, they may need more explicit English language instruction with opportunities to practice using the language. 

The team, which includes at least one member with expertise in second language acquisition, examines classroom instructional practices to make sure Enrique is receiving the language support he needs. The team suggests that Mrs. Nash do a preview/review with each story being read. For example, she might use a graphic organizer to outline the way the story unfolds so Enrique has a general understand of what the story is about, translating terms as needed and pointing out cognates. After reading the story in class, Mrs. Nash works with Enrique to summarize the story, asking him to retell the story using clues from the graphic organizer and listed vocabulary words. A plan for monitoring the effect of this plan is also developed by the team. 

3. Evaluate the team plan. The grade-level or PLC team looked at the progress monitoring data gathered by Mrs. Nash to assess next steps. Their plan had taken into consideration Enrique’s language and cultural background by suggesting that Mrs. Nash add practices such as translating words as needed, making connections between Spanish and English by pointing out cognates, and linking elements of stories to Enrique’s own experiences to make stories more meaningful and relevant to him. Enrique didn’t respond positively to his teacher’s additional efforts, so the team decided to seek assistance from the Tier 2 Intervention team. 

4. Tier 2 Interventions. The intervention team examined data provided by Mrs. Nash about how Enrique performed in class and found that Enrique can haltingly decode words but doesn’t comprehend their meaning. The intervention team recommended a focus on intensive word recognition and comprehension strategies. Enrique’s progress was monitored every 4 weeks to gauge learning. 

5. Assess progress. The team found that Enrique made slight progress but did not sufficiently respond to the interventions after eight weeks. The team moved to the next step, changing the interventions.

6. Modify interventions. The team decided to modify the interventions, continue for 8 more weeks, and monitor progress every two weeks.

7. Assess progress. At the end of the second cycle of interventions, Enrique had not made the amount of progress that would have been expected. A referral for evaluation for special education services was initiated. Parent notification was sent to his family in Spanish, and they agreed to an evaluation for special education services. 

8. Evaluate for special education services. Enrique took part in a battery of assessments. The Speech/Language Pathologist conducted an evaluation in Spanish and English to establish his level of proficiency in each language. Enrique demonstrated auditory processing difficulties in both languages. The results of the assessments determined that Enrique has a disability that qualified him to receive special education services.

9. Develop an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The IEP team met, including Enrique’s parents and an interpreter, and an instructional program was agreed upon. The various IEP goals included one for accelerating oral language proficiency in English. In addition, it was noted that he would continue daily English language development with the ESL teacher.  Further, Enrique qualified for speech/language services.

10. Receive services in Tier 3: Special education. Enrique received high-quality instruction as he worked on his specific IEP goals. SIOP lesson planning ensured that instruction was comprehensible and meaningful for him and provided opportunities to practice and apply new knowledge, skills, and vocabulary. He also benefitted from speech therapy and daily ELD class. 

Note that this scenario is only one of many ways to characterize MTSS but there are some aspects that are essential for multilingual learners. Literacy and language are inextricably connected, however multilingual learners need oral language development before they can be expected to make the same progress as their English-speaking peers in reading. Tier 2 interventions are designed for remediating specific foundational reading skills, e.g., phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, comprehension and vocabulary, not necessarily developing English oral language. Many multilingual learners may get on track with support from the teacher and grade-level team without needing Tier 2 interventions. Few students would likely go through the entire process as Enrique did since most reading difficulties can be remedied during interventions. 

Post based on our forthcoming book, Making Content Comprehensible for Multilingual Learners: The SIOP Model, Sixth Edition.