I had a really interesting professional disagreement yesterday with some of our colleagues on here, but it's buried deep within the comments of a thread.

I'm going to reopen it here for visibility and further discussion. A on equity within CI.

The question this conversation has me considering is if Comprehensible Input (CI) approaches to teaching are *inherently* equitable.

This idea is not limited to yesterday's convo, but I've seen it in other tweets, in blogs, in FB groups -- sometimes framed as "social justice issue" or "inherently aligned with culturally sustaining pedagogies".

But is it really inherently more equitable?

First, I think we need to ask, what exactly do we mean by equitable? Is it a more equitable way for Ss to learn languages? Considering humans learn language through a flood of CI, more Ss will have success w/CI approaches meaning more equitable language acquisition is *possible*

But, as many in the CI movement agree, it's not CI alone. Many argue for for "compelling" CI, or "interesting" CI. The idea is if the CI is boring or not listened to, Ss won't pay as much attention which means they will comprehend less and therefore learn less

I would also argue if the messages contained within the CI perpetuate stereotypes, is bias against some of our students (or others), or contains racist ideas, these messages can harm students rather than help them acquire language. And that's certainly not equitable.

So that brings me to a passage I tweeted yesterday from a CI reader. Read the passage carefully. (Will provide an english translation in the comments of this tweet)

I'm interested, what questions do you have about this passage? I have quite a few. What messages does this passage send about indigenous people? Are these messages in line with the stories indigenous people tell about themselves? Who benefits from this rhetoric? Who does not?

To answer some of those questions, let's look at this passage alongside a passage from a Guatemalan children's story. #pairedtexts

What do you notice?

How to the two texts portray Guatemalans? Which text do you think my Guatemalan students would prefer to have in our classroom library?

The first book I quoted is a particularly egregious example, but the problem isn't limited to 1 book. Other books have problematic messages, but they are much more subtle and may go unnoticed unless teachers are really reading with a critical lens.

For example, other texts have people, or entire families, described as "normal". As in "Dorie tiene una familia normal." The book will go on to say my family is me, mom, dad, brothers and/or sisters. You know... just a "normal" family.

Again, I ask, what message is this sending our students? Who does this message serve? Who does it harm?

I completely understand that authors of these books are making every attempt to simplify language to aid comprehension. But if the result is a loss of nuance leading to generalizations or stereotypes, is that the result we want?

Now this thread is not at all to say that CI readers are bad or that they don't have a place in the classroom. I use teacher-created materials often in my classroom, readers included!

It's also not to say that authentic resources ( #authres) are the answer. This whole conversation started with me giving an example of an authres that perpetuates stereotypes and racist ideas.

But what I am saying is that if we want our CI to be equitable, it doesn't happen naturally. We must work for it.

I find messages that CI is *inherently* equitable or culturally sustaining dangerous as they might lead Ts to accept current practices w/o critical examination

Part of that work is critically examining *every* resource we bring into the classroom -- authentic resources AND resources created for learners.

Here are some questions I personally use to help me determine if/how I will use a resource. To help me determine a resource's communicative intent:

-For what purpose was this resource created?
-Who is the intended audience?
-Was the resource intended to entertain, inform or persuade?
-In what settings and ways could monolingual, bilingual, and multilingual users of the language use this resource?

To help me determine cultural perspectives:
-Who is the author/creator?
-Who is the intended audience?
-What cultural products, practices, and perspectives are found within the work? Are they accurate? What criteria am I using to determine accuracy?
....

-Who benefits from this resource? Who does not?
-How is this work received by the community the work portrays?

Alternatively, here's a great guide for critically examining your resources (not tagging the creator for fear she'll get looped into this conversation, but will reply to this tweet with her info): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ARJ6r3cPxUSq_XiU6XuCAS_elPV6SeTDEUNldio4r84/edit

So do I think CI is equitable? I think it can be. And I think when done well it is certainly more equitable than grammar-led approaches.

I am extremely grateful for all my fellow CI teachers who put in a LOT of work to create equitable learning experiences. Thank you for all you do!! It's not easy, I know.