Why “We Write How We Speak” Doesn’t Hold in Multilingual Classrooms

by Amanda Archbald

There is a phrase many of us were taught early in our careers, and one that still quietly shapes how we think about literacy. We write how we speak. In many contexts, that holds true. When a pupil’s spoken language is developed, controlled, and precise, it tends to transfer into writing over time. Strong oracy supports strong literacy.

However, in international English-medium schools, particularly across the UAE, this assumption begins to fracture. We have pupils who speak confidently, who participate readily, and who appear to follow the flow of lessons with ease. There is little hesitation when they respond, and very little, at least on the surface, to suggest that language is a barrier.

Yet when you read their work, something does not align. Vocabulary is limited, sentence structures are repetitive, and ideas are often underdeveloped. In subjects that rely on explanation and evaluation, performance begins to drop away. Reading can be slow and effortful, with comprehension that does not always extend beyond the surface.

It is tempting to interpret this as inconsistency or lack of effort. In some cases, pupils are described as capable but not quite applying themselves, or as average despite appearing more confident in discussion. From a language perspective, those explanations do not hold. What we are seeing is not a disconnect between speaking and writing, but a misinterpretation of what that speaking represents.

Many multilingual learners develop what might be described as interactional fluency. They are able to communicate effectively in familiar contexts, drawing on high-frequency vocabulary and well-rehearsed structures. They can navigate routines, contribute to discussion, and sound entirely at ease in an English-speaking classroom. This kind of fluency is adaptive and, in many ways, impressive. It allows pupils to function successfully in day-to-day interactions and often masks the effort taking place beneath the surface.

However, it is not the same as academic language proficiency. Academic language requires a different level of control. It demands precision, flexibility, and the ability to handle abstraction. It draws on a broader and more specialised vocabulary, and it relies on sentence structures that allow pupils to explain, justify, and evaluate ideas in a sustained way. Crucially, it is far less dependent on context.

Writing exposes this difference because it removes many of the supports that spoken interaction provides. There is no immediate feedback, no gesture, and no shared context to carry meaning. The pupil must generate and control the language independently, while at the same time organising their ideas. For many multilingual learners, that dual demand significantly increases cognitive load.

Reading reveals the same pattern. As texts become more complex and subject-specific, pupils can no longer rely on general understanding or familiarity with everyday language. They need depth of vocabulary and grammatical awareness to access meaning with any degree of precision. Without that, reading becomes slower, more effortful, and increasingly reliant on guesswork.

The difficulty for schools is that interactional fluency is highly convincing. Pupils who speak confidently rarely raise concern. They are often removed from EAL registers earlier than they should be, are not prioritised for targeted support, and are expected to access the curriculum independently. When attainment does not follow, the explanation shifts away from language and towards effort or ability.

This is where the system begins to work against the learner. The issue is not that the need is invisible, but that we are not looking for it in the right places.

We do write how we speak. The difficulty is that we are not always listening closely enough to the kind of speaking taking place. Confidence is not the same as control, and participation is not the same as proficiency.

For leaders, this has direct implications for how progress is understood and how provision is designed. It requires a more precise definition of what proficiency looks like, one that goes beyond confidence in spoken English and considers range, accuracy, and control across reading and writing. It also requires assessment practices that move beyond surface-level participation and look more closely at extended responses, subject-specific language use, and reading data.

Perhaps most importantly, it requires a shift in how responsibility is positioned within the school. Language development cannot sit solely with EAL specialists, particularly once pupils appear fluent. In multilingual settings, language is the medium through which all learning takes place, and that makes it a shared responsibility across all subjects and phases.

In a context where the majority of pupils are learning through an additional language, this is not a marginal issue. It sits at the centre of access, attainment, and equity. If fluency continues to be used as a proxy for readiness, then the gap between what pupils appear able to do and what they can actually access will continue to widen.

The challenge, then, is not to question whether pupils can speak, but to look more carefully at what their language allows them to do.