High School - Multilingual Learner Supports

The instructional materials reviewed for Math & YOU: Concepts & Connections 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”

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

• STEAM Performance Tasks: the “task gives students an opportunity to apply the reasoning to solve STEAM tasks of their own”

• 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”

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 Big Idea of the Chapter and Performance Tasks contain English Learner Support notes with language supports inconsistently aligned with the language proficiency levels of Entering-Emerging, Developing-Expanding, and Bridging-Reaching. These notes do not consistently provide for MLLs’ full and complete participation. For example, in Algebra 2, Chapter 2, Quadratic Functions, the task asks students to apply their understanding of quadratic functions to writing equations about the parabolic cross-section of a telescope that they design. The English Learner Support note tells teachers to do the following:  “Have EL Students translate this task as needed so they are able to understand the context. Support students in the following ways:  Entering-Emerging: Have students work with native speakers in groups of 3 or 4 to complete the exercises and Telescope Design. Encourage EL students to participate by providing a translation device, and allow them to practice before their group presents their work.” These strategies emphasize access to the task, relying heavily on translation and oral rehearsal within peer support without providing explicit linguistic scaffolds for constructing mathematical explanations or justifying reasoning. The language supports across proficiency levels are almost identical in nature, and the supports do not guide students in using academic language to describe the relationships within quadratic functions or to articulate how their equations model the parabolic design. As a result, MLLs are positioned as participants in group work but are not adequately supported in independently engaging in the mathematical practices of modeling, reasoning, and explaining, which limits their ability to fully meet the language demands of the task.  

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 the procedures and strategies from the lesson. The materials provide lesson-embedded strategies and scaffolds in notes called English Learner Supports. They are located in two areas 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 two categories: support for new mathematical vocabulary or support for suggestions for MLLs to use their home language. 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. Additionally, one pattern is that the notes assume that because high school students can generally attend to more cognitively demanding mathematics content, the linguistic supports are at a higher level than students may be linguistically capable across the diverse English language development levels. 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. 

Additionally, approximately once per chapter, the materials include one suggested Language Routine with brief guidance for implementation within the lesson. For example, in Algebra 1, Chapter 9, Solving Quadratic Equations, Lesson 9.3 includes a Language Routine titled, Stronger and Clearer Each Time, where students explain in writing how they estimated solutions of quadratic equations. The materials direct students to first write an explanation, then share their thinking with a partner, revise their response, and repeat the process with a second partner to strengthen clarity and precision. Paul’s Notes: Language Routine explains, “This routine encourages students to create and refine an explanation or argument through a structured pairing strategy. First, students independently write a response to a question or prompt. Next, students share their initial thoughts with a partner and use the conversation to refine their thinking. Then students share their current thoughts with a new partner to further strengthen, revise, and clarify their thinking.” While this routine supports MLLs’ participation by structuring opportunities for rehearsal, feedback, and revision of mathematical explanations, it appears as a single, isolated reference within the chapter. The guidance remains general and does not provide explicit direction for how teachers might consistently apply or adapt the routine across additional lessons or across English language proficiency levels, limiting its overall effectiveness in systematically supporting MLLs’ language development and engagement with mathematical reasoning throughout the chapter.

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 is 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 Math & YOU: Concepts & Connections 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 Algebra 1, Chapter 5, Solving Systems of Linear Equations, Big Ideas Tasks, where students demonstrate conceptual understanding by writing a system of linear equations with three equations that has a specified solution. Exercise 1 states, “a. Write a system of 3 linear equations that has a solution of (−2,5). b. Use a tool to mathematically justify that (−2,5) is a solution of the system. c. Let one of the equations in your system be represented by h(x). What do you know about h(−2)? Explain your thinking. d. Is it possible that the system of 3 linear equations has another solution? Use mathematics to explain why or why not.” (A-REI.11) The materials do not provide linguistic supports for MLLs’ full and complete participation in the Big Ideas Tasks. General Chapter supports lack the specificity needed to support MLLs with building conceptual understanding of solving systems of equations. Examples include the following:  “Have students work with a small group of native speakers” and “Allow the use of translation tools and encourage students to form their answers in their home language. Then have the students translate their answers into English. Assist students with any grammatical errors.” 

• In contrast, MLLs are fully supported in participating in Algebra 2, Chapter 4, Polynomial Functions, Lesson 4.4, where students develop conceptual understanding by using technology to match polynomial equations with their graphs and then write each polynomial function in factored form (A-APR.B). The WIDA English Language Development [ELD] Standard is as follows: “Construct mathematical explanations that describe data and/or an approach used to solve a problem. Construct mathematical explanations that share a solution with others.” In Exercises 2 and 3, students match abstract polynomial functions with their representational graph form and interpret in writing what information can be obtained from the factored form of a polynomial function. Then, Examples 1 and 2 direct the teacher to model how a polynomial with an integer coefficient is factored completely. An English Learner Support note suggests that teachers amplify the language of factored completely by explaining to students that “The word complete means ‘to finish or end.’ When the suffix -ly is added to make completely, it becomes an adverb, which describes the way something is done. Give examples such as slowly, quickly, and loudly, and use them in sentences. When a polynomial is factored completely, the factoring is finished. There are no other ways to factor the polynomial. As students work through Exercises 1–8, have partners ask each other questions. Support students in the following ways. Entering–Emerging: Provide written questions and answer frames to guide students. For example, ‘Which pattern did you use to factor ____?’ and ‘I used the ____ pattern to factor ____.’ ” These language supports are aligned to the language demands academic task and the tagged WIDA ELD Standard around constructing explanations that describe an approach used to solve a problem.

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 Math & YOU: Concepts & Connections 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 Geometry, Chapter 3, Parallel and Perpendicular Lines, Lesson 3.5, where students use slopes to identify parallel and perpendicular lines (G-GPE.5). The WIDA English Language Development [ELD] Standards are as follows: “Construct mathematics arguments that evaluate and extend others’ arguments. Interpret mathematical explanations by identifying a concept or an entity.” During In-Class Practice, students have opportunities to develop procedural skills and fluency as they engage in a Math Talk in which they identify which sets of lines are parallel and which are perpendicular, explaining their reasoning. The materials direct students to “silently and mentally consider the questions” before engaging in a whole-class discussion around the teacher prompts, “How did you determine which lines are parallel? How did you eliminate a line from being parallel to other lines? How did you determine which lines are perpendicular?” The materials do not provide linguistic supports for MLLs to fully engage in the whole-class discussion, nor to explain their reasoning using slopes.

• In contrast, MLLs are supported in Algebra 2, Chapter 4, Polynomial Functions, Lesson 4.3, Practice, where students develop procedural skill and fluency by dividing polynomials using long and synthetic division and by rewriting rational expressions using two methods (A-APR.6). The WIDA ELD Standard is: “Interpret concepts in arguments by evaluating relationships among evidence and mathematical principles to create generalizations. Interpret concepts in arguments by distinguishing correct from flawed logic.” In Example 2, the materials direct the teacher to explain and model the steps of synthetic division, comparing the results to polynomial long division so that students can see the parallel structure and identical values in the work. Then, the materials direct students to apply synthetic division independently before discussing it as a class. The accompanying English Learner Support note provides language supports for the academic vocabulary, synthetic division and quotient.  It amplifies the language by connecting the word synthetic to familiar images of synthetic objects in order to explain that synthetic division is a special process and a faster method than polynomial long division in certain cases. The note also provides scaffolds across proficiency levels for Exercise 3; at the Entering–Emerging levels, partners work together, color-code solution steps similar to Example 2, and compare their work with another pair to locate errors; at the Developing–Expanding levels, partners complete the exercise together and compare answers with another pair to analyze mismatches in their steps; and at the Bridging–Reaching levels, students complete the exercise independently and then compare answers with a partner to identify and discuss errors. This allows MLLs to engage in procedural practice while interpreting mathematical processes, comparing methods, and analyzing relationships among solution steps and mathematical principles, which aligns with the tagged WIDA ELD Standard for the 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 Math & YOU: Concepts & Connections 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, including single- and multi-step problems. 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 Geometry, Chapter 12, Surface Area and Volume, Lesson 12.6, where students apply their understanding of volume and density to calculate the mass of an American Eagle Silver Bullion Coin (G-MG.2). The WIDA English Language Development [ELD] Standards for this lesson are: “Construct mathematical explanations that describe data and/or an approach used to solve a problem. Construct mathematical explanations that share solutions with others.” In Exercise 2, students are required to interpret given measurements (diameter, thickness, and density), determine an appropriate formula, and apply multi-step reasoning to calculate mass and explain their approach. The materials do not provide linguistic scaffolds for MLLs’ full and complete participation in the task, nor for interpreting the problem context, sequencing the mathematical process, or constructing explanations of how volume and density relate to mass. As a result, MLLs are not adequately supported in meeting the language demands of the tagged WIDA ELD Standards, particularly in constructing clear, coherent mathematical explanations that describe their solution strategy and justify their reasoning in real-world contexts.

• In contrast, MLLs are supported in Algebra 2, Chapter 3, Quadratic Equations and Complex Numbers, Lesson 3.1, where students use quadratic functions to model real-world situations involving height and time, such as an egg-drop scenario (A-CED.3). The WIDA ELD Standards for this lesson are: “Construct mathematical explanations that describe data and/or an approach used to solve a problem. Interpret mathematical explanations by analyzing data and owning problem-solving approaches.” During In-Class Practice 9, students extend their thinking by analyzing how changing the height of an egg drop (e.g., from 50 feet to 80 feet) impacts the function and solution. The English Learner Support note builds background knowledge by incorporating images of egg-drop challenges to contextualize the task. It also provides differentiated linguistic supports across proficiency levels: at the Entering–Emerging levels, students are guided in writing the function and work with a partner to solve the problem, using a sentence frame (e.g., “The egg container will fall for about ___ before it hits the ground”) and reading their responses aloud; at the Developing–Expanding levels, partners determine the solution and share their steps with another pair, supported by sentence starters; and at the Bridging–Reaching levels, students independently solve the problem and then compare solutions and reasoning with a partner, using complete sentences aligned to the language in Example 6. These structured supports allow MLLs to engage in both constructing and interpreting mathematical explanations, aligning directly with the WIDA ELD Standards by supporting students in articulating solution strategies and analyzing how changes in conditions affect the modeled situation.

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 Math & YOU: Concepts & Connections 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 Geometry, Chapter 7, Quadrilaterals and Other Polygons, Lesson 7.4, where students generalize diagonals of rectangles, rhombuses, and squares after repeatedly constructing quadrilaterals meeting specified constraints. In Investigate, students use technology while they work in partners to analyze the diagonals of quadrilaterals, classify quadrilaterals, use and understand mathematical terminology such as bisector, perpendicular bisector, endpoint, and line segment, and make conjectures about the properties of the diagonals of different quadrilaterals. The materials do not provide linguistic support for MLLs to fully participate in the partner discourse, nor to analyze, classify, apply terminology, or make conjectures.

• In contrast, MLLs are supported in Geometry, Chapter 9, Right Triangles and Trigonometry, Lesson 9.2, where students use repeated reasoning when they find side ratios of special right triangles. In Investigate, Exercises 1 and 2 students construct special right triangles with constraints and use the results to write a conjecture about the ratios of the side lengths. Then, the teacher provides direct instruction where they connect students’ conjectures with a triangle theorem. Students work independently to solve problems about special right triangles, and an English Learner Note asks teachers to guide students to add the newly learned theorem in their math vocabulary notebook. The note also amplifies language by providing sentence starters for MLLs to explain the steps they used to solve the problems, such as, “Entering-Emerging: Guide students with their answers and provide sentence starters such as, ‘My answer is ____. First, I will ____. My last step was ____.’ Have students identify each verb they use and help them identify the verb tense.” 

The instructional materials reviewed for Math & YOU: Concepts and Connections partially meet expectations for providing teacher guidance to support MLLs and to utilize the strategies, supports, and/or accommodations found. The materials provide 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 that offer linguistic scaffolds to support MLLs with understanding and applying the mathematical language of the lesson. For example, in Algebra 2, Chapter 5, Rational Exponents and Radical Functions, Lesson 1, the tagged WIDA standards are, “Construct mathematical explanations that share a solution with others,” and “Interpret mathematical explanations by analyzing data and owning problem-solving approaches.” The lesson opens with students engaging with the new vocabulary terms nth root of a and index of the radical. The English Learner Support note offers anticipatory linguistic scaffolds, provided along a progression of language acquisition, to support MLLs with interpreting mathematical explanations about finding nth roots: “As students work through this section, remind them to add the vocabulary terms and key concepts to their vocabulary notebooks.” Each of the following language supports by proficiency level are nearly identical: 

• “Entering-Emerging: Have partners solve Exercise 1 and share their answers and solution steps with another pair. ‘Do your answers match? If not, review your steps and find the error. If your answers match, move on to Exercise 2.’ 

• Developing-Expanded: Have students solve Exercise 1 and share their answers and solution steps with a partner. ‘Do your answers match? If not, review your steps to find the error. If your answers match, move to Exercise 2.’ 

• Bridging-Reaching: Have students complete the exercises and then compare answers and solutions steps with a partner. ‘If your answers do not match, compare your solution steps with another pair of students’.”

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 Algebra 2 example, the linguistic scaffold provided across the language proficiency levels are very similar and include the guidance of having MLLs compare answers and/or solution steps without details about how to do that. This is a representative example 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. 

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 Math & YOU: Concepts and Connections 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 language 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: Concepts and Connections, 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 (p. 69) 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 Math & YOU: Concepts & Connections partially meet expectations for providing guidance that encourages teachers to draw upon students’ home languages 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 include a suite of multilingual access tools, such as multilingual glossaries, text-to-speech features, and Spanish-language Teacher and Student Editions, that collectively position multilingualism as an instructional asset. These tools create meaningful opportunities for students to access content in their home language, particularly through the Spanish-language editions and the digital platform’s translation options in 16 languages. However, in practice, the digital translation tools translate text inconsistently, especially when mathematical symbols are present. More importantly, while these supports are structurally robust, they are not systematically embedded or referenced across the instructional cycle. The materials provide little guidance for teachers on how to use translated resources to incorporate students’ home languages into mathematics learning. Likewise, the materials do not include suggestions for gathering or leveraging information about students’ linguistic backgrounds to support translanguaging, such as literacy in the home language, prior educational experiences, or prior exposure to academic or everyday English. There is also no indication that teachers are supported in using this information strategically to tailor instruction or enhance student learning experiences. 

Similar evidence is found periodically at point-of-use within lessons and in the Big Idea of the Chapter activity:

• In Geometry, Chapter 2, Reasoning and Proofs, Lesson 2.1, an English Learner Support note directs the teacher to remind students to add the Key Concepts of the lesson to their math vocabulary notebooks. The Entering-Emerging linguistic support states, “Allow students to form their statements in their home language and then translate them into English. Support students with any grammatical errors. Have students practice reading their sentences aloud to a partner.”

• In Algebra 1, Chapter 5, Solving Systems of Linear Equations, the chapter-level Learning Target is, “Understand solving systems of linear equations.” The English Learner Support note for the Big Idea of the Chapter activity states, “Have students work with a small group of native speakers to complete this activity. Allow the use of translation tools. Encourage students to form their answers in their home language and then translate their answers into English. Assist students with any grammatical errors.” This strategy, which appears consistently across chapters, is presented as a general recommendation, and it is not linked to clear teacher guidance for leveraging MLLs’ home language assets to support mathematical reasoning or conceptual development. In addition, these general strategies assume that every class includes multiple native speakers of the same language, and that all multilingual learners are literate in their home language. 

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.