This session is grounded in an asset-based perspective (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2005; Paris, 2012) and informed by systemic functional linguistics (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014; Derewianka & Jones, 2016), which conceptualizes language as a dynamic, context-dependent system of meaning-making. It also draws on the WIDA English Language Development Standards Framework (2020 Edition), which emphasizes learning language through content and provides developmental trajectories for multilingual learners (WIDA, 2020). These frameworks support linguistically responsive assessment and instruction by recognizing multilingual learners’ cultural and linguistic assets and aligning text complexity with English language proficiency.
This study used a mixed-methods design to align Fountas & Pinnell and Lexile® text complexity measures with WIDA English Language Proficiency (ELP) levels across six grade clusters (K, 1, 2–3, 4–5, 6–8, 9–12).
Phase 1: Expert Review Panel
Thirty-three K–12 educators from 11 Virginia school divisions were selected via online applications. Panelists represented diverse expertise in ESOL, literacy, dual language assessment, special education, and gifted education, Organized into grade-level teams, they reviewed WIDA’s 2020 Proficiency Level Descriptors (PLDs), identified instructional texts using the Fountas & Pinnell Text Level Gradient, and estimated typical reading levels for multilingual learners (MLLs) with home language literacy. Consensus was built using the Multi-Attribute Consensus Building process (Shyyan et al., 2013).
Phase 2: Empirical Validation
Text samples were analyzed using certified Lexile® measures and Coh-Metrix v3.0 indices (McNamara et al., 2014), including referential cohesion, syntactic complexity, word concreteness, and Flesch-Kincaid grade level. Discrepancies between expert judgment and empirical data informed refinements to the ELP–Text Complexity Tables.
Phase 3: Cross-Framework Comparison
Lexile estimates were compared with CEFR benchmarks for school-age readers (Goodier & Szabo, 2018a, 2018b; Webb et al., 2020, 2022), validating the alignment of WIDA ELP levels with international standards.
Customization Protocol
A protocol was developed for local adaptation using student background variables (e.g., prior schooling, home language literacy, individual learning needs), enabling multiyear learner profiles to distinguish typical acquisition from potential difficulties (Codiroli McMaster & Cook, 2018; Le et al., 2024).
This multi-phase approach ensures replicability and supports linguistically responsive reading assessment and instructional design.
The study resulted in the development of two validated ELP–Text Complexity Tables that align WIDA English Language Proficiency (ELP) levels with Fountas & Pinnell and Lexile® text complexity measures across six grade clusters (K, 1, 2–3, 4–5, 6–8, 9–12). These tables were empirically validated through educator consensus, Coh-Metrix linguistic analysis (McNamara et al., 2014), and cross-framework comparisons with CEFR benchmarks (Goodier & Szabo, 2018a, 2018b; Webb et al., 2020).
This study addresses a critical gap in literacy assessment by aligning widely used text complexity measures (Fountas & Pinnell and Lexile®) with WIDA English Language Proficiency (ELP) levels. Traditional grade-level benchmarks often misrepresent multilingual learners’ (MLLs) reading development, reinforcing deficit narratives and leading to inappropriate instructional decisions. The resulting ELP–Text Complexity Tables and customization protocol offer educators and AI developers linguistically responsive tools to:
--Accurately interpret MLL reading progress using a second-language acquisition lens.
--Select texts that match both cognitive and linguistic demands.
--Reduce misclassification and unnecessary special education referrals.
--Support equitable access to grade-level content for diverse learners.
For ISTE audiences, this work is especially valuable as it bridges educational research, language development, and AI-enhanced learning environments. It empowers technology designers and instructional leaders to recalibrate digital tools for MLLs, ensuring that personalization algorithms reflect authentic language growth rather than monolingual norms.
Codiroli Mcmaster, N., & Cook, R. (2018). The contribution of intersectionality to quantitative research into educational inequalities. Review of Education, 7, 271-292. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3116
Council of the Great City Schools. (2023). A framework for foundational literacy skills instruction for English learners: Instructional practice and material considerations. https://www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/35/CGCS_Foundational%20Liter acy%20Skills_Pub_v14.pdf
Derewianka, B., & Jones, P. (2016). Teaching language in context (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
D'Orio, W. (2020). Reading levels unfairly label learners, say critics. And then there’s the research. School Library Journal. https://www.slj.com/story/Where-did-Leveling-Go-Wrongleveled-reading-lexiles-AR-libraries-books-fountas-pinnell
Fitzgerald, J., Elmore, J., Hiebert, E. H., Koons, H., Bowen, K., Sanford-Moore, E. E., & Stenner, A. J. (2016). Examining text complexity in the early grades. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(3), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721716647023
Fitzgerald, J., Elmore, J., Koons, H., Hiebert, E. H., Bowen, K., Sanford-Moore, E. E., & Stenner, A. J. (2015). Important text characteristics for early-grades text complexity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 4–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037289
Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., & Alfonso, V. C. (2013). Essentials of cross-battery assessment (3rd ed.). Wiley.
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2017a). Fountas & Pinnell instructional grade-level equivalence charts. Heinemann. http://www.fountasandpinnell.com/shared/resources/FP_FPL_Chart_Instructional-Grade-Level-Equivalence-Chart.pdf
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2017b). The Fountas & Pinnell literacy continuum: A tool for assessment, planning, and teaching (Expanded ed.). Heinemann.
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2011). Fountas & Pinnell benchmark assessment system: 2, Grades 3-8, levels L-Z. Heinemann.
Gibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding language scaffolding learning: Teaching English language learners in the mainstream classroom. Heinemann.
González, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-06807-000
Goodier, T., & Szabo, T. (2018a). Collated representative samples of descriptors of language competences developed for young learners: Resource for educators (Vol. 1), Ages 7–10. Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/16808b1688
Goodier, T., & Szabo, T. (2018b). Collated representative samples of descriptors of language competences developed for young learners: Resource for educators (Vol. 2), Ages 11–15. Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/16808b1689
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. . https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th Edition). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203431269
Hammer, C.S., Hoff, E., Uchikoshi, Y., Gillanders C., Castro, D., & Sandilos, L.E. (2014). The language and literacy development of young dual language learners: A critical review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,4, 715-733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.05.008
Johnson, A. (2022). Achievement and growth for English learners. Educational Policy, 37(4), 1044–1069. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048211049419
Kane, M. T. (2013). Validity. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 17–64). American Council on Education/Praeger.
Koons, H., Elmore, J., Sanford-Moore, E., & Stenner, A. J. (2017). The relationship between Lexile text measures and Fountas & Pinnell text gradients. MetaMetrics Research Brief, Educational Assessment, 22(3), 181–197. https://metametricsinc.com/wpcontent/uploads/2018/01/Lexile-Measures-FP.pdf
Le, B., Black, K. E., Carlson, C., Miciak, J., Romano, L., Francis, D., & Kieffer, M. J. (2024). Ever English learner 4-year graduation: Toward an intersectional approach. Educational Researcher, 53(6), 378-383. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X241246747
Lesaux, N. K., & Kieffer, M. J. (2010). Exploring sources of reading comprehension difficulties among language minority learners and their classmates in early adolescence. American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 596–632. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209355469
McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P., & Cai, Z. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511894664
McGraw-Hill. (2003). Test of adult basic education. https://tabetest.com/students-2/tabe-1112/ MetaMetrics. (n.d.). Lexile grade level charts. https://hub.lexile.com/lexile-grade-level-charts/
MetaMetrics. (2017). The Lexile® Framework as an approach for reading measurement and text analysis. https://metametricsinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/The-Lexile-Framework-for- Reading.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). NAEP reading: Highlights 2022 (Grades 4 and 8). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/reading/2022
Olsen, L. (2010). Reparable harm: Fulfilling the unkept promise of educational opportunity for California’s Long Term English Learners. Californians Together. https://californianstogether.org/resource/reparable-harm-fulfilling-the-unkept-promise-ofeducational-opportunity-for-californias-long-term-english-learners/
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12441244
Park, H. (2024). Examination of the current implementation status of WIDA English language development standards framework, 2020 edition (WIDA Research Report No. RR-2024-2). Wisconsin Center for Education Research. https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/Research-Report-Examination-Current-Implementation-Status-WIDA-ELD-Standards-Framework.pdf
Robertson, K., & Breiseth, L. (2008). Reading 101 for English language learners. Colorín Colorado. https://www.colorincolorado.org/article/reading-101-english-language-learners
Shafer Willner, L., & Gottlieb, M. (2024). Aligning proficiency level descriptors with audiences and uses: Enhancing equitable communication in a K–12 language assessment system. Paper presented at the Language Testing Research Colloquium (LTRC), Innsbruck, Austria.
Shafer Willner, L. (2023a). Improving developmental appropriateness of proficiency level descriptors for English language proficiency. Paper presented at the 2023 National Conference on Measurement in Education. Chicago, IL.
Shafer Willner, L. (2023b). WIDA correspondence mapping of the match, breadth, consistency, and depth of language opportunities in state K–12 English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies standards (WCER Working Paper No. 2023-3). University of Wisconsin–Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. https://wcer.wisc.edu/publications/abstract/wcer-working-paper-no-2023-3
Shafer Willner, L. (2023c). WIDA Focus On: Identifying multilingual learners for specific learning disabilities: Data, advice, and resources for school teams. WIDA. https://wida.wisc.edu/resources/identifying-multilingual-learners-specific-learning-disabilities-data-advice-and
Shafer Willner, L. (2014). ELPA21 standards K-12 proficiency level descriptors. Developed by WestEd for the ELPA21 Consortium and the Council of Chief State School Officers.
Shyyan, V., Christensen, L., Thurlow, M., & Lazarus, S. (2013). Multi-attribute consensus building tool. National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED545334
TeachThought. (n.d.) A conversion chart for reading level measurement tools. https://www.teachthought.com/literacy-posts/conversion-chart-reading-level-measurement-tools/
The Reading League & National Committee for Effective Literacy. (2023). Joint statement on literacy instruction for multilingual learners. https://www.thereadingleague.org/wpcontent/uploads/2024/04/Joint-Statement-on-the-Science-of-Reading-and-English-Learners_Emergent-Bilinguals-24.pdf
Webb, X. J., Steinkamp, S., Koons, H., Sanford-Moore, E. E., Baker, R., & Hinson, A. (2020). The 2020 text complexity continuum in Grades 1-12. MetaMetrics. https://metametricsinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/The-2020-Text-Complexity-Continuum-in-Grades-1-12.pdf
WIDA. (2012). WIDA English language development standards framework, 2012 Edition: Kindergarten–grade 12. University of Wisconsin–Madison.
WIDA. (2020). WIDA English language development standards framework, 2020 Edition: Kindergarten–grade 12. University of Wisconsin–Madison. https://wida.wisc.edu/teach/standards/eld
WIDA. (2025a). WIDA ACCESS. https://wida.wisc.edu/assess/access
WIDA. (2025b). WIDA Language Charts: Tying ACCESS scores to classroom instruction. ttps://wida.wisc.edu/revisingaccess
Yan, L., Sha, L., Zhao, L., Li, Y., Martinez-Maldonado, R.,Chen, G., Li, X., Jin, Y., & Gašević, D. (2024). Practical and ethical challenges of large language models in education: A systematic scoping review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55, 90–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13370
Posters in this theme:
From A2 to the ISTE Stage: A Framework for Educator Language Mastery
Back
Trips and Tours