From Identity Theft to Asset Framing

This collaborative series has examined how well-intentioned systems can inadvertently limit multilingual learners. In When More Is Never Enough, we explored the tendency to rely on additional EAL staffing rather than rethinking roles and practices. In A Promising Mythconception, we challenged the belief that “every teacher is a language teacher” and instead emphasized building teacher capacity. Build It and They Will Learn: Scaffolding Success focused on intentional, effective scaffolding as a way to provide multilingual learners with access to rigorous, grade-level curriculum. The fourth article in this series examines how persistent deficit discourse harms multilingual learners’ identities and calls for a shift from “fixing” a perceived language problem to adopting an institutional asset-based stance where multilingualism is normalized.                               - Dr. Virginia Rojas 

Probletunity #4: Identity Theft

Multilingual students in English-medium international schools are often expected to check their identities at the classroom door, to leave important parts of themselves outside the school, like a banned skateboard. When multilingual learners (MLs) are forced to communicate only in English, they can experience a real loss of identity; in fact, it is taken from them. 

Beliefs about multilingualism send both overt and covert messages about who “belongs” in our schools. Words, names, categories and labels can help us imagine possibilities but can also limit our thinking, depending on whether we see the proverbial glass as half full or half empty. The ways we speak about MLs signals the ways we think about multilingualism. Ian Hacking’s (1987) theory of dynamic nominalism explains how labels can fabricate a space of possibilities that restricts a student’s personhood or foreclose a student’s opportunity.

How we identify or label students can determine the significance they have for us and for others. Deficit labels like “Limited English Proficient” or even “English Learner” define students through perceptions of what they lack (native-like proficiency in English), rather than what they possess (multilingualism). In fact, in progressive and inclusive international schools, we still hear things like, “he’s low” or “she has no language.”

When Inclusion Is Actually Exclusion

It is sometimes easier to see problems, to define students in terms of their needs or to identify students as categorically different and therefore in need of support. Students might be withdrawn from mainstream classes, segregated from grade-level peers with limited access to the core curriculum. On top of this, parents of MLs sometimes need to pay an additional EAL fee, essentially a language tax, even with the ostensible intention of being inclusive. All of this signals that there is something wrong with MLs or that they don’t belong, perpetuating a medical model in which students are positioned as needing to be fixed (Rojas, 2023). By defining students by what they lack, they are positioned as “others” who don’t belong and need “support.” This reflects a deeply ingrained, often unconscious, assumption that equates English proficiency with cognitive ability. 

Deficit-based narratives about MLs also reflect linguistic hierarchies and persist in expectations for correctness, framing MLs through what they lack—such as a lack of "academic language"—rather than recognizing their rich, existing linguistic repertoires (Wang et al., 2021). When we use the logic of native-speakerism, it implies not only a nativist but also exclusionary view of who gets to speak a language. The term “native-speakerism” describes a pervasive ideology in the English Language Teaching (ELT) profession where those perceived as “native speakers” of English are considered to be more desirable language models and to embody a “superior Western teaching methodology than those perceived as ‘non-native speakers’” (Holliday, 2005). This ideology frames an “us” and “them” dichotomy where “non-native speaker” teachers and students are seen as culturally inferior and in need of training in the “correct” Western methods of learning and teaching. However, many multilinguals find the binary native/non-native distinction to be an oversimplification that fails to accurately reflect the complexity of their personal linguistic identities (Faez, 2011).

Likewise, for many years, the emphasis on “academic language” and over-indexing on correctness has also perpetuated a notion that there is only one way to engage with rigorous, grade-level content. Imagine an ML takes a risk to answer a question, offering a factually accurate and insightful contribution to the class, only to be met with the dreaded response, “Can you say that in a complete sentence?” These messages communicate lower expectations, and MLs are defined by what they are becoming, or lacking, rather than who they already are: competent thinkers and talented multilinguals. If we define students only by their English proficiency level rather than by their developing multilingualism, we may inadvertently lower academic expectations.

Solution #4: From Fixing the Student to Fixing the System

Students in today’s international school reflect both a multilingual reality and multilingual identity. Shifting views of multilingualism, can refocus on fixing the system rather than fixing the student. Ruis (1984) defined three language orientations: as a problem, as a right, or as a resource. Viewing multilingualism as a problem reflects a deficit-based view that speaking multiple languages is a barrier to learning in English-medium schools, and therefore a situation to be fixed. When multilingualism is a right, students are afforded the opportunity to learn their home language, but this often occurs with strict linguistic separation, and the mother tongue is relegated to after-school programs. When multilingualism is valued as a resource, then it can be fully integrated into the learning ecosystem through approaches such as asset framing, assigning competence, rethinking linguistic architecture and disrupting systemic exclusion.

1. Asset-Framing

Trabian Shorters describes the need for asset-framing, a practice that integrates recent scholarship on the brain and historical perspectives on the “real-world power of the words we use, the stories we tell, the way we name things and people” (Tippet, 2022). Asset-framing builds on the work of Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman who describes two distinct mental systems — one fast and intuitive, one slow and deliberative. These two systems shape our judgment and decision-making, offering insights into cognitive biases and rational thinking. Just as many educators worry about artificial intelligence large language models amplifying bias, human intelligence can just as easily perpetuate bias through the labels we use. Hacking observes that “if new modes of description come into being, new possibilities for action come into being in consequence” (1987, p 166). Using “multilingual learner” (ML) reflects a strengths-focused perspective that de-centers English and recognizes students as both multilingual and learners, positioning multilingualism as a rich resource for the entire school community. 

2. Assigning Competence

A powerful way to shift towards asset framing is to use the approach of “assigning competence” by publicly naming MLs’ intellectual strengths and how they support the group’s learning in the moment (Jilk et al., 2025). By shining a spotlight on a student’s intellectual contributions in the classroom, a teacher goes beyond just recasting or rephrasing a student’s answer and adds a public recognition of the student’s thinking and value of multilingualism. This example shows how Ana built on the assets of Lauren, an ML in her class:

Ana assigned competence to Lauren, in that moment, because her use of Spanglish contributed to an inclusive learning culture for the whole class. Lauren’s participation was legitimated by Ana’s move, which potentially shifted how Lauren thought about herself and how others positioned her as a smart and capable mathematics person. (Jilk et al., 2025, p. 114-115).

Assigning competence recognizes when MLs take intellectual risks and engage with challenging content while utilizing their full linguistic repertoire.

3. Providing Linguistically Sustaining and Expanding Instruction

Benegas and Benjamin (2022) describe a language architecture that is built on both language of identity and the language of access. Embedding an intentional asset-based view of MLs into the design of instruction, this describes a classroom environment where student identity and access to the curriculum support one another.

• Language of Identity: To ensure that MLs see their primary identities as strengths rather than barriers, and that this view is shared by their peers and teachers, the language of identity focuses on the internal and community assets that MLs already possess. Through a linguistically sustaining approach, it emphasizes sustaining the student's heritage and home-school connections through translanguaging, building on the funds of knowledge students bring from their home and community (Moll et al., 1992).

• Language of Access: MLs also need to develop key linguistic tools necessary to participate in grade-level curriculum and navigate the school system. This represents a shift from a static notion of “academic language” to the ways language is actually used academic contexts. Through disciplinary literacy, students are empowered with specific vocabulary, grammar, and discourse patterns required for success in subjects like science, math, and history. Similarly, a functional approach to language recognizes how language shifts based on context and purpose. Just as swimmers learn that the butterfly and breaststroke require different ways of kicking, students need to learn how language expectations and norms change from one subject to another. 

4. Disrupting Systemic Exclusion

Changing the ways we talk about MLs can reflect new ways of thinking about multilingualism, and changing classroom practices can cultivate an asset-based view of multilingualism. In addition, shifting from a deficit-based ecosystem to focus on student assets requires addressing additional structural barriers MLs face by shifting from "fixing the student" to "fixing the system.” Each of these suggestions merits additional discussion, and they are offered here as a starting point of crucial components of the larger system that impact MLs.

• Transform Hiring Practices: Schools can actively disrupt "native-speakerism" in hiring by valuing the pedagogical and linguistic expertise of multilingual educators. Focus on demonstrated experience and quality of teaching rather than perceived qualities of teachers. Openly discuss potential linguistic, cultural, and racial bias in and how it might impact hiring practices. As noted by Chapuredima (2020), the preference for "native" speakers often overshadows the specialized pedagogical skills required to teach multilingual learners effectively.

• Explore Equity Literacy: Engage in training or self-audit to help staff recognize systemic inequity and how mistaken perceptions of low English proficiency often mask a student's true cognitive and academic abilities. Training can strengthen both individual and institutional capacity to cultivate what Gorski and Swalwell (2023) call a transformative equity approach.

• Reconsider the EAL Fee: While many international schools have already made the decision to eliminate the English as an Additional Language (EAL) fee, others are considering just how to do this. However, if some students are paying an EAL fee, then should teachers withhold valuable scaffolding, from the rest of the class? Attaching a fee to language-rich teaching creates unnecessary barriers to teaching and learning. For an analysis of how a financial decision has real educational implications, see Let’s Talk About the EAL Fee.

• Review Language Policies: As a key school-wide document to communicate perspectives on multilingualism, the language policy is a cornerstone on which an asset-based approach can be built. Reviewing, revising, and implementing the language policy is important work to communicate and guide teaching and learning for MLs.  “Language is central to learning, and language policies examine how people utilize language in various contexts and how local and global factors influence this use” (Bettney et al 2025). A 2025 InterEd article explores a seven-step process for reviewing, revising, and updating a whole-school language policy.

When multilingualism is valued as a resource, then it is reflected both in both our words and our actions. An equity-centered approach can be fully integrated into the learning ecosystem with classroom practices such as asset framing and assigning competence. When we interrogate labels, policies, and school-wide systems, we are able to create international schools that disrupt linguistic inequity rather than perpetuate it; and our students deserve that.


References

Benegas, M., & Benjamin, A. (2022). Language of identity, language of access: A guide for high-leverage co-teaching for multilingual learners. Corwin.

Bettney Heidt, E., & Olson-Wyman, S. (2025). International school teachers’ language ideologies: An exploration through methodological pluralism. Journal of Research in International Education, 24(1), 36–54.

Bettney Heidt, E., Huckle, J., Jones, J., MacConnell, K. Olley, L., Raoult, F., Sanchez, N. and Zhurenko, I. (2025). Navigating language policies: A roadmap for international schools. AAIE InterEd Journal, Fall 2025.

Chapuredima, F. T. (2020, May 6). International schools and parents, do I have to be a native English speaker to teach your child? The International Educator (TIE).

Faez, F. (2011). Reconceptualizing the native/nonnative speaker dichotomy. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 10(4), 231–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2011.598127

Gorski, P. C., & Swalwell, K. (2023). Introduction. In Fix injustice, not kids and other principles for transformative equity leadership (pp. 1–18). ASCD.

Jilk, L. M., Ruef, J. L. & Torres, A. (2025) Inclusive classrooms and assigning competence, Intercultural Education, 36:1, 111-118.

Hacking, I. (1986). Making up people. In T. C. Heller, M. Sosna, & D. E. Wellbery (Eds.), Reconstructing individualism: Autonomy, individuality, and the self in Western thought (pp. 161–171). Stanford University Press.

Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford University Press.

Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475.

Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.

Nordmeyer, J. (2020, October 24). Saying is believing: Why names matter.

Nordmeyer, J. (2022, November). Let’s talk about the EAL fee. The International Educator.

Rojas, V. P. (2023, January). Out with the old medical models, in with a new ecological response. The International Educator.

Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8(2), 15-34.

Tanu, D. (2018) Growing up in transit: The politics of belonging at an international school. New York: Berghahn Books.

Tippett, K. (Host). (2022, February 3). Trabian Shorters — A cognitive skill to magnify humanity [Audio podcast episode]. In On Being with Krista Tippett. On Being Studios.