Literacy instruction for autistic children who speak languages other than English.

Bailey et al. (2022) searched for studies that teach reading or writing to autistic children who speak languages other than English. They looked at any paper that tested an instruction method and reported child outcomes. The team found only a handful of small studies scattered across many languages.

Almost every literacy study they located was done in English. The few non-English trials used tiny samples and very different teaching steps. Because of this, we cannot be sure that English-based reading programs will work the same way in Spanish, Arabic, or Mandarin.

The same year, Bailey et al. (2022) also ran an English trial of the online ABRACADABRA program plus parent-shared book reading. That study extends the review by showing that even in English, 16 hours of the program produced no clear reading gains. Together, the two papers warn us that both language and method matter.

Kushki et al. (2011) add another layer. Their scoping review links handwriting problems in autism to fine-motor and visual-motor gaps. If a child struggles to form letters, a reading program that ignores motor demands may fail, no matter which language is used.

Boxum et al. (2018) show that non-English-speaking families already receive fewer IEP goals and service hours. Sparse literacy evidence plus reduced access creates a double barrier for these kids.

Before you import an English reading package, pause. Check if the child’s language has the same sound-to-letter rules, and test fine-motor skills first. Start with a tiny pilot—maybe five target words—and collect daily data. If progress stalls, tweak the method instead of blaming the language.