CI is not inherently equitable.

...and yes, this is a hill I’m willing to die on.

And not only is it not equitable, it’s dangerous to spread that message. Teachers using CI can see it and think their work for equity is done when that is far from the truth.

While providing students with CI does pruebe better language acquisition, in order to be truly equitable we need to also consider:
•The materials we use
•The messages conveyed within the CI we provide
•Our classroom norms and policies
•how we interact with Ss
And so much more

We need to remember CI stands for comprehensible input. Nothing more, nothing less. How we deliver that CI is essential when considering equity. CI teachers all have different methods and approaches, some more equitable than others.

Is it equitable when our comprehensible input promotes assimilating to White cis able bodied norms? Is it equitable when our CI contains harmful messages about marginalized communities? Is it equitable when we demand certain behavioral compliance when delivering CI?

There is nothing inherently equitable about language teaching. Teaching equitably is a CHOICE. And it’s not always easy. It requires never ending critical self reflection and personal growth. It requires listening to criticism and using it to grow.

Yes, language teachers who use CI will have better results than those using grammar based or “traditional” approaches. You can make an argument that it’s an inherently better way to teach languages, but it is not inherently equitable.

While we’re here, if you claim CI is inherently equitable while failing to address harmful messages in some materials used to deliver CI, or ignoring class/program norms/policies used by some CI Ts that disadvantage marginalized students then you are upholding white supremacy.