Padía, Cioè-Peña, and Phuong’s article on mending the intersectional gap was a much needed read. The authors mention how one way “racial bias is experienced by culturally and linguistically diverse students and families is through linguistic oppression” (440). They add a layer to this understanding by noting that bilingualism is often viewed as a “superpower,” but when it comes to children with disabilities it’s considered an additional threat. I’ve read about arguments from scholars who believe that bilingual education is harmful for bilingual children as it forces them to learn a new language while continuing to progress in their native language. We’ve discussed over the past few months this monolingual-derived narrative or viewpoint and the ways it appears in pedagogy and policy and thus impacts the education and well-being of multilingual students.
I appreciated how Padía, Cioè-Peña, and Phuong clarify that EMLADs are not “deficient” as traditionally viewed but have complex educational needs that cannot be supported through siloed approaches (440). Oftentimes there are views that the student impacts the system but it’s frequently the other way around. If the program, system, and ways of teaching are not addressing the needs of the child, in this case EMLADs, the child is not at fault, the system is. And the system as the article highlights is often “focused on English language acquisition and development rather than multilingual growth and development” (440).
In the next page, the authors discuss multimodality. Which in my opinion, all students can benefit from. I’ve observed throughout my fieldwork (one in a classroom with multilingual students and another in a classroom with disabled students) the different ways in which the teachers use modality. Some students are visual learners, some students like to listen and trace, some students benefit from drawings — diverse ways of learning and instruction allow students to engage in the modality that best fits their needs. And as the authors note, this is connected to the idea of translanguaging which allows all students to feel linguistically empowered to learn (441). I especially empathize with the point that translanguaging supports multilingual learners’ full authentic expression of self and engagement with their learning experience(s) and environment(s) (441). If you only allow one aspect of a child to flourish, then you’re not engaging their full authentic self.
I found the idea of TrUDL intriguing. One of the arguments against bilingual education is that it inhibits students’ academic development. I personally find many reasons why this argument is illogical, but TruUDL is a clear example of a pedagogical approach that can catch both birds (meeting linguistic needs alongside academic development).