The Next Frontier in Multilingual Literacy: Designing Coherent Systems
Three studies find multilingual learners gain more in language, reading, and achievement when literacy and implementation work as one coherent system.
Three studies find multilingual learners gain more in language, reading, and achievement when literacy and implementation work as one coherent system.
For decades, educational improvement efforts have focused on identifying better instructional practices. More recently, the Science of Reading transformed literacy instruction by clarifying how students learn to read. Research on multilingual learners demonstrated that language, literacy, and academic learning develop together through meaningful participation in content reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Additionally, implementation science has shown that even the strongest evidence-based practices produce inconsistent results when they are not supported by coherent organizational systems.
Independently, each of these research traditions has reshaped education.
Collectively, they may be pointing toward the next frontier in multilingual literacy.
Schools do not implement isolated research findings.
They implement instructional systems.
That distinction is more than semantic. Curriculum, language development, assessment, professional learning, instructional coaching, leadership, and continuous improvement are often designed and evaluated as separate initiatives. Yet multilingual learners experience them as a single instructional system every day in the classroom. The challenge facing education is therefore no longer identifying additional evidence-based practices. The evidence for effective literacy instruction, language development, and implementation is already substantial. The greater challenge is organizing that evidence into coherent systems in which each component strengthens the others.
This article introduces the Integrated Multilingual Literacy Framework, a conceptual model that synthesizes insights from the Science of Reading, multilingual learner research, and implementation science into a unified systems approach for multilingual learners. It then examines evidence from three large-scale independent efficacy studies to explore whether districts implementing an integrated multilingual literacy system demonstrated stronger outcomes in English language proficiency, reading growth, and academic achievement.
Rather than presenting three independent evaluations, this article argues that they represent three complementary tests of a single proposition: when literacy, language development, and implementation operate as one coherent instructional system, multilingual learners experience stronger outcomes across language proficiency, reading growth, and academic achievement.
The convergence of the Science of Reading, multilingual learner research, and implementation science creates an opportunity to rethink not only how students learn, but how schools are organized to support that learning. Each body of research explains an important part of the educational process. Reading theory explains how skilled reading develops. Multilingual learner research explains how language, literacy, and academic learning develop together. Implementation science explains how evidence-based practices become sustained classroom practice. What remains largely absent from the literature is a framework that intentionally connects these complementary bodies of evidence into a coherent instructional system.
The Integrated Multilingual Literacy Framework is proposed as one response to this challenge. Rather than introducing a new theory of reading or language development, the framework synthesizes established evidence into an organizational model that intentionally aligns literacy instruction, language development, assessment, educator learning, leadership, and continuous improvement. The remainder of this article first develops the conceptual rationale for this framework and then examines three complementary efficacy studies to explore whether student outcomes are consistent with its central proposition: that stronger outcomes emerge when literacy, language, and implementation function as one coherent instructional system.
Over the past four decades, three major bodies of scholarship have fundamentally reshaped educational research. Although they emerged from different disciplines and developed largely independently, each sought to answer a different—but equally essential—question about improving student learning. Today, their findings are converging toward a common understanding of effective instruction.
The Science of Reading asked one of the field's most enduring questions: How do children learn to read? Drawing from cognitive psychology, linguistics, neuroscience, and education, this body of evidence established that skilled reading depends on far more than exposure to text. It identified the essential cognitive and linguistic processes underlying successful reading—including phonological awareness, decoding, word recognition, fluency, vocabulary, language comprehension, and knowledge building—and demonstrated the importance of explicit, systematic instruction in developing these competencies (Castles et al., 2018; Ehri, 2020; National Reading Panel, 2000). More recently, reading research has moved beyond identifying these components to understanding how they interact dynamically during comprehension and meaning making.
At the same time, multilingual learner research addressed a different question: How do students develop literacy while simultaneously acquiring an additional language? Researchers in bilingualism, second-language acquisition, and multilingual education demonstrated that language development, literacy, conceptual understanding, and academic learning evolve reciprocally rather than sequentially. This scholarship challenged deficit-oriented views of multilingualism by showing that students' existing linguistic knowledge serves as a resource for learning and that reading, writing, speaking, listening, vocabulary development, and knowledge building continually reinforce one another throughout the learning process (August & Shanahan, 2006; Cummins, 1979, 2000; García & Kleifgen, 2018; Goldenberg, 2020).
A third body of scholarship, implementation science, approached the challenge from an organizational perspective by asking: Why do evidence-based instructional practices succeed in some schools but fail to produce similar results in others? Rather than focusing on individual instructional strategies, implementation science examined the conditions required for sustainable improvement. Across education and other human-service fields, researchers consistently found that effective practices alone are insufficient. Lasting improvement depends upon coherent systems that align curriculum, assessment, professional learning, instructional coaching, leadership, and continuous improvement around shared instructional goals (Bryk et al., 2015; Fixsen et al., 2005; Fullan, 2020).
Historically, these three traditions developed along separate trajectories. Literacy researchers focused on the cognitive architecture of reading. Multilingual learner researchers examined the interaction of language, literacy, identity, and academic learning. Implementation scientists investigated how organizations translate research into consistent classroom practice. Because they asked different questions, their findings were often interpreted independently.
Increasingly, however, the boundaries among these traditions have begun to dissolve.
Collectively, they suggest that educational improvement depends not simply on identifying effective instructional components but on understanding how those components function together within coherent systems. Reading develops through the coordination of multiple cognitive and linguistic processes. Language proficiency develops through meaningful participation in literacy and academic learning. Evidence-based practices produce sustained improvement only when curriculum, assessment, educator learning, leadership, and continuous improvement operate in alignment. Although each tradition contributes a different perspective, they increasingly point toward the same conclusion: the quality of the connections among instructional processes is as important as the quality of the individual components themselves.
Collectively, these three traditions suggest that the next major advances in multilingual literacy are unlikely to come from identifying additional evidence-based practices in isolation. They are more likely to come from understanding how existing evidence can be intentionally connected within coherent instructional systems that allow each practice to strengthen the others.
The evolution of reading theory reflects the broader movement described in the previous section. As literacy research has matured, successive theoretical models have progressively refined our understanding of skilled reading. Rather than replacing earlier frameworks, each has extended the field's knowledge by explaining additional dimensions of the reading process. Collectively, these models illustrate an important shift—from identifying the essential components of reading to understanding how those components interact during authentic literacy experiences.
The Simple View of Reading established that successful reading comprehension depends upon the interaction of two essential competencies: word recognition and language comprehension (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990). Its enduring contribution was demonstrating that neither accurate decoding nor language comprehension alone is sufficient for successful reading. Students must be able to recognize printed words accurately while also understanding the language those words convey. By resolving earlier debates that often positioned decoding and comprehension as competing priorities, the Simple View provided a foundational architecture that continues to influence literacy research and instructional practice.
Building upon this foundation, Scarborough's Reading Rope (2001) expanded the field's understanding by illustrating that each of these broad domains consists of multiple interacting strands that become increasingly coordinated through instruction and experience. The word-recognition strands include phonological awareness, decoding, and automatic word recognition, while the language-comprehension strands encompass background knowledge, vocabulary, language structures, verbal reasoning, and literacy knowledge. As these strands become increasingly strategic, fluent, and interconnected, skilled reading emerges. Scarborough's contribution was to demonstrate that literacy develops not through isolated skills but through the gradual coordination of multiple cognitive and linguistic processes.
More recently, the Active View of Reading has further advanced this progression by emphasizing that skilled reading is an active process requiring readers to coordinate far more than word recognition and language comprehension alone (Duke & Cartwright, 2021). The model highlights the roles of motivation, engagement, executive functioning, self-regulation, and, importantly, bridging processes that connect word recognition with comprehension. Vocabulary, fluency, morphological awareness, comprehension monitoring, and other bridging processes enable readers to integrate decoding, language, and knowledge while constructing meaning from increasingly complex text. Rather than functioning as independent instructional targets, these processes work together dynamically during reading.
Recent classroom research suggests that these bridging processes represent an important opportunity for strengthening literacy instruction. Observations across elementary classrooms indicate that while explicit instruction in foundational reading skills has become increasingly common, instructional opportunities that intentionally connect decoding with vocabulary development, oral language, connected-text reading, and comprehension occur less consistently. Jennerjohn and colleagues (2026) argue that strengthening these instructional connections may help students move more effectively from accurate word recognition toward deep comprehension, particularly when reading increasingly complex texts.
Taken together, these theoretical developments reveal an important evolution in literacy research. The field has progressed from identifying the essential components of reading, to explaining how those components interact, to recognizing the bridging processes and active regulation that enable readers to coordinate them during authentic reading. Increasingly, the central question is no longer simply what develops skilled reading, but how those processes work together to construct meaning.
Major theoretical frameworks increasingly emphasize that skilled reading depends not only on the development of essential cognitive and linguistic components, but also on the intentional coordination of those components during reading. The Integrated Multilingual Literacy Framework extends this progression from the level of the reader to the level of the instructional system.
This theoretical evolution raises an important question. If successful reading depends upon the coordinated interaction of multiple cognitive and linguistic processes, how should instructional systems be intentionally designed to cultivate those same interactions for students who are simultaneously developing literacy and acquiring an additional language?
For multilingual learners, these interactions are especially consequential because literacy development occurs simultaneously with English language development, vocabulary acquisition, knowledge building, and academic learning. Students are not progressing through these domains in isolation; they are developing them concurrently while drawing upon linguistic resources across languages. Decades of multilingual learner research consistently demonstrate that growth in one domain strengthens learning in others. Reading expands vocabulary. Academic conversations deepen comprehension. Writing reinforces language structures. Knowledge building enhances reading comprehension. These reciprocal relationships suggest that literacy and language development should not be organized as separate educational priorities but as mutually reinforcing dimensions of learning.
This perspective complements rather than competes with contemporary reading research. Together, these bodies of evidence suggest that effective instruction requires explicit teaching of foundational skills while simultaneously providing meaningful opportunities for students to develop language, build knowledge, engage in academic discourse, and apply literacy across authentic learning experiences. The question is therefore no longer whether these elements matter, but how educational systems can intentionally organize them into coherent instructional practice.
The convergence of these research traditions raises a broader organizational question. If skilled reading depends upon the coordination of multiple cognitive and linguistic processes, and multilingual learners develop language and literacy through reciprocal interactions, how should schools organize curriculum, assessment, professional learning, coaching, leadership, and continuous improvement to support those interactions consistently across classrooms?
The Integrated Multilingual Literacy Framework proposed here responds to that question. Figure 2 synthesizes the preceding theoretical discussion into the Integrated Multilingual Literacy Framework. Rather than introducing a new theory of reading, language development, or implementation, the framework integrates these established bodies of evidence into a single organizational model. Its central proposition is that instructional systems should intentionally mirror what contemporary reading theory tells us about learning itself. Just as skilled reading depends upon coordinated interactions among multiple cognitive and linguistic processes, effective educational systems should intentionally coordinate literacy instruction, language development, assessment, educator learning, leadership, and continuous improvement so that each reinforces the others.
If the Integrated Multilingual Literacy Framework accurately synthesizes these complementary research traditions, an important empirical question follows. Do instructional systems organized around these principles demonstrate stronger student outcomes? Although the framework itself is conceptual, three complementary efficacy studies provide an opportunity to examine whether districts implementing an integrated multilingual literacy system demonstrate consistent advantages across English language proficiency, reading growth, and academic achievement.
No single assessment provides a complete picture of student learning. Evidence becomes more compelling when findings are consistent across distinct measures designed to capture different dimensions of development.
Three complementary efficacy studies examined multilingual learner outcomes across indicators of English language proficiency, reading growth, and academic achievement. English language proficiency was measured using the Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS). Reading growth was examined using the NWEA Measures of Academic Progress Reading assessment. Academic achievement was evaluated using the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness Reading assessment.
Each measure addresses a different educational question. TELPAS assesses students’ development of academic English across listening, speaking, reading, and writing. MAP Reading measures individual reading growth over time relative to projected progress. STAAR Reading evaluates students’ performance against rigorous grade-level academic standards. Considered together, these assessments provide a multidimensional view of multilingual learner development across three outcomes central to district improvement efforts: language proficiency, literacy growth, and academic achievement.
Each study used a rigorous quasi-experimental design with propensity score matching to construct treatment and comparison groups that were similar on measured baseline characteristics. The evaluations were conducted under authentic district implementation conditions, strengthening their relevance to educational practice. Collectively, the studies provide evidence consistent with the requirements associated with ESSA Tier II. As with all quasi-experimental research, however, the findings should be interpreted as evidence of strong associations rather than definitive proof of causation.
The first study examined English language proficiency using TELPAS. Students participating in Connect to Literacy’s integrated multilingual literacy system achieved higher average scale scores than matched comparison students across every reported TELPAS domain. The largest scale-score differences were observed in Reading, with a 31-point advantage, and Writing, with a 25-point advantage.
The findings were also positive when examining attainment of the state’s upper proficiency levels. Compared with matched non-users, Connect to Literacy participants were 3.7 percentage points more likely to achieve Advanced or Advanced High proficiency on the TELPAS Composite assessment. The largest differences were observed in Reading, at +8.1 percentage points, followed by Writing, at +5.4 percentage points, and Speaking, at +4.2 percentage points. Statistically significant advantages were reported across every domain examined, and positive patterns were evident across nearly every student group and instructional setting included in the study.
These findings are consistent with a central principle of multilingual literacy instruction: academic language develops through meaningful participation in reading, writing, discussion, and knowledge building. The study does not establish that literacy experiences alone caused the observed language gains. It does, however, suggest that language development can be strengthened when it is intentionally embedded within sustained literacy and academic learning rather than treated only as a separate instructional activity.
The second study examined reading growth using the NWEA MAP Reading assessment. Students participating in the integrated multilingual literacy system were significantly more likely to meet their projected annual reading growth targets than carefully matched comparison students: 60.5% compared with 56.5%, a difference of 4.0 percentage points (OR = 1.18, p < .001).
Students in the highest implementation group demonstrated the strongest outcomes. Among these students, 62.2% met projected growth compared with 56.1% of matched non-users, representing a 6.1-percentage-point difference (p < .001). This pattern suggests that stronger implementation was associated with stronger reading outcomes. Because implementation levels were not randomly assigned, however, the pattern should not be interpreted as definitive evidence of a causal dose-response relationship.
Growth measures are particularly useful because they evaluate progress relative to each student’s expected trajectory. Meeting or exceeding projected growth indicates that students advanced at or above the rate anticipated from their prior performance. Positive findings were evident across nearly every grade level, student subgroup, and instructional setting examined, suggesting that the association between participation and stronger reading growth was broadly distributed rather than confined to a narrow population or context.
These results are consistent with the proposition that intentionally connecting literacy instruction and language development may support accelerated reading growth over time.
The third study examined student performance on the STAAR Reading assessment. Compared with matched peers, Connect to Literacy students demonstrated statistically significant advantages across each reported outcome.
Among participating students, 34.5% achieved Meets or Masters compared with 30.3% of matched comparison students, a difference of 4.2 percentage points (p < .001). Masters performance was 10.9% among Connect to Literacy students compared with 6.7% among matched peers, also a difference of 4.2 percentage points (p < .001). In addition, 75.5% of participating students demonstrated the STAAR Progress Measure compared with 61.1% of matched comparison students, a difference of 14.4 percentage points (p < .001). On Track performance was 42.9% among participating students and 35.8% among matched peers, a difference of 7.1 percentage points (p < .001).
Connect to Literacy students also demonstrated stronger performance on continuous outcomes. Their average STAAR Scale Score was 32 points higher, average Scale-Score Growth was 14.8 points greater, and average Lexile performance was 50.8 points higher than that of matched comparison students. Each difference was statistically significant at p < .001.
Stronger implementation levels were associated with larger differences in Meets or Masters performance. Students in the highest implementation group demonstrated a 9.5-percentage-point advantage relative to matched comparison students. This graded pattern is noteworthy, although it should be interpreted as an association between implementation level and outcomes rather than conclusive evidence that increased exposure independently caused the higher performance.
The STAAR findings are especially consequential because they indicate that the positive patterns observed on language-proficiency and growth measures were also evident on the state’s high-stakes assessment of grade-level academic performance. The results therefore extend beyond interim indicators and suggest that participating students were better positioned to demonstrate learning on consequential accountability outcomes.
Individually, each study addresses a different dimension of multilingual learner development. Collectively, they provide converging evidence across the three domains represented in the Integrated Multilingual Literacy Framework. The TELPAS study reflects language development. MAP Reading reflects literacy growth. STAAR reflects transfer to grade-level academic achievement. Although each assessment measures a distinct construct, the consistency of the findings across all three suggests that integrated instructional systems may strengthen learning across multiple dimensions simultaneously rather than improving only a single outcome.
This convergence matters because the assessments are not interchangeable. TELPAS evaluates the development of academic English across listening, speaking, reading, and writing. MAP Reading measures growth relative to students’ projected progress. STAAR Reading evaluates performance against grade-level academic expectations. Consistency across these distinct measures reduces the likelihood that the findings merely reflect an idiosyncrasy of one assessment or one type of outcome.
At the same time, the studies should not be treated as direct tests of every pathway represented in the Integrated Multilingual Literacy Framework. The evaluations examined the performance of students participating in an integrated instructional system; they did not independently isolate the effects of literacy instruction, language development, assessment, professional learning, coaching, leadership, or other implementation support.
The findings therefore provide empirical support consistent with the framework rather than definitive proof of its causal mechanisms. They suggest that when evidence-based literacy instruction, language development, assessment, and implementation supports are organized as a coherent system, multilingual learners may experience stronger outcomes across multiple dimensions of learning.
Across complementary measures of English language proficiency, reading growth, and academic achievement, multilingual learners participating in an integrated instructional system consistently demonstrated stronger outcomes than carefully matched comparison students. More important than the magnitude of the individual findings was their consistency across three independent measures, suggesting that sustainable improvement may be more likely when evidence-based practices function as a coherent instructional system rather than as disconnected initiatives.
The importance of these findings lies less in any single effect size than in the remarkable consistency of the pattern. Across three independent studies, three different assessments, and three complementary educational outcomes, multilingual learners participating in an integrated instructional system consistently demonstrated stronger performance than carefully matched comparison students.
The significance of these findings extends beyond the observed differences in student performance. Rather than demonstrating improvement on a single assessment, the studies suggest that multilingual learners benefited across multiple dimensions of learning that are typically examined separately. This consistency is important because it aligns with a broader proposition emerging across contemporary educational research: sustainable improvement is most likely when evidence-based practices function as parts of a coherent instructional system rather than as disconnected initiatives.
This proposition represents an important shift in emphasis for the field. Over the past two decades, literacy research has made substantial progress in identifying effective instructional practices. The Science of Reading has clarified how students develop skilled reading, multilingual learner research has expanded understanding of the reciprocal relationship between language and literacy, and implementation science has identified the organizational conditions necessary for evidence-based practices to succeed. Collectively, these complementary bodies of scholarship suggest that the next challenge is not discovering additional instructional components but understanding how existing evidence can be intentionally organized into coherent instructional systems.
The Integrated Multilingual Literacy Framework proposed in this article is intended as one response to that challenge. Rather than introducing a new theory of reading or language development, the framework synthesizes established evidence into an organizational model that intentionally connects literacy instruction, language development, assessment, professional learning, instructional coaching, leadership, and continuous improvement. Its central proposition is straightforward: if skilled reading develops through the coordination of multiple cognitive and linguistic processes, educational systems should likewise be designed to coordinate the instructional and organizational processes that support those outcomes.
The empirical findings are consistent with this proposition. Across three complementary studies conducted under authentic district implementation conditions, positive differences were observed in English language proficiency, reading growth, and academic achievement. While additional research across diverse educational settings is warranted, the convergence of these findings provides encouraging evidence that intentionally integrating literacy instruction, language development, and implementation supports may contribute to stronger outcomes for multilingual learners.
One of the most important implications of these findings is that literacy and language development should not be viewed as separate instructional priorities. Contemporary research increasingly recognizes that multilingual learners develop language through meaningful engagement in reading, writing, discussion, and content learning while simultaneously using expanding language proficiency to support increasingly sophisticated literacy practices. Rather than progressing sequentially, literacy and language develop through reciprocal relationships.
The findings presented here are consistent with this perspective. Students participating in the integrated multilingual literacy system demonstrated stronger English language proficiency, exceeded expected reading growth, and achieved higher levels of academic performance than carefully matched comparison students. Although these studies cannot establish the causal relationships among these outcomes, the consistency of the findings across three complementary assessments suggests that literacy and language development may reinforce one another when intentionally integrated within classroom instruction.
This interpretation also reflects the broader evolution of literacy theory. The Simple View of Reading established the importance of word recognition and language comprehension. Scarborough's Reading Rope illustrated how multiple strands of literacy become increasingly interconnected, while the Active View of Reading emphasized the active coordination of linguistic, cognitive, and executive processes during reading. The Integrated Multilingual Literacy Framework extends this progression from the learner to the instructional system. If successful reading depends on coordinating multiple processes within readers, schools should likewise coordinate literacy instruction, language development, assessment, professional learning, and continuous improvement. In this sense, coherence is not simply an organizational characteristic; it is an instructional principle.
Implementation represents a critical part of that coherence. Across the three studies, stronger implementation was consistently associated with stronger student outcomes. While implementation was measured differently across the evaluations, the overall pattern aligns with implementation science, which has long demonstrated that evidence-based practices produce the greatest impact when they are implemented consistently and supported through leadership, coaching, professional learning, assessment, and continuous improvement.
For multilingual learners, this organizational coherence may be especially important because integrated literacy instruction is inherently more complex than isolated instructional practices. Teachers are simultaneously developing foundational literacy, oral language, vocabulary, academic discourse, writing, and knowledge building within the same instructional experiences. The findings therefore suggest that implementation serves not only to sustain evidence-based practices but also to coordinate the multiple instructional processes that multilingual learners require for success.
The findings presented in this manuscript also contribute to a broader national conversation regarding the role of educational technology in schools. A growing public debate has questioned whether educational technology has become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. In response to concerns about excessive screen time, passive digital learning, and student-facing artificial intelligence, some have argued that schools should retreat from educational technology altogether. The evidence presented here suggests a different conclusion. The central question is not whether technology belongs in literacy instruction, but whether it strengthens the evidence-based instructional relationships that matter most.
The Integrated Multilingual Literacy Framework does not position technology as a replacement for teachers or high-quality instruction. Rather, technology functions as one component of a coherent instructional system in which curriculum, assessment, professional learning, language development, and educator expertise remain central. Digital tools should strengthen teachers' capacity to deliver explicit instruction, monitor student progress, differentiate learning, and provide timely feedback—not replace the human interactions through which language, literacy, and academic identity develop.
This distinction is particularly important for multilingual learners. Effective technology should create opportunities for richer language interactions, more responsive formative assessment, and greater access to rigorous content while preserving the essential role of teacher-guided discussion, collaborative learning, and meaningful communication. When implemented within coherent instructional systems, educational technology has the potential to amplify—not substitute for—the evidence-based practices that support multilingual literacy development.
The findings also have important implications for district leaders responsible for designing, implementing, and continuously improving multilingual literacy systems. If the central proposition of this article is correct—that stronger outcomes emerge when evidence-based literacy instruction, language development, and implementation supports function as a coherent system—then the work of district leadership extends beyond selecting high-quality instructional materials. It includes intentionally designing the organizational conditions that enable those components to reinforce one another across classrooms.
First, literacy and language development should be designed as complementary dimensions of the same instructional experience rather than separate instructional initiatives. Multilingual learners do not develop reading, language, vocabulary, writing, and knowledge sequentially or independently. These processes develop simultaneously through meaningful engagement with complex texts, discussion, writing, and content learning. District curriculum, instructional planning, assessment, and professional learning should therefore reflect this reciprocal relationship rather than treating literacy and English language development as parallel systems.
Second, implementation should be viewed as a strategic investment rather than an operational task. High-quality instructional materials provide an essential foundation, but they are unlikely to produce consistent results without coherent implementation. Professional learning, instructional coaching, leadership, assessment, and continuous improvement should be intentionally aligned to support educators in translating research into consistent classroom practice. The findings presented here suggest that implementation quality may be as consequential as curriculum quality in determining student outcomes.
Third, districts should evaluate success through multiple complementary indicators rather than relying on a single assessment. Language proficiency, reading growth, and academic achievement each illuminate different dimensions of multilingual learner development. Examining these measures together provides a more comprehensive understanding of instructional effectiveness, enables earlier identification of strengths and challenges, and supports continuous improvement grounded in multiple sources of evidence rather than a single accountability metric.
More broadly, the findings suggest that district improvement efforts may be strengthened by shifting the central question from "Which evidence-based practice should we adopt?" to "How do we organize evidence-based practices so they function together as a coherent instructional system?" That shift moves the focus from implementing individual initiatives to designing systems capable of sustaining meaningful instructional improvement over time.
Over the past two decades, the Science of Reading, multilingual learner research, and implementation science have each transformed educational practice. Together, these fields have substantially improved understanding of how students learn to read, how multilingual learners develop academic language, and how schools successfully implement evidence-based practices. The next challenge is not simply identifying what works, but understanding how effective practices work together within coherent instructional systems.
Schools do not implement isolated research findings. They implement instructional systems.
The Integrated Multilingual Literacy Framework proposed in this article addresses that challenge by synthesizing these complementary bodies of research into a systems perspective. Evidence from three complementary efficacy studies provides empirical findings consistent with this framework. Across measures of English language proficiency, reading growth, and academic achievement, multilingual learners participating in an integrated instructional system consistently demonstrated stronger outcomes than carefully matched comparison students. Although additional research across diverse educational contexts is warranted, the convergence of findings across multiple independent measures strengthens confidence that coherent instructional systems may provide meaningful benefits for multilingual learners.
As schools reconsider the role of educational technology and artificial intelligence, the findings of this manuscript suggest that the question should not be whether technology belongs in literacy instruction, but whether it meaningfully strengthens the relationships among teachers, students, language, and learning within coherent instructional systems.
The broader contribution of this article extends beyond the findings of any single study. It suggests that future advances in multilingual literacy may depend less on discovering additional evidence-based instructional practices than on improving how existing evidence is organized and implemented within schools. If skilled reading develops through the coordination of multiple cognitive and linguistic processes, educational systems should likewise be designed to coordinate the instructional and organizational processes that support those outcomes. The next advances in multilingual literacy are unlikely to emerge from discovering entirely new instructional practices. The evidence supporting explicit literacy instruction, language development, and effective implementation is already substantial. The greater opportunity lies in intentionally designing instructional systems that connect these complementary practices so they reinforce one another in every classroom. The future of multilingual literacy is therefore not simply about better programs or better practices. It is about building better systems—systems that intentionally integrate literacy, language, implementation, and educator expertise so multilingual learners can experience the full power of each.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America's schools can get better at getting better. Harvard Education Press.
Burns, M. K., Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2023). Evaluating components of the Active View of Reading as intervention targets: Implications for social justice. School Psychology, 38(1), 30–41.
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51.
Cervetti, G. N., Pearson, P. D., Palincsar, A. S., & Afflerbach, P. (2007). Reading and writing in the service of inquiry-based science. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 221–244). Sense Publishers.
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121–129.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters.
Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the Simple View of Reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S25–S44.
Ehri, L. C. (2020). The science of learning to read words: A case for systematic phonics instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S45–S60.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. University of South Florida, National Implementation Research Network.
Fullan, M. (2020). Leading in a culture of change (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
García, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2018). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and practices for English learners (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.
Goldenberg, C. (2020). Reading wars, reading science, and English learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S131–S144. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.340
Goodwin, A. P., & Jiménez, R. T. (2020). The Science of Reading: Supports, Critiques, and Questions. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S7–S16. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.360
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10.
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The Simple View of Reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2(2), 127–160.
Jennerjohn, A., Rutherford-Quach, S., Cassidy, L., Woodworth, K., Dec, S., & Reynolds, D. (2026). Bridging the divide: Connecting word recognition and language comprehension in early literacy [Learning Brief]. SRI International.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Promoting the educational success of children and youth learning English: Promising futures. National Academies Press.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 1, pp. 97–110). Guilford Press.
Shanahan, T. (2023). A review of the evidence on Tier 1 instruction for readers with dyslexia. Reading Research Quarterly, 58(2), 268–284. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.438
Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. RAND.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. (2022). What Works Clearinghouse: Procedures and standards handbook (Version 5.0). https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/handbooks
Warschauer, M. (2026, July 27). Walking away from education technology isn't the answer to the latest backlash. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ripple/2026/07/27/opinion-walking-away-from-education-technology-isnt-the-answer-to-the-latest-backlash/