Bridging the Gap: Supporting Gestalt Language Processors in the Early Elementary Years
Building on yesterday’s look at pre-k and kindergarten, we move now to the early elementary grades and watch the divide accelerate…
Introduction
As you’ll know if you’ve been reading my articles for a while, my early elementary school years as an autistic gestalt processor (GLP) were marked by a growing sense of frustration and isolation. Whilst my Analytic Language Processor (ALP) classmates seemed to effortlessly absorb the rules and patterns of language, I found myself struggling to keep up with even the most basic literacy tasks. Despite my best efforts, the gap between my skills and those of my peers only widened as we progressed through the early grades.
Looking back, I now understand that my experiences were not simply a result of personal failings or lack of effort, but rather a reflection of the different needs of ALPs and GLPs at this critical stage of development. ALPs, who typically excel at breaking down language into its component parts and applying rules to generate novel utterances, often thrive in traditional classroom settings that prioritise explicit phonics instruction and rule-based learning. In contrast, GLPs like myself rely heavily on context, meaning, and holistic processing to acquire language skills, and may struggle with the decontextualised, skill-based approaches that dominate early literacy education.
As I note in my newest book, Holistic Language Instruction, the failure to recognise and address these differing needs can have severe consequences for GLPs, who often begin to fall behind their ALP peers as early as pre-k and kindergarten. Without appropriate support and accommodations, the literacy gap only continues to widen in the early elementary years, leaving many GLPs struggling to keep pace with the rapidly increasing demands of the curriculum. In today’s article, I argue that both a curriculum that is fit for purpose in educating GLPs, as well as targeted interventions and accommodations to bring up lagging skills, are essential to bridge this growing divide and ensure that all students, regardless of their language processing style, have the opportunity to succeed in the classroom.
For me, the lack of early identification and intervention had a profound impact on my academic and personal development. As I watched my classmates progress rapidly in their reading and writing skills, I became increasingly aware of my own perceived inadequacies. The constant struggle to keep up left me feeling frustrated, anxious, and disengaged from the learning process. It wasn't until much later in life that I finally received the diagnosis and support I needed to understand my unique learning style and develop strategies to leverage my strengths as a GLP - gaining literacy in English in my late 30’s.
Sadly, my story is not unique. Research suggests that a significant proportion of students who struggle with reading in the early grades may be unidentified GLPs, whose needs are not being met by the dominant instructional approaches. Without an appropriate curriculum, these students are at risk of experiencing academic, social, and emotional difficulties that can have long-lasting consequences.
As educators and policymakers, we have a responsibility to ensure that all students, including GLPs, receive the support they need to succeed in the classroom. This requires a fundamental shift in how we approach early literacy instruction, moving away from a one-size-fits-all model and towards a more differentiated, inclusive approach that recognises the diversity of language processing styles. By providing a specific programme made for GLPs in the early elementary years, we can help to bridge the literacy gap and set all students on a path to success. It is time to embrace a new paradigm of language education, one that celebrates the unique strengths and needs of every learner and ensures that no child is left behind.
ALPs at Ages 6-7 - early elementary years
In the early elementary years, ALPs typically make rapid progress in their literacy development. At ages 6-7, ALPs are developing fluency in decoding and encoding words, expanding their sight word knowledge, and beginning to use context clues to support comprehension. In writing, they are producing more complex sentences and stories, applying their growing understanding of language structure and conventions.
These skills are a natural fit for the analytical, rule-based approach to language acquisition that characterises ALPs. Their ability to break down words into phonemes, apply phonics rules to decode new words, and use their knowledge of syntax to construct increasingly sophisticated sentences aligns well with the traditional instructional strategies used in most classrooms.
Guided reading groups, a staple of early literacy instruction, often focus on decoding and comprehension skills that play to the strengths of ALPs. Word study activities targeting spelling patterns and sight words further reinforce their analytical approach to language. Writing workshops, which emphasise the writing process and conventions, provide ALPs with opportunities to apply their growing knowledge of language structure to their own compositions.
As a result, ALPs often thrive in the early elementary classroom. Teachers, trained to recognise the skills and behaviours associated with this language processing style as “normal” or “standard,” may view ALPs as model students. Their rapid progress in reading and writing, coupled with their increasing independence in literacy tasks, reinforces the notion that they are the ideal learners.
Consider, for example, a first-grade ALP named Rosario. At the beginning of the year, Rosario could decode simple words and read short sentences. By mid-year, she was reading fluently at a ‘second-grade level,’ tackling chapter books with ease. Her writing had also blossomed, evolving from simple sentences to paragraphs with proper capitalisation and punctuation. Rosario's teacher praised her progress, holding her up as an example for other students to emulate.
What often goes unrecognised, however, is the extent to which the education system privileges the learning style of ALPs. From the curriculum to teacher training programs, the dominant approach to literacy instruction is geared towards the analytical, rule-based processing that comes naturally to ALPs. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle, where the success of ALPs is seen as evidence of the effectiveness of these instructional strategies, further entrenching their dominance in the classroom.
Meanwhile, the needs of GLPs, who rely on a different set of cognitive processes to acquire language, are often overlooked. GLPs, who learn best through context, meaning, and holistic processing, if usupported, will struggle to keep pace with the decontextualised, skill-based approach that dominates early literacy instruction. As a result, they often fall behind their ALP peers, leading to a widening achievement gap that can have long-lasting consequences.
The privileging of ALPs in the early elementary classroom is not a reflection of their innate superiority as learners, but rather a result of an education system that has been designed around their strengths. By recognising this bias and taking steps to create a more inclusive, differentiated approach to literacy instruction, we can ensure that all students, regardless of their language processing style, have the opportunity to succeed. This requires a fundamental shift in how we think about language acquisition, moving away from a one-size-fits-all model and towards a more nuanced, individualised approach that celebrates the diversity of learners in our classrooms.
GLPs at Stage 3 - early elementary years
For GLPs in Stage 3 of language development, the early elementary years can be a time of significant struggle and frustration. At this stage, GLPs are just beginning to use isolated single words and two-word combinations, relying heavily on gestalts and scripted language to communicate. They often have difficulty breaking down language into smaller components, a skill that is heavily emphasised in traditional literacy instruction.
In the classroom, GLPs may find themselves constantly playing catch-up, struggling to keep pace with the increasing complexity of literacy tasks. As their ALP peers make rapid progress in reading and writing, GLPs often fall further behind, leading to feelings of inadequacy and self-doubt.
The lack of an appropriate curriculum for GLPs can exacerbate these challenges. In a classroom environment that privileges the ALPs, GLPs may feel like square pegs trying to fit into round holes. Our unique learning style, which relies on context, meaning, and holistic processing, is often not recognised or valued by teachers who have been trained to view the ALP approach as the norm.
As a result, GLPs may become increasingly frustrated and disengaged from the learning process. They may act out behaviourally, expressing their anxiety and anger through disruptions or defiance. Some may withdraw, becoming passive and unresponsive in the classroom. These behaviours, often misinterpreted as a lack of motivation or effort, can lead to a negative cycle of low expectations and poor performance.
When GLPs are identified as struggling learners, they are often assigned to interventions designed to remediate their perceived deficits. However, these interventions are typically based on the assumption that all struggling learners are simply ALPs who are a bit behind their grade-level peers. The strategies used in these interventions, such as intensive phonics instruction and decontextualised skill practice, are often a poor fit for the learning style of GLPs.
As a result, GLPs may make little progress in these interventions, despite the extra time and attention they receive. This lack of success can further erode their self-esteem and motivation, leading to a sense of hopelessness and despair. By the time they reach the upper elementary grades, GLPs who have been consistently unsupported in their language learning journey may be significantly behind their ALP peers, both academically and emotionally.
To support GLPs in Stage 3, educators must recognise and value their unique learning style, providing instructional strategies that align with their strengths. This may include using visual supports and manipulatives to teach sight words and basic sentences, incorporating music, movement, and repetition into language activities, and providing structured opportunities for verbal interaction and turn-taking.
Most importantly, educators must move away from a deficit-based view of GLPs, recognising that their struggles are not a reflection of their innate abilities, but rather a result of an educational system that has failed to meet their needs. By embracing a strengths-based approach, and with a proper curriculum, educators can help GLPs to develop a positive self-image and a love of learning that will serve them well throughout their academic journey.
As a society, we must also recognise the urgent need for systemic change in how we approach language education. By moving towards a more inclusive, differentiated model that celebrates the diversity of learners in our classrooms, we can create an educational environment that supports the success of all students, regardless of their language processing style. Only then can we begin to close the achievement gap and ensure that every child has the opportunity to reach their full potential.
Bridging the literacy gap: interventions, accommodations, an a proper curriculum
To effectively support GLPs in the early elementary years, it is crucial to prioritise early identification and provide the appropriate curriculum to match their language acquisition style. Research has consistently shown that early identification is key to preventing long-term academic and social-emotional difficulties for struggling learners.
Again, one of the most critical steps in supporting GLPs is to provide them with a curriculum that aligns with their unique learning style. This requires a significant shift away from the one-size-fits-all approach that currently dominates early literacy instruction, and towards a more differentiated model that recognises the diversity of language processing styles.
For GLPs, this may involve incorporating more visual supports and manipulatives into reading and writing instruction, using assistive technology tools to help with decoding and encoding, and providing extra time and alternative formats for assessments. By making these accommodations, educators can help GLPs to access the curriculum and demonstrate their knowledge in ways that are meaningful and manageable for them.
In addition to classroom accommodations, GLPs may also benefit from specialised interventions that target their specific areas of need. These may include interventions that focus on stage-appropriate language skills, such as building vocabulary and developing narrative abilities. Social skills groups can also be valuable for GLPs, helping them to develop the pragmatic language skills that are essential for success in school and in life.
For GLPs who struggle with reading, intensive, individualised intervention programs may be necessary to help them catch up to their peers. These programs should be designed to align with the GLP learning style, using a holistic, context-based approach that emphasizes meaning and comprehension over isolated skill practice.
Unfortunately, the current push towards standardisation and accountability in education, exemplified by California’s AB 2222, threatens to undermine these efforts to support GLPs and other diverse learners. By mandating a narrow, skills-based approach to reading instruction, AB 2222 seeks to enshrine the ALP model as the only legitimate way to teach reading.
This is a deeply misguided and dangerous approach, one that ignores decades of research on the diversity of language processing styles and the importance of differentiated instruction. It also dismisses the lived experiences of educators like myself, who have seen firsthand the damage that can be done when GLPs and other diverse learners are forced to conform to a one-size-fits-all model.
Moreover, AB 2222 appears to be driven more by the interests of big educational corporations than by a genuine concern for student learning. By limiting the range of instructional approaches and materials that can be used in California classrooms, AB 2222 effectively creates a captive market for the narrow range of products and services that align with its rigid, skills-based approach.
This is a classic example of the “tyranny of normal” in action, where a narrow, dominant view of what constitutes “normal” or “standard” language development is used to justify the exclusion and marginalisation of those who do not conform to that view. It is a deeply unjust and shortsighted approach, one that will only serve to widen the achievement gap and limit the potential of countless students.
As educators and advocates, we have a responsibility to push back against this narrow, corporate-driven vision of education and to fight for a more inclusive, equitable approach that recognises and supports the needs of all learners. This means advocating for policies and practices that prioritise early identification of GLPs and other diverse learners, and that provide the resources and flexibility needed to implement differentiated, culturally responsive instruction.
It also means working to build a broader coalition of educators, parents, and community members who understand the value of diversity in education and who are willing to stand up for the rights of all students to receive a high-quality, personalised education that meets their unique needs and strengths.
Only by working together can we hope to create an education system that truly serves all students, regardless of their language processing style or background. It is a daunting task, but one that is essential if we are to fulfill the promise of public education as a vehicle for social mobility and a foundation for a more just and equitable society.
Final thoughts …
In concluding here, the proposed AB 2222 represents a clear and present danger to the education and well-being of a significant portion of California’s student population. By mandating a narrow, skills-based approach to reading instruction that privileges the needs of ALPs over those of GLPs and other diverse learners, AB 2222 threatens to perpetuate a system of educational inequality and marginalisation that has already done untold harm to countless students.
Our legislators have a solemn duty of care towards all of the students in California’s public schools. This duty requires them to make decisions that are in the best interests of all students, not just those who conform to a narrow, dominant view of what constitutes “normal” or “standard” language development.
By ignoring the needs and experiences of GLPs and other diverse learners, AB 2222 violates this duty of care in the most egregious way possible. It condemns nearly 40% of California’s students to an educational experience that is fundamentally incompatible with their learning style, setting them up for failure and frustration in school and beyond.
The consequences of this failure are not abstract or theoretical - they are real and tangible, with devastating impacts on the lives of individual students and on the fabric of our society as a whole. We need look no further than the tragic legacy of the Indian Residential Schools to see the harm that can be done when educational policies are driven by a narrow, assimilationist agenda that dismisses the value of cultural and cognitive diversity.
For generations, Indigenous children in Canada and the United States were forcibly removed from their families and communities and placed in residential schools that sought to erase their language, culture, and identity. The trauma and loss inflicted by these schools continue to reverberate through Indigenous communities to this day, with devastating impacts on mental health, social cohesion, and educational attainment.
Whilst AB 2222 may not rise to the level of cultural genocide, it is rooted in the same misguided eugenics belief that there is only one “right” way to learn and that those who do not conform to that way are deficient and in need of remediation. It is a belief that has no place in a just and equitable education system, and one that we must reject if we are to fulfill our duty of care to all students.
Our legislators have the power and the responsibility to chart a different course for California’s schools. By rejecting AB 2222 and embracing a more inclusive, differentiated approach to reading instruction, they can send a clear message that all students, regardless of their language processing style or background, are valued and deserving of an education that meets their unique needs and strengths.
This is not just a matter of educational best practice - it is a moral imperative, rooted in the fundamental belief that every child has the right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) that enables them to reach their full potential. It is a belief that has been enshrined in international law and in the constitutions of nations around the world, and one that we must uphold if we are to build a more just and equitable society.