Next Article in Journal
How Learning Environments Affect University Students’ Employability Skills Development: Students and Staff Views
Next Article in Special Issue
What Will Happen to the Mother Tongue? Parental Perspectives on L1 Support During the Transition to Estonian-Medium Education
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Pedagogical Agent-Generated Summaries on Video-Based Learning: Evidence from Eye-Tracking and EEG
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 16
Issue 1
10.3390/educsci16010040
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Multilingual Literacy for All? Aligning Clinical Practice of Bilingual Teacher Candidates in California

by
Jordi Solsona-Puig
1,* and
Fernando Rodríguez-Valls
2
1
Department of Teacher Education & Foundations (CSUSB-TEF), California State University San Bernardino, San Bernardino, CA 92407, USA
2
Secondary Education, California State University Fullerton institution, Fullerton, CA 92831, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2026, 16(1), 40; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16010040
Submission received: 12 November 2025 / Revised: 15 December 2025 / Accepted: 23 December 2025 / Published: 29 December 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Supporting Multilingual Students in Schools: Perspectives, Challenges, and Opportunities, 2nd Edition)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

Literacy is at the core of teaching. Teacher candidates in California need to complete a minimum of 400 h of clinical practice, the key component for their training. The Teacher Performance Expectations (TPE) standards that guide the evaluation of bilingual teacher candidates have added TPE7 specifically on Literacy. The state evaluation tools for clinical practice—the California Teacher Performance Assessment (CALTPA), the edTPA, and the Fresno Assessment of Student Teachers (FAST)—are aligned with these TPEs. This ecosystem creates a series of challenges for bilingual candidates who complete their student teaching practices in dual-language instruction and/or bilingual classrooms since the Teacher Performance Expectations (BTPEs) are the standards applied to coursework but not necessarily to Clinical Practice. In this article, we critically analyze these challenges to promote multiliteracy for all, not only from an English-Only perspective. In this article, we aim to offer recommendations to (a) prepare bilingual teacher candidates, (b) scaffold their development as educators, and (c) assess their work through student teaching. We also provide support systems to be set in place for to Teacher Preparation Programs (TPPs) to ensure multiliteracy in an equitable and inclusive framework that should guide the training of bilingual teacher candidates.

1. Introduction: Literacy and Bilingual Teacher Preparation

In the context of the teacher shortage nationwide, preparing bilingual teachers has become a priority for many higher education institutions and LEAs (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2019; Capdevila-Gutiérrez et al., 2021). In California, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) oversees Teacher Preparation Programs (TPPs) at more than 250 institutions, preparing educators to support the state’s diverse plurilingual student population. Of those, 48 are authorized to offer bilingual authorization (see Figure 1) in 17 languages other than English. Twenty of those institutions are located on CSU campuses (CTC, 2025b). The CSU system graduates hundreds of bilingual teacher candidates each year, arguably the highest number in any institution in the nation (Solsona-Puig et al., 2024). On a quick review, it appears clear that over the past decade, California has overhauled its licensing and accreditation systems to establish updated standards for teacher preparation and performance, including bilingual programs (Patrick et al., 2023; Capdevila-Gutiérrez et al. 2021; E. Muñoz-Muñoz et al., 2024). These updated standards, known as the six Teacher Performance Expectations or TPEs (TPE, 2016)—later expanded to seven, the Literacy Standard or TPE-7 (TPE-7, 2022)—are for beginning teachers. This standard 7 was added to the teaching preparation programs in response to the passing of SB488 in 2021 (CTC, 2023), a policy that wanted to overhaul how literacy in English is taught in the Golden State. In a last installment of the California “reading wars”, it produced long-lasting repercussions, including in Bilingual Teacher preparation and their clinical practice. Additionally, the Bilingual Teacher Performance Expectations (BTPE, 2021) for bilingual teacher candidates are aimed to emphasize the ability of bilingual teachers to implement ambitious student learning expectations, including multilingual instructional strategies that support biliteracy development and academic achievement in multiple languages.

2. Methodology

Methodologically, this study employs a qualitative policy analysis and comparative standards analysis to examine how literacy expectations are conceptualized and operationalized in California’s teacher preparation policy framework and how this affects bilingual teacher preparation programs. Our analysis is situated in the specific context of California, USA, where teacher candidates must complete a minimum of 400 h of clinical practice and demonstrate competence on state-approved performance assessments.
First, we compiled a corpus of key state policy and standards documents that structure bilingual teacher preparation, the Teacher Performance Expectations (TPEs) and the Bilingual Teacher Performance Expectations (BTPEs), and compared them with official handbooks and guides for the California Teacher Performance Assessment (CALTPA), edTPA, and Fresno Assessment of Student Teachers (FAST).
Second, we conducted a comparative standards analysis between the TPEs and BTPEs. We created an analytic matrix to map points of alignment, partial alignment, and misalignment across domains (e.g., literacy, language and cultural development, assessment, and identity). Within this matrix, summarized in Table 1, we examined how expectations for bilingual candidates are articulated in coursework (BTPEs) but not consistently reflected in the standards and rubrics used to evaluate clinical practice (TPE-aligned assessments). Particular attention was given to the addition of TPE 7 on Literacy and to how literacy is framed in relation to English proficiency versus multilingual and biliterate development in the BTPE (see Table 2).
Finally, we interpreted the implications of these policy and standards configurations for bilingual teacher preparation programs (TPPs) in California. Drawing on existing empirical literature on bilingual teacher candidates’ experiences, we connected our document-based findings to reported challenges in clinical practice, supervision, and assessment. This allowed us to formulate recommendations for (a) preparing bilingual candidates, (b) scaffolding their development during clinical practice, and (c) evaluating their work in ways that are consistent with multiliteracy1 and bilingual program goals. No original human subject data were collected; all analyses are based on publicly available policy documents and published research.

Guiding Conceptual Research Questions

  • How do the alignments and misalignments between California’s Teacher Performance Expectations (TPEs), Bilingual Teacher Performance Expectations (BTPEs), and state performance assessments shape the preparation, clinical practice experiences, and multiliteracy development of bilingual teacher candidates?
  • In what ways can teacher preparation programs (TPPs) design equitable, multilingual, and supportive structures—including coursework, clinical scaffolds, and assessment practices—to ensure that bilingual teacher candidates are evaluated and developed according to multiliteracy-oriented goals rather than English-only expectations?

3. Clinical Practice in the Bilingual Authorization

In California, teacher candidates need to complete their clinical practice—a minimum of 400 h—often divided between early field work and student supervision (CTC, 2025a), as well as completing an external evaluation, whether it is the California TPAs, the edTPA, or the Fresno Assessment of Student Teachers (FAST). Bilingual candidates, the future teachers tasked to teach the Multilingual Learners (MLL) or Emergent Bilinguals (EB)2, are only required to complete 20 h of observation.
In the process of preparing future educators, clinical practice is an essential tool that cannot be overlooked. Considered quintessential for teacher candidates to learn from the field (Whitford & Villaume, 2014; Singh, 2017), it is guided by experienced educators and university supervisors that help the future teachers contemporize the theory and practice while absorbing from the real situation in the classroom what it takes to become a teacher today. This is even more important with bilingual programs, where specific and very tailored multiliteracy strategies and practices are involved.
Without question, California is a powerhouse in preparing bilingual teachers in the nation in a time of teacher shortages (NCES, 2025; Solsona-Puig et al., 2024), where the CSU system alone prepares close to half of the state teacher candidates. However, there is a disconnect between both sets of standards, which have been updated at different times and have different spheres of influence. The main one is that while institutions offering bilingual programs design their coursework based on the new sets of BTPEs, clinical practice is still governed by the TPEs. With the inclusion in 2024 of the 7th TPE, some more layers are brought into the training of literacy. Still, both sets of standards suffer from this mentioned misalignment. In the next chapter, we compare the original 1–6 TPEs to the original BTPEs 1–6. Then, we compare the recent TPE 7 to the BTPEs 1–6 to see the alignments and disconnects regarding clinical practice.

3.1. Conceptual Studies on Bilingual Teacher Candidates’ Experiences

There is a dearth of empirical research about the affectation of these new standards and its connection to clinical practice and literacy. Some conceptual articles refer to this newly minted issue in teacher preparation. Also, the policy corpus has changed recently, and the subset of the population of bilingual teacher candidates is not well described in the literature. Existent conceptual research, though still emerging, highlights how California’s policy and assessment landscape is felt “on the ground” by bilingual teacher candidates. Drawing on critical multilingual and translingual perspectives, E. R. Muñoz-Muñoz et al. (2023) show how state multilingual education policy continues to privilege English-medium accountability logics, shaping local implementation in ways that constrain candidates’ opportunities to enact expansive bilingual pedagogies. Solsona-Puig et al. (2024) document how candidates preparing to teach in bilingual and dual-language settings often experience a disconnect between the BTPE-informed vision of biliteracy in their coursework and the more English-centric demands embedded in TPE-aligned assessments (e.g., CALTPA, edTPA, and FAST). This tension surfaces in clinical practice, where candidates must prioritize assessment expectations even when these conflict with program goals for multiliteracy. At the level of teacher identity and classroom practice, Hernández and Daoud (2025) find that preservice teachers’ bilingual teaching self-efficacy is positively related to their differentiation practices for multilingual learners but that institutional and assessment pressures can limit how fully they leverage bilingual resources during clinical placements.

3.2. California’s Reading Wars and the Evolution of Literacy Policy

The Golden State has long been a laboratory for educational policy and, specifically, literacy instruction given its diverse composition (E. Muñoz-Muñoz et al., 2024). The history of literacy instruction in California is deeply intertwined with the national “reading wars,” an enduring pedagogical and epistemological dispute regarding how children best learn to read. The conflict between meaning-based approaches (such as whole-language and balanced-literacy) and structured, phonics-based models has shaped both research and policy for decades (Adams, 1990; Pearson, 2004). Whole-language pedagogy, which emphasizes contextual meaning, student agency, and authentic literature, rose to prominence in California during the 1980s and early 1990s but was soon criticized for its limited attention to decoding and phonological skills. Empirical meta-analyses have pointed that systematic phonics instruction significantly improves students’ word recognition and spelling abilities compared to non-systematic or incidental phonics approaches (Ehri et al., 2001; Foorman et al., 2016). Yet, as Yaden (2023) argue, the so-called “science of reading” movement should not be construed as a singular, immutable model but rather as a complex evidence-informed framework that must remain responsive to linguistic and cultural diversity. However, some researchers have criticized the English-Only approach of the science of reading (Share, 2021). Bilingual advocacy groups also opposed this approach because it is not oriented to Multiliteracy (Mora et al., 2024, Stively, 2024). Within California, persistent literacy inequities—particularly for multilingual learners and students from historically marginalized groups—have reignited calls for literacy instruction that ensures equitable access to foundational literacy skills in multiple languages. The last iteration of these wars was the passing of Senate Bill 488 (SB 488), signed into law in 2021. The bill mandated the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing to revise literacy standards and Teaching Performance Expectations (TPEs) so that credential candidates demonstrate competence in evidence-based reading instruction across phonological awareness, phonics, word recognition, fluency, and comprehension (CTC, 2023). SB 488 also requires alignment with the state’s English Language Arts/English Language Development (ELA/ELD) Framework and the California Dyslexia Guidelines, thereby embedding attention to diverse learner profiles—including English learners and students with exceptional needs—into credentialing requirements (CTC, 2023). In response, the CTC initiated a multi-year process to develop a new Literacy Performance Assessment (LPA) to replace the Reading Instruction Competence Assessment (RICA), which had long been criticized for its misalignment with contemporary literacy research and its lack of equity considerations. Teacher preparation programs had to fully implement the revised literacy standards and TPEs by 1 July 2024 and align with the LPA by 1 July 2025 (CTC, 2023). These reforms may have increased the tensions between English- Only and Multilingual approaches to literacy.

3.3. Comparing Sets of Standards: TPEs Versus BTPEs

A quick comparison between TPEs and BTPEs in Table 1 as they relate to clinical practice shows a disconnect between what we consider a critical aspect of the training of future bilingual teachers. In Table 1, we compared the TPE 1–6 to the BTPEs 1–6, signaling the parallelisms and misalignments. TP7 will be compared separately.
As seen in Table 1, the comparison between the Teacher Performance Expectations (TPE 1-6) and the Bilingual Teacher Performance Expectations (BTPE 1–6) reveals both alignment and key differences in their focus areas. While both frameworks emphasize student engagement, inclusive learning environments, subject matter expertise, instructional planning, assessment, and professional development, the BTPEs integrate a bilingual and bicultural lens throughout. For instance, TPE 1.1 focuses on understanding students’ backgrounds, whereas BTPE 1.1 extends this to transnational experiences and dual-language development. Similarly, both TPE 2.1 and BTPE 2.4 emphasize social–emotional growth, but BTPE stresses bilingual development and civic responsibility. The BTPEs consistently highlight translanguaging, bilingual program models, and linguistic transfer, as seen in BTPE 3.1–3.3, which expand on TPE 3.1–3.3 by incorporating bilingual-specific pedagogy. Instructional planning in BTPE 4.1–4.4 prioritizes biliteracy, metacognitive bilingual processes, and research-based bilingual models, whereas TPE 4.1–4.4 remains broadly applicable to diverse learners. Assessment under BTPE 5.1–5.4 includes bilingual proficiency and culturally relevant strategies, building on TPE 5.1–5.8’s general assessment principles. Finally, BTPE 6.1–6.7 deepens TPE 6.1–6.7 by addressing institutional racism, linguistic justice, and bilingual advocacy. The primary disconnect lies in the TPE’s lack of explicit bilingual education support, which the BTPEs correct by embedding multilingual instructional strategies, language equity, and culturally sustaining pedagogy into every standard.
The addition of Standard Literacy, or TPE 7, in 2022 wanted to cover a lack in addressing the literacy needs of all students in California. In Table 2, we compared the newly minted TPE 7, or literacy standard, to the BTPEs 1–6.
Table 2 demonstrates the intersection between TPE 7 and BTPE 1–6, emphasizing bilingual- and biliteracy-focused instructional strategies. The new literacy standard, or TPE 7, draw heavily on the previous BTPEs in concepts such as translanguaging, resource-based pedagogies, or culturally and linguistically affirming practices. Bilingual candidates during clinical practice must integrate bilingual-specific approaches into literacy instruction, ensuring equitable access to literacy development for multilingual learners. Strategies include asset-based pedagogies, pedagogical language knowledge (Bunch, 2013) in literacy interventions, and bilingual assessments to support language proficiency and literacy skills in both languages.
This comparison delineates the difficulty of bringing the theory into practice through clinical practice and aligning different sets of standards in one teacher candidate.

4. Challenges in Current Practices

In the state of California, bilingual teacher candidates working on their bilingual authorization must complete 20 h. of fieldwork observation in a dual-language instruction or bilingual classroom. In 2021, the California Commission on Teaching Credentials approved and adopted the new Bilingual Teacher Performance Expectations (BTPE). Teaching credential programs authorized to offer bilingual authorization courses were required to complete a matrix aligning their course syllabi with the BTPEs. Part of this alignment included how teacher candidates show competency of the BTPEs during their fieldwork hours.
In principle, the completion of these 20 h. is an excellent opportunity for teacher candidates to observe how plurilingual ecosystems work and how experienced bilingual teachers construct linguistically inclusive classrooms (Heineke & Giatsou, 2020; Poveda et al., 2020; Acosta et al., 2021). The challenge is that these 20 h. are only five percent of the four hundred required by the CTC in terms of student teaching. In other words, bilingual teacher candidates have very limited opportunities to work and examine the BTPEs since their teaching and learning practices during student teaching are aligned with the TPEs.
Adding to these initial challenges, there are others that are equally important and have a direct impact on how candidates develop their skills to effectively, intentionally, and strategically design, implement, and evaluate linguistically inclusive practices. As we mentioned in the introduction, teacher candidates must design, submit, and receive a passing score in one of the three approved state assessments—CALTPA, edTPA, or FAST—in order to qualify for a preliminary credential. The challenge in this context is that candidates are placed in DLI or bilingual classrooms where the instruction is conducted in a language other than English (e.g., Spanish, Vietnamese, or Mandarin). The three aforementioned assessments require candidates to design lesson plans, including differentiated instruction for English learners. We agree on the importance of showing competency in linguistically inclusive unit design; however, we contest that this could be better completed through the lenses of the BTPEs instead of the lenses of the TPEs.
Using TPE 5.7 as an example, candidates need to show competency in “interpreting” English learners’ assessment data to identify their level of academic proficiency in English as well as in their primary language, as applicable, and use this information in planning instruction. Reading through this TPE, it seems evident that the priority is for the student to acquire levels of language proficiency in English and, “if applicable, on their primary language.” In a DLI classroom, one of the main goals is for the student to acquire high levels of language proficiency in two languages. Thus, focusing on English-language proficiency limits the candidate’s opportunities to learn how to design activities such as cross-linguistic comparisons that support the development of metalinguistic awareness for all the students.
Another challenge with the current system based on the TPEs is that candidates complete these assessments almost entirely in English. Without negating the importance of effectively using pedagogical language knowledge in English, we wonder how bilingual teacher candidates could develop these same skills in the other instructional languages (e.g., Spanish, Vietnamese, or Mandarin). Aquino-Sterling and Rodríguez-Valls (2016) in their analysis of teaching specific Spanish competencies, state that “The field needs to move from developing (and assessing) general and academic Spanish competencies to facilitating opportunities for teachers to acquire teaching-specific Spanish language competencies needed to teach content-area knowledge in K-12 bilingual schools” (p. 79). The question here is: how can bilingual teacher candidates acquire teaching-specific Spanish language competencies when they design and complete the state assessments in English?
A third challenge emanates from the wording of the TPEs, in the 2016 version:
“The TPEs explicitly require beginning teachers to know and be able to apply pedagogical theories, principles, and instructional practices for the comprehensive instruction of English learners. They know and can apply theories, principles, and instructional practices for English Language Development to assist students to achieve literacy in English within the content area(s) of their credential(s).”
(p. 3)
The final challenge emanates from the specific training and preparation of clinical educators (also called supervisors) in bilingual Teacher Preparation Programs (TPPs). The necessary link between theory and practice that clinical practice allows is mediated by the roles of clinical educators. Some authors (Driskill, 2018; Singh, 2017) have explored the self-perception of preparedness for these roles. Given the rapid evolution of the bilingual education philosophies in the past 20 years, there might be a disconnect between the younger generation of bilingual teachers and the more experienced bilingual teachers that are taking up the clinical educator roles.
The goal of dual-language and bilingual programs is for students to become biliterate. To accomplish the latter, teacher candidates must practice how to design, implement, and evaluate lessons that create spaces for students to develop language and literacy skills in different subject areas—mathematics, science, art, and music, among others. Narrowing student teaching and assessments to the knowledge of English-language development deprives candidates of acquiring the necessary skills to “assist students to achieve literacy in languages other than English within content areas.”
In the Section 5, we introduce some preliminary ideas on how to strengthen the clinical experiences of bilingual teacher candidates. Our arguments validate the content and purpose of the TPEs; however, we see the importance of amplifying the current TPEs with key elements of the BTPEs.

5. Key Actions for a Bilingual Framework for All Teacher Candidates

In this article, we propose a list of five key actions to align and improve the clinical practice of bilingual teachers based on the TPE and BTPE frameworks. We argue that these recommendations should be applied to monolingual candidates as well. The rationale behind this latter statement is that the majority of emergent plurilingual students are attending either English-Only or English-Medium classrooms.
A.
Rethinking Formative Assessments for Bilingual Teacher Candidates (Aligns with TPE 5.7 and BTPE 5)
Develop and implement plurilingual formative assessments that accurately measure bilingual candidates’ pluriliteracy development by fully using their linguistic repertoire during clinical practice. Bilingual candidates possess dynamic and unitary linguistic repertoires that draw from their rich linguistic practices (España et al., 2019). An equitable assessment must provide candidates with the opportunities to critically reflect on how their repertoires are constructed and their use within different contexts and audiences (e.g., with students, at the school, with families, in the classroom, and in the community).
Faculty and former bilingual teacher candidates should co-design these formative assessments. Current bilingual teacher candidates could be assessed with these formative assessments as well as visualize how these could be used in their own classrooms. This action will provide bilingual teacher candidates with ongoing training on interpreting assessment data for Emergent Plurilingual students. With this, bilingual teacher candidates will be better equipped to create culturally and linguistically inclusive classrooms where students create their own forms of expression and voices through translanguaging lenses (Hélot, 2019). This alignment between assessment practices and bilingual pedagogies will promote more equitable learning outcomes.
B.
Integrate “Pedagogical Language knowledge” Instruction with Translanguaging Practices (Aligns with TPE 7.5, 7.6, and 7.7 and BTPE 1 & 2)
Design clinical practice models that incorporate pedagogical language knowledge (Bunch, 2013) while recognizing and leveraging students’ full linguistic repertoires. Train bilingual teacher candidates to assemble reading and writing instruction with translanguaging pedagogies to enhance comprehension and biliteracy development. This ensures plurilingual learners receive explicit foundational biliteracy skills that draw from the richness of their linguistic repertoires. Within this context, students and candidates collectively develop” language practices serve as a counterhegemonic pushback to monolingual and monoglossic norms that have the added benefit of identity expression, intergroup belonging, aesthetics, and linguistic maintenance (Sawyer and Rodríguez-Valls, 2023).
C.
Enhance Clinical Coaching & Mentorship with Culturally Proficient Practices (Aligns with TPE 2.2, 2.3, 7.3 and BTPE 3 & 6)
One of the biggest challenges when creating culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms is to go beyond the mere acknowledgement of the students’ linguistic richness and diversity. As Aquino-Sterling and Rodríguez-Valls (2016) explained when identifying different levels of cultural competence, inclusion calls for not just acknowledging but also the commitment to learn from the students as well as to design learning practices that embrace, value, and include the students’ linguistic richness as part of the curriculum.
Mentorships for beginning teachers are highly impactful (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011), especially during clinical practice. It is necessary to create opportunities for bilingual teacher candidates to observe and learn from experienced bilingual educators who (a) have a clear and strong stance on language justice, (b) are committed to designing linguistically inclusive practices, and (c) always look for critical ways to shift their pedagogies and praxis (García, 2018). Such mentorships provide hands-on guidance in applying inclusive and culturally sustaining teaching strategies to improve classroom learning environments.
D.
Expand Digital Literacy & Assessment for Multilingual Students (Aligns with TPE 5.4, 5.6, 7.9 and BTPE 4 & 5)
Provide clinical practice experiences that include technology-driven assessment tools and digital learning resources designed for multilingual learners. Embrace technology in its full capacity to make the most of its potential in teaching and learning languages and cultures. Ensure that bilingual teacher candidates are trained in interpreting digital instructions and assessment data to personalize instruction. This will empower equitable access to digital literacy skills, improve data-informed instruction, and prepare students to engage with 21st-century learning tools (Capdevila-Gutiérrez et al., 2021).
E.
Strengthen Family & Community Engagement in Clinical Training (Aligns with TPE 1.2, 7.4, 7.10 and BTPE 6)
Develop partnerships with plurilingual families and communities as part of clinical practice (Caspe & Hernandez, 2024). Train bilingual teachers to use linguistically respectful and embracing communication strategies and culturally responsive engagement practices, including home visits, family pluriliteracy nights, and bilingual workshops. Bilingual educators will develop stronger connections with families, fostering a more supportive, inclusive school culture that recognizes and values linguistic and cultural diversity.
With these five key actions, the authors hope they can bridge the existing disconnects between TPEs and BTPEs, ensuring that bilingual teacher candidates are better prepared to support plurilingual students effectively in diverse educational settings.

6. Systems of Support

In this section, we would like to offer three systems of support to enhance clinical practice for Bilingual teachers in the context of the California Policy framework and beyond.

6.1. Mentorship and Coaching for Bilingual Teacher Candidates

A supercharged structured mentorship program should be implemented to support bilingual teacher candidates during their clinical practice. This system may include:
Pairing with experienced bilingual mentors: Each candidate should be paired with an experienced bilingual teacher who understands bilingual pedagogy and can provide targeted guidance on lesson planning, classroom management, and linguistic equity.
Bilingual University Supervisor Collaboration: Regular meetings between university supervisors and mentor teachers should be established to ensure that bilingual teacher candidates are receiving consistent feedback aligned with both teacher performance expectations (TPEs) and bilingual teacher performance expectations (BTPEs).
Reflective Practice and Feedback Sessions: Candidates should participate in structured reflection sessions where they analyze their instructional decisions, discuss challenges, and refine their practice with guidance from mentors and peers based on the alignment between the TPE and the BTPE.

6.2. Integrated Bilingual-Specific Professional Development

In an attempt to bridge the current misalignment between TPEs and BTPEs in clinical practice, bilingual teacher candidates should have access to targeted and specialized professional development to bridge the current challenges, including:
Workshops on Translanguaging and Asset-Based Pedagogies: These sessions should focus on instructional strategies that leverage students’ full linguistic repertoires, fostering biliteracy and academic achievement to be applied during clinical practice periods.
Assessment of pluriliteracy for bilingual classrooms: Training should be provided on designing, interpreting, and utilizing plurilingual and formative assessments to inform instruction, ensuring that candidates can effectively assess student progress in both languages.
Instructional Planning for Biliteracy: Candidates should receive guidance on how to align lesson planning with both the TPEs and BTPEs, ensuring that literacy instruction is equitable and developmentally appropriate in multilingual settings and is coherent with their clinical practice hours and context.

6.3. Expanded Clinical Practice Opportunities in Bilingual Settings

Given that bilingual candidates currently have limited opportunities to engage in bilingual instructional settings due to the constraints of an English-only system, expanded placements should be prioritized through:
Increased Fieldwork Hours in Bilingual Classrooms: Expanding the required fieldwork hours in dual-language immersion or bilingual settings beyond the current 20 h minimum to ensure meaningful exposure and hands-on experience.
Collaboration Between Universities, LEA, and Local Dual-Language Schools and Organizations: Establishing partnerships with dual-language schools to create structured residency and internship programs where candidates can teach alongside experienced bilingual educators throughout their clinical practice
Bilingual Teacher Learning Communities: Facilitating peer support networks where bilingual candidates can collaborate, share experiences, and discuss challenges related to teaching in bilingual settings.
Navigating clinical practice while preparing to become a bilingual teacher becomes a keystone in the training of future bilingual teachers. While developing the skills necessary to create linguistically and culturally inclusive classrooms, bilingual teacher candidates need to juggle multiple added layers that further complicate their early formation. These systems of support will also contribute to closing the gap between TPEs and BTPEs, ensuring that bilingual educators are fully prepared to support their students’ academic, cultural, and linguistic development.

7. Implications for Bilingual and Multilingual Teacher Preparation

The implications of these reforms for bilingual and multilingual teacher education are extensive. California’s public school population includes roughly 1 million English learners—approximately 18% of total enrollment—underscoring the necessity of preparing teachers who can integrate structured literacy practices with bilingual pedagogies. Research agrees that explicit, systematic instruction in phonological awareness and decoding benefits English learners and students from linguistically diverse backgrounds when paired with rich oral language development (Gersten et al., 2007). However, scholars caution that structured literacy frameworks derived primarily from English orthography may collide with multilingual contexts; literacy instruction must attend to cross-linguistic transfer, orthographic variation, and sociocultural identity (Share, 2021; Tierney and Pearson, 2024; Escamilla et al., 2014). Consequently, bilingual credential programs must expand their curricula to ensure candidates receive systematic training in foundational reading instruction while also developing pedagogical knowledge specific to multilingual or emergent bilingual learners. The revised TPEs explicitly mandate that all teacher candidates demonstrate the ability to teach reading “to all pupils, including English learners” (CTC, 2023), signaling an expectation that bilingual teacher preparation will embody both evidence-based literacy and language development frameworks but be respectful to diversity of this student body. This dual emphasis poses logistical and philosophical challenges for bilingual teacher education programs, which must redesign coursework, field experiences, and assessments to integrate cognitive linguistic research with culturally proficient pedagogies (Lindsey et al., 2018).

8. Conclusions

It appears that more empirical studies are needed on this matter to capture the depth and length of the challenges described in this article. As well, the implications provided here need to be influential beyond California and across the US, as opportunities to improve the lives of multilingual students. This article has served as the authors’ self-reflection on how bilingual teacher educators can initiate a dialogue on how to rethink the clinical experiences of bilingual teacher candidates and all candidates at large. In a state like California, where close to 35 percent of the TK-12 students in public schools speak a language other than English, all candidates should be prepared to co-construct teaching and learning practices that embrace, value, and include the students’ linguistic and cultural resources. Bilingual teacher candidates should have the opportunity to enact the content of the BTPEs and the pedagogical and methodological elements included in these bilingual expectations to ensure multiliteracy at all levels.
Plurilingualism is a universal factor in all classrooms in the US, not only in California. Thus, bilingual teacher candidates and students deserve an opportunity to leverage the depth of their linguistic repertoires. As James Baldwin once said, “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.” The time to change clinical experiences for bilingual students has arrived. We can either face it or deny it. The latter goes against the idea of just, equitable, and inclusive education for bilingual students. The former opens bilingual teacher education preparation to a present and future where education, using Bell Hooks’ words, is a practice of freedom rather than a process of English-only domestication.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.S.-P. and F.R.-V.; methodology, J.S.-P. and F.R.-V.; validation, J.S.-P. and F.R.-V.; formal analysis, J.S.-P. and F.R.-V.; investigation, J.S.-P. and F.R.-V.; resources, J.S.-P. and F.R.-V.; data curation, J.S.-P. and F.R.-V.; writing—original draft preparation, J.S.-P. and F.R.-V.; writing—review and editing, J.S.-P. and F.R.-V.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Notes

1
We may use multiliteracy or pluriliteracy interchangeably, althouhg we agree there are some conceptual differences (García et al., 2007).
2
We may use Emerging Bilinguals EB and Multilingual/Plurilingual Leaners MLL interchangeably.

References

  1. Acosta, S. T., Chen, X., Goltz, H., Goodson, P., & Padrón, Y. (2021). A case study of novice bilingual education teachers conducting action research and diffusing teaching innovations. Urban Education, 56(9), 1576–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  2. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  3. Aquino-Sterling, C. R., & Rodríguez-Valls, F. (2016). Developing teaching-specific Spanish competencies in bilingual teacher education: Toward a culturally, linguistically, and professionally relevant approach. Multicultural Perspectives, 18(2), 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. BTPE. (2021). Bilingual authorization program standards and BTPEs. California Commission on Teaching Credentialing. Available online: https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/educator-prep/standards/bilingual_authorization_program_standards_btpes.pdf?sfvrsn=8ebc27b1_3 (accessed on 14 December 2025).
  5. Bunch, G. C. (2013). Pedagogical language knowledge: Preparing mainstream teachers for English learners in the new standards era. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 298–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  6. Capdevila-Gutiérrez, M., Muñoz-Muñoz, E., Rodríguez-Valls, F., & Solsona-Puig, J. (2021). The time is now! Preparing middle and high school teachers for Dual Immersion Programs (Spanish-English) in California: A readying examination of current practices, needs, and potentialities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 26(7), 774–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2019). The trouble with teacher turnover: How teacher attrition affects students and schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(36). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Caspe, M., & Hernandez, R. (2024). From classroom to community: A commentary on preparing educators for family and community engagement. Journal of Teacher Education, 75(4), 369–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. CTC. (2023). SB-488 teacher credentialing: Reading instruction (2021–2022) key points. California Commission on Teaching Credentialing. Available online: https://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/pk-3-ece-specialist-instruction-credential/sb-488-teacher-credentialing-reading-instruction-(2021-2022)-key-points (accessed on 14 December 2025).
  10. CTC. (2025a). Clinical practice guidance. California Commission on Teaching Credentialing. Available online: https://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/preliminary-multiple-and-single-subject (accessed on 14 December 2025).
  11. CTC. (2025b). CTC approved institutions and programs. California Commission on Teaching Credentialing. Available online: https://www.ctc.ca.gov/commission/reports/data/approved-institutions-and-programs (accessed on 14 December 2025).
  12. Driskill, K. M. (2018). The role of the clinical educator in teacher preparation: An exploratory study of perceptions of preparedness. Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning, 11(1), 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 393–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  14. Escamilla, K., Hopewell, S., Butvilofsky, S., Sparrow, W., Soltero-González, L., Ruiz-Figueroa, O., & Escamilla, M. (2014). Biliteracy from the start: Literacy squared in action. Caslon Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  15. España, C., Herrera, L., & García, O. (2019, December 23). Translanguaging in educating teachers of language-minoritized students. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education.
  16. Foorman, B. R., Coyne, M. D., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., Hayes, L., Justice, L. M., Lewis, W. E., & Wagner, R. K. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016-4008). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. [Google Scholar]
  17. García, O. (2018). Translanguaging, pedagogy, and creativity. In J. Erfurt, E. Carporal, & A. Weirich (Eds.), Éducation plurilingue et pratiques langagières: Hommage à christine hélot (pp. 39–56). Peter Lang. [Google Scholar]
  18. García, O., Bartlett, L., & Kleifgen, J. (2007). From biliteracy to pluriliteracies. Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication, 5, 207–228. [Google Scholar]
  19. Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella, R. (2007). Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades. IES practice guide. NCEE 2007-4011. What Works Clearinghouse.
  20. Heineke, A. J., & Giatsou, E. (2020). Learning from students, teachers, and schools: Field-based teacher education for emergent bilingual learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(1), 148–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Hernández, A. M., & Daoud, A. (2025). Relating preservice teacher’s bilingual teaching self-efficacy to lesson differentiation practices for multilingual learners. TESOL Journal, 16(1), e902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Hélot, C. (2019). Ofelia garcía: A visionary thinker. Journal of Multilingual Education Research, 9(1), 2. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ingersoll, R. M., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 201–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Lindsey, R. B., Nuri-Robins, K., Terrell, R. D., & Lindsey, D. B. (2018). Cultural proficiency: A manual for school leaders. Corwin Press. [Google Scholar]
  25. Mora, J. K., Lampkin, E., Flores, B., & Flemington, A. (2024). Pushing back against science of reading mandates. In The CCTE Fall 2024 Research Monograph (Vol. 47). CCTE. [Google Scholar]
  26. Muñoz-Muñoz, E., Solsona-Puig, J., & Rodriguez-Valls, F. (2024). Advancing accountability in bilingual teaching standards. The CCTE Spring 2024 Research Monograph, 1(2), 17–30. [Google Scholar]
  27. Muñoz-Muñoz, E. R., Poza, L. E., & Briceño, A. (2023). Critical translingual perspectives on California multilingual education policy. Educational Policy, 37(6), 1791–1817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  28. NCES. (2025). Number and percentage distribution of persons who were enrolled in and who completed a teacher preparation program, by program type and state or jurisdiction: Academic year 2019–2020. National Center for Education statistics. Available online: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_209.05.asp (accessed on 14 December 2025).
  29. Patrick, S. K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Kini, T. (2023). Educating teachers in California: What matters for teacher preparedness? Learning Policy Institute. [Google Scholar]
  30. Pearson, P. D. (2004). The reading wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 216–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Poveda, D., Giampapa, F., & Relano Pastor, A. M. (2020). Gatekeeping the interactional order: Field access and linguistic ideologies in CLIL-type bilingual education programs in Spanish secondary schools. Qualitative Research, 20(6), 854–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. Sawyer, A., & Rodríguez-Valls, F. F. (2023). ‘I found comfort in Spanglish:’ translanguaging and the linguistic experiences of bilingual teacher candidates in rural California. Language and education, 37(5), 651–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  33. Share, D. L. (2021). Is the science of reading just the science of reading English? Reading Research Quarterly, 56, S391–S402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  34. Singh, D. K. (2017). Role of clinical practice in teacher preparation: Perceptions of elementary teacher candidates. Education, 138(2), 179–189. [Google Scholar]
  35. Solsona-Puig, J., Son, M., & Rodriguez-Valls, F. (2024). Assessment of bilingual teachers in California. In The CCTE Fall 2024 Research Monograph (p. 25). California Council on Teacher Education. [Google Scholar]
  36. Stively, Z. (2024). English learner advocates in California oppose ‘science of reading’ bill. Edweek. Available online: https://edsource.org/2024/english-learner-advocates-oppose-science-of-reading-bill/707178 (accessed on 14 December 2025).
  37. Tierney, R. J., & Pearson, P. D. (2024). Fact-checking the science of reading: Opening up the conversation. Literacy Research Commons. Available online: https://literacyresearchcommons.org (accessed on 14 December 2025).
  38. TPE. (2016). California teaching performance expectations. California Commission on Teaching Credentialing. Available online: https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/educator-prep/standards/adopted-tpes-2016.pdf (accessed on 14 December 2025).
  39. TPE-7. (2022). MS-SS literacy standard-TPEs. California Commission on Teaching Credentialing. Available online: https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/educator-prep/standards/ms-ss-literacy-standard-tpes.pdf?sfvrsn=eea226b1_12 (accessed on 14 December 2025).
  40. Whitford, B. L., & Villaume, S. K. (2014). Clinical teacher preparation: A retrospective. Peabody Journal of Education, 89(4), 423–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  41. Yaden, D. B., Jr. (2023). Chasing shadows: Why there cannot be a “simple” science of literacy. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 72(1), 26–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Education 16 00040 g001
Figure 1. Approved institutions in California for the Added Bilingual Authorization (CTC, 2025b).
Figure 1. Approved institutions in California for the Added Bilingual Authorization (CTC, 2025b).
Education 16 00040 g001
Table 1. TPE 1–6 and BTPE 1–6 comparison table on clinical practice.
Table 1. TPE 1–6 and BTPE 1–6 comparison table on clinical practice.
TPE StandardBTPE StandardAlignmentsDisconnects & Misalignments in Clinical Practice
TPE 1.1 Apply knowledge of students, including their prior experiences, interests, and social-emotional learning needs, to engage them in learning.
TPE 1.2 Maintain ongoing communication with students and families.
TPE 1.3: Connect subject matter to real-life contexts.		BTPE 1.1: Apply knowledge of students’ backgrounds, assets, and learning needs using state-adopted academic standards.Both emphasize leveraging students’ backgrounds and experiences to engage them in learning.BTPE places greater emphasis on bilingual, biliterate, and bicultural development, which is not explicitly stated in TPE.
BTPE 1.5 Collaborate with families and communities as assets in student learning.Both stress the importance of family and community involvement.BTPE explicitly integrates family engagement into learning, while TPE primarily focuses on communication.
BTPE 1.4 Recognize and incorporate students’ transnational educational and cultural experiences.Both encourage making learning relevant to students’ lives.BTPE extends this to transnational experiences, a concept not present in TPE.
TPE 2.1: Promote students’ social–emotional growth using positive interventions.
TPE 3.1 Demonstrate knowledge of subject matter and curriculum frameworks.		BTPE 2.4 Promote social–emotional growth and bilingual development.Both acknowledge social–emotional development.BTPE uniquely integrates bilingual identity development, which is absent in TPE.
BTPE 3.1 Demonstrate knowledge of linguistic repertoires across content areas.Both focus on subject matter knowledge.BTPE includes linguistic considerations necessary for bilingual education.
TPE 4.1 Apply knowledge of students’ academic status and learning needs for instructional planning.
TPE 5.1: Use various assessments to monitor student progress.
TPE 5.7 Interpret English learners’ assessment data to identify their level of academic proficiency in English as well as in their primary language, as applicable, and use this information in planning instruction.
TPE 6.1 Reflect on teaching practices for improvement.		BTPE 4.1: Design learning experiences that develop bilingualism and biliteracy.Both involve planning based on student needs.BTPE focuses on dual-language acquisition, while TPE remains general.
BTPE 5.3: Apply knowledge of different types of language and content assessments.Both emphasize assessment variety.BTPE explicitly addresses bilingual assessment, which TPE does not.
BTPE 5.6: Work with specialists to interpret assessment results to distinguish between English learners, Standard English learners, and students with language or other disabilities.Both standards emphasize using assessment data to support instructional planning for diverse learners, promoting equity in literacy developmentPotential challenges include inconsistent application of assessment results across different educational settings, lack of access to specialists, or inadequate professional development on interpreting multilingual assessment data.
BTPE 6.1: Identify and mitigate biases to support student biliteracy.Both stress reflective practice.BTPE frames reflection in terms of racial and linguistic bias, a layer not present in TPE.
TPE Standard
TPE 1.1 Apply knowledge of students, including their prior experiences, interests, and social–emotional learning needs, to engage them in learning.		BTPE StandardAlignmentsDisconnects & Misalignments in Clinical Practice
BTPE 1.1: Apply knowledge of students’ backgrounds, assets, and learning needs using state-adopted academic standards.Both emphasize leveraging students’ backgrounds and experiences to engage them in learning.BTPE places greater emphasis on bilingual, biliterate, and bicultural development, which is not explicitly stated in TPE.
Table 2. TPE 7 and BTPE 1–6 comparison table on clinical practice.
Table 2. TPE 7 and BTPE 1–6 comparison table on clinical practice.
TPE 7: Effective Literacy Instruction for All StudentsBTPE 1–6Clinical Practice Implications
7.1 Plan and implement evidence-based literacy instruction aligned with standards.BTPE 3.1: Apply bilingual instructional models in literacy.Teachers must integrate bilingual education models into literacy instruction, ensuring that students develop literacy skills in both languages.
7.2 Use UDL, MTSS, and dyslexia guidelines in structured literacy instruction.BTPE 4.3: Implement structured literacy strategies for bilingual learners.Educators should apply targeted intervention strategies that support bilingual students, including those at risk for dyslexia.
7.3 Incorporate asset-based, inclusive, and culturally affirming literacy practices.BTPE 1.1 Recognize students’ linguistic and cultural assets.Teachers should use translanguaging strategies and culturally responsive texts to affirm students’ identities.
7.4 Provide engaging and developmentally appropriate literacy instruction.BTPE 2.2 Design learning environments that reflect bilingual students’ needs.Educators must foster a literacy-rich environment that values students’ home languages and backgrounds.
7.5 Teach phonics, decoding, encoding, and fluency explicitly.BTPE 3.4 Apply biliteracy and metalinguistic awareness strategies.Teachers should implement biliteracy-specific strategies to support phonological awareness in both languages.
7.6 Engage students in meaning-making using complex texts and discussions.BTPE 3.2 Use bilingual texts and scaffolding to support comprehension.Clinical practice should include the use of bilingual and cross-linguistic strategies to support deep comprehension.
7.7 Promote oral and written language development.BTPE 3.3 Develop students’ academic discourse in both languages.Teachers must create opportunities for students to engage in meaningful, bilingual communication.
7.8. Develop effective expression through writing and presentations.BTPE 3.5: Support writing development in bilingual contexts.Writing instruction should integrate both languages, allowing students to leverage linguistic resources.
7.9 Promote content knowledge through integrated literacy instruction.BTPE 4.1 Align instruction with bilingual standards and frameworks.Teachers should incorporate bilingual instructional frameworks across all subject areas.
7.10 Monitor literacy development using assessments.BTPE 5.1: Use bilingual assessment tools and practices.Educators should apply formative and summative assessments that account for bilingual development.
7.11 Provide integrated and designated ELD instruction.BTPE 6.2: Advocate for equitable bilingual education policies.Teachers should ensure that ELD and bilingual instructional strategies align with equity and linguistic justice frameworks.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Solsona-Puig, J.; Rodríguez-Valls, F. Multilingual Literacy for All? Aligning Clinical Practice of Bilingual Teacher Candidates in California. Educ. Sci. 2026, 16, 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16010040

AMA Style

Solsona-Puig J, Rodríguez-Valls F. Multilingual Literacy for All? Aligning Clinical Practice of Bilingual Teacher Candidates in California. Education Sciences. 2026; 16(1):40. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16010040

Chicago/Turabian Style

Solsona-Puig, Jordi, and Fernando Rodríguez-Valls. 2026. "Multilingual Literacy for All? Aligning Clinical Practice of Bilingual Teacher Candidates in California" Education Sciences 16, no. 1: 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16010040

APA Style

Solsona-Puig, J., & Rodríguez-Valls, F. (2026). Multilingual Literacy for All? Aligning Clinical Practice of Bilingual Teacher Candidates in California. Education Sciences, 16(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16010040

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop