K-2nd Grade - Multilingual Learner Supports

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K-2 of Math & YOU partially meet expectations for supporting MLLs’ full and complete participation in extensive work with grade-level problems to meet the full intent of grade-level standards. The materials provide some strategies for MLLs’ participation in grade-level problems, but they do not apply these supports consistently across chapters and lessons. 

The materials provide a consistent instructional design, both at the chapter-level and the lesson-level. Each chapter features several language-rich components that the Implementation Handbook describes as supporting balance across the three aspects of rigor. These components provide MLLs with opportunities to use and develop language. 

• Big Idea of the Chapter: “informal explorations before chapter learning begins”

• Chapter Vocabulary: “opportunities for students to review past vocabulary using a graphic organizer to make sense of words rather than just memorize their definitions”

• Career Performance Tasks: “tasks centered around applying and connecting mathematical concepts with a focus on the chapter career themes”

• Big Idea Tasks: “open-ended tasks focused on assessing the aspects of rigor and mathematical practices”

• Connecting Big Ideas Activities: “data-centered activities focused on application across multiple chapters”

• Chapter Game: “a fun and competitive context for students to review key skills from the chapter”

• Chapter Centers: “additional activities for students to review the content of the chapter”

Within these chapter-level components of the instructional design, the materials provide embedded prompts that attempt to support connections among the three aspects of rigor and mathematical practices, student reflection, or opportunities for discourse. The Chapter Vocabulary and Career Performance Tasks contain English Learner Support notes that contain language supports inconsistently aligned with the language proficiency levels of Entering-Emerging, Developing-Expanding, and Bridging-Reaching. These notes provide language supports for one specific aspect of each task but do not consistently provide for MLLs’ full and complete participation. For example, in Grade 1, Chapter 3, More Addition and Subtraction Situations, the Chapter Vocabulary uses a graphic organizer and fill-in-the-blank task to engage students with the vocabulary words count on, number line, fact family, and bar model. Students participate in a whole-class discussion stating each review vocabulary word aloud before discussing and filling in the graphic organizer. The English Learner Support note invites teachers to support one part of one of the vocabulary words, model, by discussing the everyday meaning of the word and contrasting it with the mathematical meaning. While this suggestion provides support for the word model in bar model, the note does not support the vocabulary words count on, number line, and fact family, and thus does not provide for MLLs’ full and complete participation in the task. 

Additionally, each chapter begins with a section titled, Mathematics of the Chapter, which features a note titled, Laurie’s Notes: Language Routines. These notes contain one suggested Language Routine with brief instructions about implementing the suggested routine. For example, in Grade 2, Chapter 4, Subtraction Strategies Within 100, Laurie’s Note: Language Routines states, “Stronger & Clearer Each Time: Think-Pair-Share-Repeat. When using this routine, students think and/or write about an idea individually. Then, through a structured pairing strategy, students share their thoughts with their first partners. Students then rotate to new partners to strengthen and clarify their thinking.” While regularly embedded Language Routines can support MLLs’ participation in grade-level tasks by providing tasks with predictable language usage when repeated over time, this is the only reference to Language Routines in the chapter. This one-time reference is brief in nature, and it does not include specific details about how to implement the routine within the specific language demands of each lesson.

At the lesson-level, the consistent instructional design includes a language-rich start to each lesson through an Investigate section where students make observations and activate or build background knowledge. The majority of the lesson is spent with teacher-led prompts and activities that focus on explicit instruction of mathematical strategies, new mathematical terminology, and key concepts. Lessons end with an opportunity for students to engage in practice focused on applying procedures and strategies from the lesson. The materials provide lesson-embedded strategies and scaffolds in notes called English Learner Supports in two spots within each lesson: within the explicit instruction of the lesson and within the practice portion of the lesson. These notes feature language supports aligned with the lessons’ tagged WIDA English Language Development Standards, with the supports delineated by the language proficiency levels of Entering-Emerging, Developing-Expanding, and Bridging-Reaching (see the report for 3.1.MLL-1 for more details). Generally, the English Learner Support notes align to the WIDA key language uses of explain, inform, or argue, and feature language supports in three categories: support for new mathematical vocabulary, suggestions for MLLs to leverage home language as a resource, or sentence frames to support MLLs with participating in student-to-student discourse. Within the lesson facilitation, these notes often support MLLs’ participation in one specific problem or one small aspect of the task. Within the practice portion of the lesson, these notes often present an additional activity that serves as a summary of the lesson. Because of these points, the English Learner Support notes do not allow for MLLs’ full and complete participation in grade-level problems across lessons. Additional evidence illustrating these limitations appears in the reports for 2a.MLL-2c.MLL, and for each of the mathematical practices in the reports for 2e.MLL-2l.MLL. 

Across both the chapter-level and lesson-level supports, the materials contain three features to support MLLs’ participation in grade-level problems: a visual glossary, text-to-speech technology, and a Family Letter. The visual glossary is available in English/Spanish in the print Student Experience, along with vocabulary flashcards for the new vocabulary of the chapter. In the digital learning experience, the materials provide a visual glossary in 16 languages. The materials feature text-to-speech technology, and the Implementation Handbook states that the technology “enables students to listen to text using high-quality, natural-sounding voices, available in multiple languages.” The functionality of the text-to-speech technology was inconsistent and not intuitive to navigate. The Family Letter is available in English and Spanish in the digital experience, and it outlines the big picture of the mathematics and vocabulary of the chapter along with a QR code linking to additional resources to support student learning throughout the chapter.

As stated in the Criterion 1 summary, see 1d.MLL for the program’s embedded linguistic supports. This report examines how those supports are reflected in relation to the expectations of this specific Indicator, using examples from the materials to illustrate implementation. 

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K-2 of Math & YOU partially meet expectations of providing support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in the conceptual understanding of key mathematical concepts. The materials offer opportunities for students to explore and make sense of mathematical ideas while engaging with multiple representations to formalize procedures, supporting conceptual understanding. To do this, the materials provide students with the opportunity to apply prior knowledge to new tasks, inviting students to find relationships within and between concrete representations, visual representations, and abstract written strategies. However, the materials inconsistently offer clear linguistic supports for MLLs to fully and completely participate in the intentional development of students’ conceptual understanding of key mathematical concepts. For example:

• MLLs are not fully supported in participating in Grade 2, Chapter 8, Subtract Numbers within 1,000, Lesson 8.7 where students model multi-digit sums and differences, discussing regrouping decisions and solution strategies (2.NBT.7). The WIDA English Language Development [ELD] Standards are as follows: “Construct mathematical explanations that state reasoning used to generate a solution. Construct mathematical arguments that justify conclusion steps and strategies in simple patterns.” In Investigate, students build conceptual understanding when they connect various representations while modeling the difference of 2 three-digit numbers using base ten blocks, drawing the model, writing the difference, and writing to explain the method used. The English Learner Support note provides scaffolded and heavily guided prompts across proficiency levels that support MLLs speaking and listening to students explain regrouping decisions, such as, “Can you take away 9 ones from the ones you have? How can you get more ones? How many ones do you have now?” These teacher prompts guide students through understanding the task, including why regrouping is necessary and how to demonstrate understanding through representations and explanations. However, this language support is primarily teacher-directed and relies on guided exchanges, offering limited opportunities for MLLs’ independent language production, sustained peer discourse, or student-initiated reasoning when constructing mathematical arguments and explanations. As a result, while the materials provide meaningful strategies that support access to conceptual understanding, they do not consistently ensure full and complete participation for all MLLs as it relates to the tagged WIDA standards. Additionally, the remainder of the lesson does not feature language supports specifically for MLLs to model regrouping decisions across hundreds, tens, and ones. 

• In contrast, MLLs are supported in Grade 1, Chapter 8, Add and Subtract Tens, Lesson 8.6, where students subtract multiples of tens (1.NBT.6). The WIDA ELD Standards are as follows: “Interpret mathematical informational texts by identifying a concept or an entity. Construct mathematical information texts that describe a concept or an entity.” In the first Key Concept, students build conceptual understanding when they trace jumps of ten on an open number line to model the difference of 80 - 50, chorally counting as they trace, then discussing with a partner how those moves help find the difference. The English Learner Support note includes teacher prompts to support MLLs with interpreting the task by clarifying the mathematical meaning of the phrase “to get to,” supporting MLLs’ ability to understand the task and to negotiate meaning within the context of the example. Scaffolded supports across proficiency levels include oral explanations, sentence frames, and visual modeling with a number line, providing opportunities for speaking and listening that are directly aligned to the academic task and the tagged WIDA ELD Standards. These supports help students connect language to mathematical reasoning by explaining how the method of “counting on” represents the difference between two numbers.

As stated in the Criterion 1 summary, see 1d.MLL for the program’s embedded linguistic supports. This report examines how those supports are reflected in relation to the expectations of this specific Indicator, using examples from the materials to illustrate implementation.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K-2 of Math & YOU partially meet expectations of providing support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in developing procedural skills and fluencies. The materials offer opportunities for students to encounter sequenced tasks that emphasize flexible strategies and efficient procedures alongside occasional student-to-student discourse. However, the materials inconsistently offer clear linguistic supports for MLLs to fully and completely participate in opportunities for students to develop procedural skills and fluencies. For example:

• MLLs are not fully supported in participating in Grade 1, Chapter 5, Subtract Numbers within 20, Lesson 5.2, where students subtract within 20 using the add to subtract strategy (1.OA.6). The WIDA English Language Development [ELD] Standards are as follows: “Interpret mathematical informational texts by identifying a concept or an entity. Construct mathematical informational texts that describe a concept or an entity.” In Investigate, students engage in a real-world problem using subtraction or addition to subtract on a number line, working towards developing procedural skills and fluency. The lesson facilitation invites the teacher to have students share their solution strategies during a whole-class discussion. The English Learner Support note provides scaffolded prompts across proficiency levels that offer structured language supports, including heavily guided teacher questioning, visual models (number line), and sentence-based mathematical explanations. These supports guide MLLs through the subtraction procedure, supporting fluency development. However, the scaffolds primarily focus on teacher-guided responses and do not consistently provide opportunities for MLL students to independently apply strategies, engage in sustained mathematical discourse with peers, or demonstrate full procedural understanding beyond guided practice. As a result, the supports facilitate access to procedural skills but do not consistently ensure full and complete participation for all MLLs.

• In contrast, MLLs are supported in Grade 2, Chapter 2, Fluently Add and Subtract within 20, Lesson 2.2, where students use the doubles plus 1 and doubles minus 1 strategies to find sums (2.OA.2). The WIDA ELD Standard is as follows: “Construct mathematical explanations that describe a solution and steps used to solve a problem with others.” In the Key Concept, the lesson explicitly introduces and reinforces the strategies doubles, doubles plus one, and doubles minus one using the visual models of linking cube trains. Students engage in procedural skills and fluency when they engage in partner discussions to justify strategy selection and explain which doubles fact is most efficient for a given sum (e.g., 7 + 8). The English Learner Support note intentionally integrates the development of procedural skills and fluency with students’ mathematical explanation. Students use concrete models (linking cubes) to represent doubles and related strategies, connecting fluency work in visual and conceptual reasoning. Scaffolded prompts and sentence frames across proficiency levels support MLLs in explaining which doubles strategy they used and why it was efficient for a given sum, rather than simply producing an answer. As students progress from identifying strategies to justifying their choices using complete sentences, they engage in procedural practice that is intertwined with reasoning, discussion, and reflection, which aligns with the tagged WIDA ELD Standard for this lesson.

As stated in the Criterion 1 summary, see 1d.MLL for the program’s embedded linguistic supports. This report examines how those supports are reflected in relation to the expectations of this specific Indicator, using examples from the materials to illustrate implementation.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K-2 of Math & YOU partially meet expectations of providing support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in utilizing mathematical concepts and skills in engaging applications. The materials engage students in applying mathematics in routine and non-routine contexts. These applications provide opportunities for students to demonstrate their ability to transfer and apply mathematical concepts and skills. However, the materials inconsistently offer language supports necessary for MLLs to fully access the linguistic demands of solving routine and non-routine application problems. For example:

• MLLs are not fully supported in participating in Grade 1, Chapter 4, Add Numbers within 20, Lesson 4.7, where students solve addition word problems (1.OA.1). The WIDA English Language Development Standards are as follows: “Interpret mathematical informational texts by identifying a concept or an entity. Construct mathematical informational texts that describe a concept or an entity.” In the In-Class Practice, students engage with solving routine application problems when they independently solve an addition problem using self-selected solution strategies. The English Learner Support note provides suggested scaffolds across proficiency levels; the Entering-Emering and Developing-Expanding suggestions focus on interpreting the meaning of the word more as meaning addition, which is not always true. Additionally, the suggested scaffolds do not support MLLs with using self-selected solution strategies to solve application problems. 

• In contrast, MLLs are supported in the Performance Task for Grade 2, Chapter 12, Money and Time, where students apply their understanding of money and time to solve problems relating to a real-world situation (2.MD.8). After the materials invite the teacher to build or activate background knowledge about the real-world situations, the materials direct the teacher to arrange students in small groups to complete the Performance Task. The English Learner Support note provides several linguistic scaffolds for MLLs’ full and complete participation in the small group setting: pairing MLLs with home language peers, providing physical manipulatives of coins and dollar bills, and reviewing the values of each. Scaffolded supports across proficiency levels align language to the language demands of the task by prompting MLLs to count, group, add, and explain how to determine total earnings, supporting speaking, listening, and demonstrating understanding through action. Together, these linguistic scaffolds allow for MLLs’ full and complete participation in solving application problems.

As stated in the Criterion 1 summary, see 1d.MLL for the program’s embedded linguistic supports. This report examines how those supports are reflected in relation to the expectations of this specific Indicator, using examples from the materials to illustrate implementation.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K-2 of Math & YOU partially meet the expectations of providing support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in the intentional development of MP2: Reason abstractly and quantitatively. The materials employ representations moving from concrete to representational to abstract, giving MLLs accessible entry points into the mathematical task and support MLLs with access to abstract symbols. However, the materials inconsistently offer clear linguistic supports for MLLs to fully and completely participate in reasoning abstractly and quantitatively. For example:

• MLLs are not fully supported in participating in Grade 1, Chapter 10, Measure and Compare Lengths, Lesson 10.4, where students use non-standard units of measure to estimate the lengths of two objects and explain their reasoning for choosing the units they used. In-Class Practice Exercise 4 states, “Complete the sentences using paper clips or color tiles. A workbook is about 6 ____ long. A workbook is about 12 ____ long.” The materials describe this activity as engaging students with reasoning abstractly and quantitatively when they measure items using two different nonstandard units, noticing that measuring with a smaller unit will require more items than measuring with a larger unit. The lesson invites students to first take time to think individually to solve Exercise 4, then discuss with a partner, then have a whole-class discussion. There are no language supports provided for MLLs to fully participate in the student-to-student and whole-class discourse in which they reason abstractly about the relationship between the problem scenarios and mathematical representations.

• In contrast, MLLs are supported in Kindergarten, Chapter 13, Measure and Compare Objects, Lesson 13.5, where students are expected to reason abstractly and quantitatively as they compare the weights of two objects. In Investigate, the materials invite students to consider how many counting bears should be placed on each side of a balance scale to make one side heavier, explaining to a partner how they know they are correct. An English Learner Support note supports MLLs with formulating their explanations as they attend to the meaning of quantities. After directing the teacher to have MLLs work with a physical balance scale and counting bears, the note provides language supports across proficiency levels which invite MLLs to use sentence frames to formulate their explanations, such as, “The group with ____ bears is heavier/lighter than the group with ____ bears.” MLLs are supported in participating in the partner discourse through the suggestion for MLLs to take turns applying the sentence frames to different quantities of bears. This partner discourse provides MLLs with another opportunity to reason abstractly and quantitatively as they explain what the numbers mean in the problem scenario.

As stated in the Criterion 1 summary, see 1d.MLL for the program’s embedded linguistic supports. This report examines how those supports are reflected in relation to the expectations of this specific Indicator, using examples from the materials to illustrate implementation.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K-2 of Math & YOU partially meet the expectations of providing support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in the intentional development of MP4: Model with mathematics. The materials engage students in tasks that support MP4 by reasoning with quantities, representing situations symbolically, and interpreting numbers and symbols in context to connect real-world scenarios with mathematical representations. However, the materials do not consistently provide the explicit language supports necessary for MLLs’ full participation in MP4. For example:

• MLLs are not fully supported in participating in Kindergarten, Chapter 6, Add Numbers within 10, Lesson 6.10, where students listen to a story, draw a picture, and write an addition sentence to model the situation. Laurie’s Notes-Closure directs the teacher to engage students in modeling with mathematics as they solve the word problem: “I am going to tell a story. I want you to draw a picture for this problem and then write an addition sentence that will help you answer the question. I have 6 rocks in my collection. Some are black. The same number are gray. How many black and how many gray rocks are there?” Students model this word problem using pictures, manipulatives, and addition sentences, attending to how their models represent the context and making connections between the various models they use. The materials do not provide language supports for MLLs to fully participate in the Closure activity, to identify important information from the problem, to choose a model and describe what they do with it, or to check to see whether their answer makes sense.

In contrast, MLLs are supported in Grade 2, Chapter 1, Repeated Addition and Arrays, Lesson 1.1, where students model numbers to decide if two equal groups can be made. In Investigate, the materials present a word problem involving partnering soccer players evenly, inviting students to model with mathematics by acting out the problem and using linking cubes to model the problem. Laurie’s Notes contain a teacher prompt to engage students in modelings with mathematics: “How do linking cubes help you model matching up partners for teams of 6 and 9?” Then, the materials direct the teacher to facilitate a whole-class discussion in which students describe their reasoning. An English Learner Support note supports MLLs with fully participating in the whole-class discussion with linguistic supports for the concept of the term left over when describing the soccer team with an odd number of players. Across proficiency levels, the note invites the teacher to use linking cubes to demonstrate the concept of left over and to ask questions to help MLLs describe what they do with the linking cube representation, such as, “Is there a partner for each cube? If no, how many cubes are left over?”

As stated in the Criterion 1 summary, see 1d.MLL for the program’s embedded linguistic supports. This report examines how those supports are reflected in relation to the expectations of this specific Indicator, using examples from the materials to illustrate implementation.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K-2 of Math & YOU partially meet the expectations of providing support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in the intentional development of MP6: Attend to precision. The materials provide teacher guidance for explicit instruction for students to communicate using grade-level appropriate vocabulary with accurate definitions. However, there is limited teacher guidance around supporting MLLs to formulate clear explanations, state the meaning of symbols, calculate accurately and efficiently, or use precise labels. Therefore, language supports are inconsistently applied for MLLs to engage in MP6. For example:

• MLLs are not fully supported in participating in Grade 1, Chapter 12, Two- and Three-Dimensional Shapes, Lesson 12.3, where students attend to precision as they use and apply precise vocabulary to describe how to compose and decompose two-dimensional shapes. In Investigate, an English Learner Support note provides vague supports for MLLs to review the mathematical terminology trapezoid and triangle through teacher prompts such as, “How many sides does a trapezoid have? How many sides does a triangle have?” In Exercise 8 of the In-Class Practice, the materials ask students to attend to precision as they draw to decompose a circle into quarter circles and independently write to describe their drawings. A Talk About It suggests that students share their explanations with their partners after writing, listening for precise phrases like separate parts, together they make a whole, bringing/putting together, and missing part. However, the materials do not provide linguistic supports for MLLs to independently write a description or apply the precise phrases to indicate part-whole relationships. This example provided students with an opportunity to communicate learning using grade-level appropriate vocabulary, using definitions accurately as they recorded how they used a model to solve a part-part-whole problem. There are no scaffolds that provide language support for students who may not be fluent in using academic vocabulary such as part, whole, quarter, or circle.

• In contrast, MLLs are supported in Grade 2, Repeated Addition and Arrays, Chapter 1, Lesson 1.3, where students attend to precision when they use equal groups and repeated addition to determine the number of objects in a situation. In Investigate, the materials engage students with understanding and applying the meaning of the term equal when they model equal groups and write repeated addition equations. An English Learner Support note directs the teacher to draw 3 groups with 4 objects in each group and, “Explain that the term equal means ‘the same amount.’ Using equal, help EL students understand the meaning of the term equal groups, draw 3 groups with a different number of objects in each group. Guide EL students to understand that the groups are not equal.” The note provides further supports for MLLs with language supports across proficiency bands, such as inviting MLLs to point to the example that shows equal groups and the example that does not show equal groups or apply the term equal groups with sentence frames describing the two examples. The materials support MLLs with understanding and using precise mathematical vocabulary within the Key Concept, where the materials direct the teacher to provide explicit instruction around the terms equal groups and repeated addition. In addition to the student-friendly definitions included in the Student Edition, the lesson facilitation directs the teacher to use the chapter vocabulary cards to have students match the terms equal groups and repeated addition to the two example problems. These linguistic supports provide language for MLLs tocommunicate using grade-level appropriate vocab, using definitions accurately.

As stated in the Criterion 1 summary, see 1d.MLL for the program’s embedded linguistic supports. This report examines how those supports are reflected in relation to the expectations of this specific Indicator, using examples from the materials to illustrate implementation.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K-2 of Math & YOU partially meet the expectations of providing support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in the intentional development of MP8: Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning. The materials provide opportunities for students to use and develop language when looking for and expressing regularity in repeated reasoning through Key Concept whole-group discussions and In-Class Practice. However, language supports are inconsistently applied for MLLs to engage in MP8. For example:

• MLLs are not fully supported in participating in Kindergarten, Chapter 11, Identify Two-Dimensional Shapes, Lesson 11.5, where students look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning as they consider defining attributes to identify and describe two-dimensional shapes. In the Key Concept, the teacher provides explicit instruction on the definitions of hexagons and circles using the chapter’s vocabulary cards. During a whole-group discussion, students answer several teacher prompts building towards repeated reasoning in which they determine that color is not a defining attribute, and hexagons are closed figures with six sides and six vertices. There are no language supports provided to ensure MLLs’ full and complete participation in the whole-class discussion. After three In-Class Practice Exercises, the teacher engages students in looking for and expressing regularity in repeated reasoning by asking, “What do you notice about the number of sides and the number of vertices of a hexagon? Is this true for all shapes?” There are no linguistic supports provided to MLLs to engage in the whole-class discussion, or for MLLs to make generalizations. 

• In contrast, MLLs are supported in Kindergarten, Chapter 11, Identify Two-Dimensional Shapes, Lesson 11.3, where students look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning as they consider defining attributes to identify and describe two-dimensional shapes. In Investigate, partners work together to cut, sort, and glue shapes into two categories: rectangle and not a rectangle. A Talk About It invites the teacher to facilitate a whole-class discussion engaging students with making generalizations, asking, “Review where you placed your cards. Is a rectangle always closed? Does a rectangle always have four straight sides? Does a rectangle always have four vertices? How do you describe its corners?” An English Learner Support note provides supports for MLLs’ participation by providing additional examples and non-examples of rectangles along with yes-no questions that engage MLLs with the defining attributes of rectangles. The note prompts teachers to ask the same yes-no questions for each shape, supporting MLLs with using repeated reasoning as a tool for identifying shapes.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K-2 of Math & YOU partially meet expectations for intentionally developing language in ways valued by disciplinary practices over time, across lessons, units, and throughout the course. Disciplinary language development consists of functional language development alongside mathematical vocabulary development. In the materials, functional language development is inconsistent and often serves students’ understanding of the mathematical content or practices rather than intentionally advancing disciplinary language development over time, as noted in the reports for Criterion 1. As noted in the report for 2j.MLL, the materials partially support the development of mathematical vocabulary over time. Additionally, the materials do not provide a plan for teachers to bridge between students’ informal ways of communicating and more precise mathematical ways of communicating. 

The materials lack a clearly articulated, longitudinal plan for developing language as a disciplinary practice beyond moments embedded within mathematical content or practices. An example of this exists in Kindergarten, Chapter 2, Compare Numbers 0 to 5, where students identify whether the number of objects in one group is greater than, less than, or equal to the number of objects in another group. There is no framing in the materials of the interdependence of the mathematical concept of comparing numbers and the language needed to compare numbers. However, the English Learner Support notes within each lessons’ instructional activities feature language supports that slightly progress in sophistication, beginning with the listed language function of defining concepts in Lesson 2.1, moving to describing concepts in Lessons 2.2, 2.3, and 2.5, and ending with the most sophisticated, comparing and contrasting concepts, in Lesson 2.4. The specific linguistic scaffolds in each of these notes move from encouraging MLLs to use and define the everyday phrases the same as and not the same as in Lesson 2.1 to monitoring for MLLs to use the precise mathematical terms more and fewer while comparing and contrasting quantities in Lesson 2.4. 

While a slight progression exists in Kindergarten, Chapter 2, there is no discernable progression of disciplinary language development in the next chapter in Kindergarten, Chapter 3, Count and Write Numbers 6 to 10. In this chapter, the English Learner Support notes within each lessons’ instructional activities list language functions that shift irregularly between describing concepts, identifying concepts, and defining concepts with no clear progression of language sophistication over time. 

Therefore, the materials provide some, but not consistent, intentional support for the ongoing development of disciplinary language. While they consistently build mathematical vocabulary, support for functional language development is inconsistent and lacks clear progression. Consequently, the materials do not effectively equip teachers to foster MLLs’ language growth in a deliberate and sustained way.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K-2 of Math & YOU partially meet expectations for providing teacher guidance to support MLLs and to utilize the strategies, supports, and/or accommodations found. The materials provide useful suggestions for language supports at point-of-use within lessons which often support teachers in anticipating potential language demands along a progression of language acquisition. However, the materials do not provide comprehensive guidance to teachers that is inclusive of all levels of understanding in instructing MLLs, including how to consistently observe and respond to potential language demands, challenges, and opportunities in a lesson.

As noted in the 3e.MLL report, each lesson in every chapter includes at least one English Learner Support note that is aligned to the lessons’ tagged WIDA standard(s) and offers linguistic scaffolds to support MLLs with understanding and applying the mathematical language of the lesson. For example, in Grade 2, Chapter 5, Subtract Numbers within 100, Lesson 2, the tagged WIDA standards are, “Construct mathematical explanations that state reasoning used to generate a solution,” and, “Construct mathematical arguments that create a conjecture using definitions.” The lesson opens with students activating background knowledge of calculating the answer to a subtraction expression using a base ten model. The English Learner Support note offers anticipatory linguistic scaffolds, along a progression of language acquisition, to support MLLs with constructing mathematical explanations of how they used a base ten model to calculate the difference: 

• “Entering-Emerging: Using the model, ask questions about the numbers in the expression, such as, ‘How many tens and ones are in 53? In 21?’ and ‘What is 3 ones minus 1 one?’

• Developing-Expanding: Have EL students use the sentence frames to describe subtracting 1 one from 3 ones. ‘I can subtract ____ ones from ____ ones. The difference is ____ ones.’ Provide support as needed.

• Bridging-Reaching: Using the model, EL students can describe how to subtract 1 one from 3 ones. Encourage them to demonstrate their explanation by drawing a quick sketch.”

However, while the lesson-embedded English Learner Support notes guide teachers to anticipate potential language demands within lessons, they do not provide consistent teacher guidance on how to observe and respond to the potential language demands and opportunities in lessons. Additionally, the English Learner Support notes do not provide comprehensive guidance to teachers that is inclusive of all levels of understanding in instructing MLLs. In the Grade 2 example, the linguistic scaffold provided in the Developing-Expanding language proficiency levels includes the vague guidance: “Provide support as needed.” The suggestion in the Bridging-Reaching language proficiency level is the exact task that is written into the lesson. These are representative examples of trends found across chapters and grade levels, and these types of support are not sufficiently educative for teachers at all levels of understanding in instructing MLLs. 

Some guidance is found at the chapter level in the Mathematics of the Chapter section, where Laurie’s Notes: Language Routines outlines one Language Routine per chapter. As stated in the 3e.MLL report, this is the only reference to the Language Routines in the chapter. Teacher guidance for implementing the Language Routines is not embedded at the lesson-level, limiting its usability and utility, specifically for teachers without background in implementing math language routines.

In conclusion, the materials demonstrate a clear and sustained commitment to supporting MLLs through frequent lesson-embedded guidance that addresses language demands alongside mathematical content.However, the materials do not provide comprehensive guidance to teachers that is inclusive of all levels of understanding in instructing MLLs.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K-2 of Math & YOU partially meet the expectations of the guiding teachers on how to match students with language supports, progressing along a continuum, and to be responsive to students’ current language development in relation to the content. While the materials provide language support at varying language proficiency levels, they do not guide teachers on how to match students with language supports at those proficiency levels.

The materials provide general guidance that supports teachers in responding to students’ current language usage in relation to mathematical content. As noted in the 3e.MLL report, within The Implementation Handbook: Grades K-5, teachers are prompted to monitor and attend to the language students use. For example, the High Expectations for All: Supporting Student Learning section of the Implementation Handbook offers the following vague suggestion, “Consider these (English Learner Support) notes during planning to identify challenges that multilingual learners might encounter during the lesson and plan appropriate supports.” This guidance is general in nature and does not provide specific conditional guidance related to language development of MLLs (e.g. “If MLLs struggle with ____, then provide ___.”). In the Implementation Handbook, the Assessment System: Monitoring Student Learning section provides general conditional guidance as it relates to portions of the lesson design. This guidance is not specific to language development of MLLs. For example, this section of the Implementation Handbook encourages teachers to monitor students’ written work and oral conversations during the Investigate portion of the lesson design, specifically to, “listen to what language students use to describe what they noticed and attend to their strategies to interpret the approaches they discovered while making sense of the tasks.” The materials then encourage teachers to make responsive instructional decisions during the Investigate, such as, “Use mathematical language that can serve as a building block for the Key Concept. Leverage informal strategies used by students that can be formalized into generalizable approaches. Identify additional support needed before formalizing learning and introducing mathematical vocabulary." While these supports are responsive in nature and relate to students’ language usage, they are general and are not uniquely positioned as attending to MLLs’ current language development in relation to mathematical content. As a result, responsiveness is present but not consistently operationalized.

Within lessons, the materials rely on predefined WIDA language proficiency level bands (e.g., Entering–Emerging, Developing–Expanding, Bridging–Reaching) without providing sufficient guidance on how teachers should determine MLLs’ current language proficiency level to match students with language supports during instruction, particularly in contexts where WIDA proficiency data is unavailable, outdated, or insufficiently granular. Additionally, the materials do not include teacher guidance on how to adjust supports over time as students develop language proficiency or address how teachers should respond to variability within the wide ranges of language development within the bands. 

In conclusion, while the materials offer general guidance for monitoring and responding to students’ language use during mathematics instruction, this guidance is broad, lacking specificity to MLL language development. Additionally, while lessons rely on WIDA language proficiency bands, the materials do not provide sufficient direction for matching MLLs with language supports.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grade K-2 of Math & YOU partially meet expectations for providing guidance to encourage teachers to draw upon student home language to facilitate learning. The materials offer translated resources, but they lack specific teacher-facing guidance on how to integrate MLLs’ home languages into daily classroom instruction. The materials partially provide guidance to teachers on how to draw upon MLLs’ home language as a resource for learning, but this guidance is inconsistent and lacks specificity connected to MLLs learning grade-level mathematics content.

The materials feature a suite of multilingual access tools—including multilingual glossaries, text-to-speech, Spanish-language Teacher and Student Editions, and translated family letters—that collectively position multilingualism as an instructional asset. These tools provide meaningful opportunities for students to access content in their home language, especially through the Spanish-language editions and the 16-language digital translation options when using the Digital Experience. Practically, the digital translation tools inconsistently translate text, especially when mathematical symbols are present. While these tools are robust in structure, they appear unevenly embedded and referenced across the instructional cycle.

For example, in Grade 1, Chapter 8, Add and Subtract Tens, Lesson 8.1, the Learning Target is, “Use mental math to add or subtract 10.” A portion of the English Learner Support note for the lesson states, “Entering-Emerging: Allow EL students to count in their home language and write the numbers. Then read their numbers and have them repeat.” However, while the Implementation Handbook asserts that the English Learner Support notes appear “in every lesson,” this is one of three references to home language usage in all of the lessons in Grade 1. This demonstrates an inconsistent application of the materials providing guidance to encourage teachers to draw upon student home language to facilitate learning. 

Given these patterns, the materials encourage teachers to draw upon MLLs’ home language to facilitate learning grade-level mathematics content but not consistently. Additionally, the materials do not include guidance on how to garner information that will aid in learning, including the family’s preferred language of communication, schooling experiences in other languages, literacy abilities in other languages, and previous exposure to academic or everyday English.