Linguistic Diversity in the Literacy Classroom

Shannon Klein

Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania

EDUC 606: Literacy Theory, Research, and Practice

Dr. Alesha Gayle

April 10, 2022

Students who come from linguistically diverse or backgrounds are not served equitably within

literacy and educational contexts. There are inherent inequalities in the current language practices in

schools, and since language can be used to sustain power differentials and dominant ideologies, this

results in societal inequalities being reproduced within the classroom (Villegas et al., 2021). Since the

deficit model of language present in many literacy classrooms stem from viewing monolingualism as

the norm, students whose linguistic or literate practices to not conform to the dominant practices of

Standard English become disenfranchised and disempowered. As Dyson and Genishi (2015) point out,

“there is an awesome disconnect between the breathtaking diversity of schoolchildren and the

uniformity, homogenization, and regimentation of classroom practices” (p. 4). Literacy instruction

must recognize, value, and build upon students’ diversity of language, as well as pay close attention to

the ways that language intersects with issues of equity, diversity, and social justice (Kirkland, 2010).

This much-needed adjustment to literacy education is increasingly pressing in classrooms today.

While honoring students’ linguistic diversity is important in every classroom, it is especially

salient within the literacy classroom. Many classrooms treat standard, academic English as a neutral

language. However, this belief is challenged by the overrepresentation of linguistic minority students

within special education (Gutierrez et al., 2009) and those placed in remedial classrooms where they

receive instruction with a focus on basic skills and an implied message that their literacy skills are

lacking (Aukerman & Chambers Schuldt, 2021). Despite the supposed neutrality of a narrow view of

correct language use within the classroom, “Language, particularly standard English, has the potential

to oppress” (Yenika-Agbaw, 1997, p. 452). Within the literacy classroom, Standard English language

skills can be falsely conflated with knowledge (Kirkland, 2010), and many teachers feel the influence

of the pervasive belief that “the quality of English reflects the quality of what someone has to say”

(Tan, 1999, n.p.). These practices result in language becoming “a tool to further Otherize nondominant
 2

communities” (Villegas et al., 2021, p. 302), and any language practices deemed nonstandard being

positioned as a deficit instead of as a tool and resource for literacy learning opportunities.

In addition to the deficit and remedial views towards linguistic diversity in many classrooms,

labels surrounding language use, proficiency, and skills contribute to the marginalization of

multilingual students and those with nonstandard language practices. Labels such as English Language

Learner or Limited English Proficiency categorize students by their language skills instead of other

aspects of their identities and practices, therefore positioning students as incapable of communicating

“correctly”. These labels have place students at risk of school failure due subsequent tracking,

treatment, and instruction (Lipson & Wixson, 2013). ELLs and multilingual students are also often

construed as being less skilled at reading and writing because they are tested in their second language

(Vasudeven & Campano, 2009). Teachers often view students with nonstandard language practices as

lacking intellectual power or academic skills (Ballenger, 2009). As shown above, labelling practices

related to students’ language use, which include “neutral” or “objective” evaluations of students’

language skills, actually function as an assessment and judgement of their identities and capabilities.

Deficitizing students based on their language practices has implications not only for ELL

students, but also for poor, urban, immigrant, or bilingual children (Ballenger, 2009). While these

students may be positioned as non-literate, their out-of-school literate identities often go unnoticed and

unappreciated (Kim, 2015). This issue is becoming increasingly pressing and salient due to the

increasing linguistic diversity in K-12 schoolchildren (Gonzalez et al., 2017). Many of these students

feel the dual burden of struggling to voice their ideas and feelings in English-dominant school settings

along with the knowledge that their language practices are not valued equally. In addition to the

negative affective impact that linguistically diverse students feel, assessments which prioritize

Standard language make these students have sometimes repeated and prolonged failure which can lead

to perceived lack of control and subsequent academic failure (Butkowsky and Willows, 1980).
 3

Considering the ways in which linguistically diverse students are not equitably served by our

educational systems or in literary classrooms leads me to reflect on and confront the ways that my

pedagogical practices could have contributed to this inequity. I taught at a school where virtually all

students were linguistically diverse, and more than eighty percent of students were currently classified

as ELLs. The curriculum I taught advanced an autonomous model of literacy, and we provided a lot of

remedial instruction to students who were framed as in need of more literacy skills and language skills

due to their non-standard language practices. Because many of my students did not exhibit the

progress or performance constructed as typical and desired, the bulk of my instruction focused on

“catching them up”, a type of instruction that does not provide students with opportunities to expand

their thinking, skills, and knowledge (Fiester, 2010). I did not make enough of an effort to reflect on

my students’ existing linguistic repertoires or skills and build on them in instruction, and I wonder how

much my non-critical teaching, no matter how well-intentioned, could have harmed my students.

Going forward in my teaching practice, I aim to consistently and reflectively utilize

instructional methods that build on students’ existing funds of knowledge (see Moll et al., 1992) and

focus on valuing their skills and practices instead of painting them as deficient. I agree with Qin’s

(2019) assertion that literacy instruction must provide opportunities for linguistically diverse students

to “enact and connect to their cultural, linguistic, and religious identities” (p. 365). Since language

intertwines inseparably with identity, a changing approach to students’ diverse language practices must

involve recognizing, valuing, and creating space for students’ diverse identities within the classroom.

As Aukerman et al. (2021) agrees, literacy education “should attend closely to linguistic, cultural, and

individual variation, honoring and leveraging different strengths and perspectives” (p. 585). In order to

equitably and intentionally support students in their literacy education, teachers need to constantly and

critically analyze their own attitudes and beliefs toward language and linguistic diversity so that

students’ various repertoires and skills can become an asset in their literacy development.
 4

References

Aukerman, M., & Chambers Schuldt, L. (2021). What matters most? toward a robust and socially just

science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly.

Ballenger, C. (2009). Puzzling moments, teachable moments: Practicing teacher research in urban

classrooms. Teachers College Press.

Butkowsky, I. S., & Willows, D. M. (1980). Cognitive-motivational characteristics of children varying

in reading ability: Evidence for learned helplessness in poor readers. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 72(3), 408–422.

Dyson, A.H., & Genishi, C. (2015). Children, language, and literacy: Diverse learners in diverse

times. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Fiester, L. (2010). Early warning! Why reading by the end of third grade matters. Annie E. Casey

Foundation.

Gonzalez, J. J., Kula, S. M, Gonzalez, V. V., & Paik, S. J. (2017). Context of Latino students’ family

separation during and after immigration: Perspectives, challenges, and opportunities for

collaborative efforts. School Community Journal, 27(2), 211-228.

Gutiérrez, K. D., Morales, P. Z., & Martinez, D. C. (2009). Re-mediating literacy: Culture, difference,

and learning for students from nondominant communities. Review of Research in Education,

33(1), 212–245.

Kim, G. M. H. (2015). Transcultural digital literacies: Cross-border connections and self-

representations in an online forum. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(2), 199–219.

Kirkland, D.E. (2010). English(es) in Urban Contexts: Politics, Pluralism, and Possibilities. English in

Education, 42, 293-306.

Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (2013). Assessment of reading and writing difficulties: An interactive

approach. Pearson.
 5

Moll, L., et al. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: using a Qualitative approach to connect

homes to classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132-141.

Qin, K. (2019). Citations of norms and lines of flight in one immigrant boy's performances of

masculinities and reading identities. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(3), 363–382.

Tan, A. (1999). Mother tongue. In S. Gillespie & R. Singleon (Eds.), Across cultures: A reader for

writers (pp. 26-31). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Vasudevan, L., & Campano, G. (2009). The social production of adolescent risk and the promise of

adolescent literacies. Review of Research in Education, 33(1), 310–353.

Villegas, K., Yin, P., & Gutiérrez, K. D. (2021). Interrogating Languaging Through Power, Race, and

Space in the Schooling of Translingual Student Populations. In Handbook of Urban Education

(2nd ed.). Routledge.

Yenika-Agbaw, V. (1997). Taking children’s literature seriously: Reading for pleasure and social

change. Language Arts, 74, 446-453.