6th to 8th Grade - Multilingual Learner Supports

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6-8 of myPerspectives partially meet the criteria of amplifying rather than simplifying texts while maintaining complexity to provide access for Multilingual Learners (MLLs) without watering down the content. Adapted versions of core texts are included to provide access to content. However, they are written in a combination of original and simplified, lower-level content, depriving students of authentic language. Other scaffolds and language supports assist students in making meaning of the texts, but are applied inconsistently and rarely amplify English language structures and forms.

The materials include Bridge Texts, described as “adapted versions of the literary and informational texts in each unit and include vocabulary support and audio with word-by-word highlighting.” However, in adapting the texts, complexity is lost. For example, in Grade 6, Unit 2, the materials list the original text of “Horses as Healers Around the World” as having a Lexile level of 1070L. The materials list the Bridge Text for “Horses as Healers Around the World” as having a Lexile level of 890L. Additionally, MLLs lose exposure to the authentic texts through the adaptations. In Grade 8 Unit 3, the Bridge Text version of a core reading, “Brain and Body Benefits,” rewrites complex sentences in simpler language:  the core text reads, “portrayed video game enthusiasts as socially awkward,” but in the Bridge text becomes “made fun of gamers, often showing them as strange.” In this case, using the Bridge Text might provide access to the broad strokes of the core text, but it limits MLLs’ access to authentic academic language. The Teachers Edition references the Bridge Texts in each Selection Overview, noting for teachers that “Students may benefit from:  . . . Beginning with the Bridge Text version of the story and then transitioning to on-level version when ready.” However, no additional guidance is provided for teachers on when and how this transition should occur, increasing the likelihood that simplified texts may replace the authentic, grade-level materials. 

The Teacher Edition provides a Selection Overview for each text, which includes a list of Prereading Differentiation scaffolds for all students tailored to each text’s qualitative complexity in meaning, structure, language, and knowledge demands (Refer to Indicator 2c in the full content report for additional details). This section includes a How Can I Support Multilingual Learners section, with Lesson Preview suggestions, Vocabulary and Language Support, and Transition into English. These supports assist MLLs in making meaning of the texts, but only sometimes guide teachers to support MLLs through multiple modalities, methods, and representations, and rarely involve amplifying English Language structures and forms.

For example, in Grade 7, Unit 1, Whole-Class Learning, students read “Don’t Just Sit There Like a Punk.” The How Can I Support Multilingual Learners section in the Selection Overview reads:

• “Lesson Preview:

  • Help multilingual learners from other cultural backgrounds understand the story’s setting by playing a video of a few minutes of a basketball game. Allow time for students to share their ideas about the gameplay they have watched, and assist with vocabulary as needed.

• Vocabulary and Language Support

  • Help students create and maintain a Word Wall of basketball jargon. Support the vocabulary with pantomime when possible.

  • Multilingual Learner notes in the Teacher’s Edition provide differentiated strategies for helping students read the selection and complete core tasks.

  • An additional Language Support lesson, which includes a suggested language target for this selection, is available on Realize.

• Transition into English

  • Make a summary of the story available to students in their home languages.

  • Assign the text in the Interactive Student Edition. There, students can use the eText Translation tool and receive translation support for more than 100 languages.”

Each of these suggestions supports some MLLs in making meaning of “Don’t Just Sit There Like a Punk.”  Previewing the text and providing translation options for those students who are literate in their home language are both helpful strategies, but do not amplify or enrich the text to provide greater depth, clarity, or complexity to support comprehension and language development. The Language Support Lesson, a supplementary lesson separate from core instruction and found on the Realize platform, most closely aligns with amplifying language structures and forms. In this lesson, students zoom in on five sections of the text to focus on realistic dialogue and using various strategies to comprehend the text. The strategies provided, however, rely primarily on teacher explanations of signaling dialogue and the sound of speech, rather than other means of enhancing and enriching the text.

Additional supports are available for students using the digital Realize Reader, including audio, text translation, and the Language Coach. At the beginning of each text, teachers are guided to “Encourage students to use Language Coach in the Interactive Student Edition for point-of-use support with:

• word, sentence, and discourse levels of language

• language comprehension development

• knowledge building

These features provide some amplification of texts, but are often linguistically demanding themselves. For example, in Grade 8, Unit 1, students read The Banana Tree. At the end of paragraph 8, the Language Coach provides the following information for students:  “Throughout the story, the narrator uses standard English to describe the story’s setting and characters. The characters’ spoken words, however, are written in Jamaican dialect. You may want ot listen to the audio recording of this story if you find the reading of dialect challenging.”  While the Language Coach provides valuable information distinguishing between the kinds of language the author uses for different purposes, this explanation may not be accessible to many MLLs, particularly those at lower proficiency levels, due to the linguistic complexity. Similarly, hyperlinked definitions for individual words may prove less supportive when the definitions are not student-friendly. For example, in the same text, in paragraph 27, the word “calamity” is hyperlinked to the definition “disastrous event.”  Students do have the opportunity to translate these words and their definitions into fourteen different languages, providing an additional point of access for students literate in those languages. Definitions are also available in audio form in both English and Spanish. The interactive reader offers some instances of text amplification and support, but these benefits are limited to students who are able to access their linguistic complexity and have the necessary technology to use the Realize Reader instead of the student edition textbook.

While the materials provide some supports that aim to aid comprehension, they rarely enrich or amplify English language structures and forms. Bridge Texts and adapted materials often reduce text complexity significantly and limit exposure to authentic academic language. The engineering of the Bridge Texts sometimes inadvertently excludes MLLs from key instructional tasks like Close Reads. This approach reflects a missed opportunity to amplify grade-level texts through text engineering rather than simplify them. Overall, the materials provide only sporadic amplification of texts, missing opportunities to support language development through rigorous, scaffolded engagement with complex texts.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 6-8 of myPerspectives partially meet expectations for providing support for Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) full and complete participation in text-based questions, tasks, and assignments, as well as the demonstration of their thinking in various formats. While the materials offer some opportunities for MLLs to engage in text-based questions, tasks, and assignments, such as targeted supports for students at light, moderate, or high levels of English proficiency, these supports are often disconnected from whole-class instruction and do not consistently align with the academic tasks assigned to the broader student group. 

In many cases, MLL-specific activities differ from what the rest of the class is doing, limiting opportunities for meaningful interaction with peers and full participation in shared academic discourse. For example, in Grade 6, Unit 2, Whole-Class Learning, students read “from My Life with the Chimpanzees.” For the first read, students read the text for basic comprehension and enjoyment, answering Comprehension Check and Reading Strategy questions. The materials do not provide any supports for MLLs to answer either of these kinds of questions. During the second read, students respond to the Close Read notes. The first Close Read note states to guide students to mark the repetition words that show in paragraph 8, and asking the question, “How does the repetition help communicate Goodall’s experience to the reader?” The accompanying Differentiate - Multilingual Learners call-out box in the Teacher Facing Notes guides teachers to support students with “listening logs” focused on paragraph 5. The guidance states, “Tell students they can ask questions to be sure they understand when they are listening. Display these questions: Who or what is being described? What is happening? What can I infer about the person who is telling this story? Supports are differentiated by level:

• Substantial:  Read or play the audio of paragraph 5. Stop every few sentences to ask the listening-log questions. Record and display students’ responses.

• Moderate: Ask small groups to copy the questions, leaving space for responses. Read or play the audio of paragraph 5 in two parts. Have groups ask and respond to the questions in their listening logs. Replay the paragraph as needed.

• Light: Ask students to copy the questions, leaving space for responses. Read or play the audio of paragraph 5. Have students fill out their listening logs and then compare with others.”

These suggestions support general comprehension, but do not address the Close Read Note tasks posed to all students to provoke deeper analysis of the text. The materials include two more Close Read Notes for this selection, neither of which provides MLL-specific supports.  

Some Differentiate - Multilingual Learners call-out boxes do support MLLs in answering questions about the text. Frequently, these supports are in addition to the core tasks intended for all students and are not integrated into the core instruction. As a result, teachers must determine how and when to implement these supports during instruction, as the materials do not offer guidance on embedding them into the core instructional flow. For example, in Grade 8, Unit 3, in the text Brain and Body Benefits: The Case for Playing Video Games, the Comprehension Check question is, “According to the author, what is one claim made by video game opponents?”  The Differentiate - Multilingual Learners call-out box at the bottom of the page advises teachers to “have students ask and respond to questions about the text to clarify meaning.”  Each of the three levels of support, listed below, facilitates answering the Comprehension Check question, but each requires separate facilitation, and no guidance is provided on how to incorporate them into the whole-class lesson.

• Substantial:  Read aloud paragraph 6, using pacing gestures and expression to emphasize meaning. Ask, What do anti-gamers claim? Anti-gamers claim _____. What do studies show? However, studies show _____.

• Moderate:  Have pairs read paragraph 6. Then, have one student ask a question while their partner answers. They should alternate roles. Provide students with a bank of question-and-answer words and constructions.

• Light:  Have students read paragraph 6 independently. Then, have students work in pairs to break down the argument. Claim:  Video gaming is not harmful to mental health; Reasoning: cause and effect, evidence: statistics.

For the second read of this text, there is a Close Read note for the class on the same page that asks students to annotate by marking examples of the author’s use of data in paragraph 6 and asks the question, “How does the author use the data to support her claim?” There are no supports for MLLs for this deeper analysis question, potentially leaving MLLs who need support with only a superficial understanding of the text. This gap suggests that while materials may provide access to surface-level comprehension, they do not consistently support MLLs in participating in the higher-level thinking expected of all students. This design choice can lead to different academic outcomes for different groups of students.

Additionally, the materials provide MLL supports for comprehension, such as vocabulary glossaries or WIDA alignment references, but lack clear instructional guidance or integration into core lesson routines, including text-based questions, tasks, and assignments. Without consistent scaffolds that build toward grade-level work or help MLLs navigate and complete complex, text-dependent tasks, opportunities to demonstrate thinking across speaking, listening, reading, and writing are limited. As a result, although the materials do allow for some MLL engagement in some text-based questions and tasks, they fall short of ensuring full and complete participation alongside peers in rigorous, text-based academic work.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6-8 of myPerspectives partially meet expectations for providing support for Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) full and complete participation in developing their ability to comprehend complex ideas within and across texts through their full and complete participation in opportunities to analyze and evaluate text. The materials provide some strategies and support for MLLs to participate in such development, but these supports are not employed consistently throughout the program, and they do not always ensure full and complete participation in rigorous text-based tasks.

At the beginning of each unit, in the Unit Introduction, the materials provide teachers with a Language Checkpoint - Multilingual Learners call-out box in the Teacher Edition. These Language Checkpoint call-out boxes provide options for matching MLLs to supports for each language domain (reading, listening, writing, and speaking) throughout the unit. Based on their performance on the QuickWrites and Icebreakers in the Unit Introduction, teachers are guided to match students with Substantial, Moderate, or Light supports found in the Differentiate - Multilingual Learners call-out boxes in the Teacher Facing Note. The guidance for teachers provided often helps MLL students access key vocabulary and meaning, and sometimes supports their analysis of the text. For example, in Grade 6, Unit 4, Whole-Class Learning, A Wrinkle in Time Part 1, students complete their first read of the text, “for basic comprehension and enjoyment,” and do a close read for the second read and respond to the Close Read notes. The first Differentiate - Multilingual Learners call-out box in the Teacher Edition guides teachers to, “Help students who are learning English to understand what is happening in this scene and the Close Read note.” The differentiated supports for all levels focus on understanding how Meg feels, so students can answer the Close Read Question: “What do these details reveal about Meg’s personality and character traits?”

The Bridge Texts provide simplified and shortened versions of the core texts with vocabulary and audio support to help MLLs better understand the material. They serve as a helpful tool for accessibility, especially for Students with Limited or Interrupted Formal Education (SLIFE) or MLLs at lower proficiency levels. However, these texts are largely summarized, limiting MLL students’ exposure to rich academic language structures and nuanced ideas present in the original texts. The abridged nature and limited rigor of the Bridge Texts may compromise opportunities for deeper analysis of original texts. 

This evidence demonstrates that the materials partially provide strategies for MLLs to engage in comprehension of complex ideas through analysis and evaluation of texts. However, there are inconsistencies in how these supports are applied. While some units include differentiated supports that scaffold student understanding toward grade-level expectations (e.g., sentence frames, partner discussions, word walls), these strategies are not always embedded within the core academic tasks. Instead, they may redirect MLLs into alternate activities or simplified content, which can hinder their full and complete participation.

Additionally, while some supports address the four language domains, structured opportunities for academic discourse are inconsistently provided. In several lessons, such as Grade 7 Unit 3, at the end of “A Christmas Carol, Act I,” the absence of specific scaffolds for MLLs during whole-group discussions or peer interactions results in missed opportunities to develop language through academic conversations.

Although the materials do not consistently provide strategies and supports, they offer some opportunities and guidance for MLLs to develop their ability to comprehend complex ideas and analyze texts. Support is differentiated through a three-tiered structure (substantial, moderate, light) based on language proficiency. Vocabulary instruction incorporates varied approaches, including home language connections, visual support, and context-based analysis. MLLs regularly engage in reading, writing, and discussion, especially in reflection and narrative tasks. While MLL support is not fully integrated into every lesson, the materials include thoughtful scaffolds that promote content access. These reflect a growing awareness of MLL needs but would benefit from greater consistency and stronger alignment with rigorous tasks. Additionally, the simplified format of the Bridge Texts limits opportunities for MLLs to engage in deeper analysis of complex texts.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6-8 of myView partially meet the criteria of providing support for Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) full and complete participation in evidence-based discussions about the texts they are reading. The materials directly support MLLs in some text-based discussions, but not others.

In some instances, evidence-based discussions allow MLLs to engage in structured academic discourse while building conceptual understandings and disciplinary language use. For example, in Grade 6, Unit 1, Whole-Class Learning, students read “My Achilles’ Meal.” After reading, students participate in a partner discussion about the text. All students are allotted time to prepare to review the text and answer independently before the discussion. A Differentiate - Multilingual Learners call-out box accompanies this activity, directing teachers to “Work with students to build language skills for partner discussions.” The leveled supports directly guide MLLs’ full participation in the evidence-based discussion:

• “Substantial:  Work with students to write their responses to the three bulleted questions, offering sentence frames as needed: I think the author’s Achilles’ heel is... because... In my opinion, the author’s use of humor makes the reader feel... about... I think that if the author had not used humor,... As students share their opinions and reasons, guide them to agree and disagree with their partner: I agree that... I disagree that... because ... 

• Moderate: Remind students that they should state their idea or opinion, and then give a reason that supports their idea or opinion. Remind them that opinion statements can be simple statements or can begin with I think... In my opinion... Reasons can be introduced with words and phrases such as... because... or One reason is... 

• Light: As students discuss, circulate and make sure they are staying on topic and using respectful language to share their opinions and agree or disagree with their partner.”

This scaffolded approach helps ensure MLLs can meaningfully contribute to academic conversations while developing both content knowledge and language proficiency.

In other cases, the materials do not directly support MLLs in text-based discussions. In Grade 7, Unit 5, Peer-Group Learning, students read “A Work in Progress.” After reading, they engage in a group discussion analyzing two quotations from the text. The accompanying Differentiate - Multilingual Learners call-out box supports students in active listening, but not the linguistic demands of an evidence-based discussion. The call-out box directs teachers to “Help students prepare to seek clarification of spoken language during the group discussion. Begin by reviewing the Speaking and Listening instructions. Explain that if students don’t understand something they hear, they can ask questions, ask a speaker to repeat a statement, or ask a speaker to speak more slowly.” The leveled supports all focus on seeking clarification:

• Substantial: Model seeking clarification during a group discussion. Select two students to discuss a familiar topic with you. Pause during the discussion and model asking questions, such as: Would you say that again? Display the questions and prompt students to use them during the discussion.

• Moderate: As students prepare for their discussion, work with them to brainstorm and list questions they can use to seek clarification, such as: Would you say that again? Would you explain that? Have them refer to the list during the discussion.

• Light: Before the discussion, have groups discuss and agree on strategies and questions they will use for seeking clarification. Then have groups practice using these strategies and questions.

While active listening is emphasized in this discussion activity, the materials do not support MLLs in engaging with the central academic task of analyzing quotations. By targeting only a limited aspect of the discussion, the supports fail to enable MLLs’ full and meaningful participation in evidence-based discourse.

The materials partially meet the criteria for supporting MLLs’ full participation in evidence-based discussions. In some lessons, MLLs receive strong, leveled scaffolds that help them build language and engage meaningfully in academic discourse. These supports include structured sentence frames and explicit guidance aligned to the discussion task. However, in other lessons, the supports focus on one small aspect of the activity without addressing the core academic task of text analysis. As a result, MLLs are not consistently equipped to fully participate in evidence-based discussions across the program.

The instructional materials reviewed for grades 6-8 of myPerspectives partially meet expectations for supporting Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) full and complete participation in the explicit instruction of independent word-learning strategies and key vocabulary to build knowledge within and across texts. Vocabulary is routinely presented in lessons, and some supports, such as glossaries, word banks, and pronunciation guidance, are included. However, these supports are not consistently aligned with the words all students are studying, nor are they embedded in instructional routines in ways that allow MLLs to engage with peers or participate in whole-class learning. 

In many instances, vocabulary instruction for MLLs appears in separate call-out boxes or teacher-facing notes, suggesting implementation alongside rather than within the core instruction. While these supports may be considered embedded based on their placement on the page, their separation from the primary student tasks can make them feel more like standalone elements, which may reduce their effectiveness in fostering authentic integration. For example, in Grade 6, Unit 2, Whole-Class Learning, after the Close Read of “Horses as Healers Around the World,” all students work on a Study Language and Craft activity as part of the materials’ structured, explicit vocabulary practice before, during, and after reading. This activity starts with Concept Vocabulary. The identified concept vocabulary words are: therapeutic, beneficial, strength, motivation, and “relate to the concepts of health and healing.”  The whole class practice focuses on those four words, followed by a word study activity focused on the Latin root -bene-. The Differentiate - Multilingual Learners call-out box in the Teacher Edition suggests that teachers “Guide students as they acquire additional words from the selection for their Word Walls.” None of the three leveled support options directly connects to practice questions in either activity. The Substantial and Moderate supports both focus on the words relied and assist, which are sample words for inclusion on the word wall. For Light support, students are to work in pairs to add words to the word wall. While adding words to the word wall is a suggested part of this activity, the primary deliverables for students are to answer the practice questions in both the Concept Vocabulary section and the Word Study section. The materials provide no support for either, requiring teachers to scaffold this Study Language and Craft activity themselves. 

In other instances, the MLL supports in the Teacher Facing Notes directly support the vocabulary learning of the whole class. For example, in Grade 8, Unit 4, the Differentiate - Multilingual Learners call-out box connected to the Study Language and Craft activity that follows the close read of “from Blue Nines and Red Words,” directly supports MLLs’ participation in the Word Study activity on the Latin suffix -ical. The materials guide teachers to “Help students employ the spelling pattern -ical accurately as they complete the Word Study activity.” MLLs are supported in their learning of the suffix -ical by practicing writing words different from those in the Word Study activity for the whole class. All students are asked to find the words alphabetical, numerical, and calendrical in the text. This differentiation activity guides the teacher to have MLL students practice with the words logical, magical, biblical, and musical. There is no guidance for teachers to directly make the connection for students between this activity and the Word Study activity that all students are completing.

In other instances, no linguistic supports are provided for MLLs. In Grade 7, Unit 1, Whole-Class Learning, before reading “Don’t Just Sit There Like a Punk,” students complete the Concept Vocabulary task. Teacher Guidance states, “Read the concept vocabulary words aloud and review definitions. Provide context sentences as needed to clarify word meanings. Then, call on volunteers to share their predictions about what the story might be about, based on the concept words.” There are no supports provided for MLLs for this activity.

Many selections (most of those designed for Whole Class Learning and for Peer-Group Learning, but none designed for Independent Learning) include a Language Support Lesson available on the Realize platform only. Teachers must find the reference in the “How Can I Support Multilingual Learners?” section of the Selection Overview and find the lessons associated with the selection title on the Realize Platform. The first page of each Language Support Lesson includes an overview of the MLL supports provided within the Teacher Edition, Student Edition, and digital course for the selection. The second section supports students in a Language Target focused on the text, but otherwise unrelated to what the whole class is learning. Frequently, the focus includes vocabulary, but never supports MLLs’ full and complete participation in the explicit instruction of independent word-learning strategies and key vocabulary to build knowledge within and across texts within core, grade-level instruction.

In summary, while the materials offer some tools to support vocabulary development for MLLs, these supports are often peripheral rather than fully integrated into core instruction. The separation of MLL guidance from primary lesson activities, inconsistent scaffolding, and limited alignment with whole-class tasks hinder MLLs’ full participation in vocabulary instruction. Additionally, the reliance on separate Language Support Lessons—often located on a different platform and disconnected from the main instructional flow—further fragments access. As a result, the materials fall short of providing MLLs with consistent, explicit, and integrated vocabulary instruction needed to build deep, transferable word knowledge across disciplines.

The instructional materials reviewed for grades 6–8 of myPerspectives partially meet the expectations of providing strategies and supports for Multilingual Learners (MLLs) to fully and completely participate in the practice of independent word-learning strategies and newly taught vocabulary words. The materials provide support for MLLs for some practice of word-learning strategies and newly taught vocabulary words. However, these supports are inconsistently employed across units and do not consistently ensure full and complete participation by MLL students in core vocabulary-related tasks.

Across all grade levels, the materials offer a variety of differentiated supports categorized by proficiency level (Substantial, Moderate, and Light). These supports often focus on vocabulary recognition and comprehension, providing tools such as sentence frames, guided word study routines, and opportunities to work with cognates, prefixes, and context clues. For example, in Grade 6, Unit 4, as part of the Unit Introduction, all students are introduced to academic vocabulary words related to fiction. The Differentiate - Multilingual Learners call-out box in the Teacher Edition uses a combination of definition and contextual sentence writing. At the end of Whole-Class learning, all students write a compare and contrast essay as the written Performance Task. A note for students at the end of the assignment says: “Use Academic Vocabulary: Try to use one or more of the unit’s academic vocabulary words in your essay.” There are no supports for MLLs for this independent application of learned vocabulary, although teacher guidance for writing the essay is included in the Teacher Edition. Other supports for MLLs to practice vocabulary acquisition include using illustrations and translation from their home languages. This multi-pronged approach can support students’ content vocabulary acquisition and reinforce understanding through all four domains: reading, writing, speaking, and listening.

While such strategies designed for MLLs appear in specific lessons, they are not systematically embedded throughout the curriculum. Vocabulary supports like those mentioned above usually appear in sidebars or teacher-facing note boxes, separate from the core grade-level tasks. For instance, in Grade 7, Unit 3, while all students are practicing using the Greek prefix para-, MLLs receive tiered support on the use and application of the prefix para- in a Differentiate - Multilingual Learners call-out box in the Teacher Edition. Yet, these scaffolds are not consistently integrated into the lesson flow. Many other Word Study activities include no supports for MLLs. 

In addition, language supports do not consistently align with the goals for academic vocabulary use for all students. In several instances, such as in Grade 8, Unit 2, vocabulary development for MLLs is handled in a parallel track—using simpler tasks or different vocabulary lists than those used by the rest of the class. In the Concept Vocabulary activity following the Whole Class reading of “from Acceptance Speech for the Nobel Peace Prize,” all students are assigned the following six vocabulary words related to suffering:  perished, mutilated, humiliation, persecuted, traumatized, and abhorrent, and then answer questions to practice using this new vocabulary. There is a note for students noting words related to resilience for the Word Wall. The Differentiate - Multilingual Learners call-out box in the Teacher Edition only supports the word wall portion of this activity. By not supporting the Concept Vocabulary task and separating MLLs from the core academic expectations, this structure undermines equitable access to grade-level language demands.

While the materials include some supports for MLLs to independently practice using newly taught vocabulary words and independent word-learning strategies, they are inconsistently applied, occasionally include content simplification, and lack integration into core instructional pathways, limiting their effectiveness in supporting MLLs’ full and complete participation in grade-level tasks.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6-8 of myPerspectives partially meet the criteria of providing support for Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) full and complete participation in the explicit instruction of sentence composition appropriate to grade-level standards, embedded in what students are studying in the unit. The materials provide supports in some instruction of sentence composition, but not others.

In some sentence composition lessons, the materials provide MLL supports that directly connect to the sentence composition instruction. For example, in Grade 8, Unit 2, students write an informational essay as the unit’s written Performance Task. During drafting, students complete a Coherence and Craft activity where they work on their introduction, topic sentences, and transitions in their sentences. Teacher guidance focuses on highlighting the essential point that “A coherent essay is one in which ideas are connected and supported to make one overarching point.” The accompanying Differentiate - Multilingual Learners call-out box directs teachers to “Help students write using a variety of grade-appropriate connecting words to combine phrases, clauses, and sentences in their informational essays. Review the Sample Transitions and add others, such as and, because, so, but, and like.” Leveled supports follow:

• Substantial: Work with students to write a paragraph. Focus on capturing ideas rather than on transitions. Read the paragraph aloud. Point out sentences that lack transitions. For example, discuss related sentences, such as: Anne was hopeful about people. She believed that most people were good. Model using a transition, such as for example to show the connection. Display and have students copy revised sentences.

• Moderate: Have small groups read their paragraphs aloud, work together to identify sentences that are connected, and discuss transitions that could be added to show those connections. Then, have students rewrite the sentences using the transitions.

• Light:  Have pairs of students take turns reading their paragraphs aloud and making suggestions about combining sentences using transitions. Suggest they refer to the Sample Transitions as needed. Encourage them to discuss how the transitions clarify the meaning of their paragraphs.

This targeted guidance helps MLLs build coherence in their writing by providing accessible, scaffolded practice aligned to the lesson’s sentence composition goals.

Other lessons, however, provide no MLL supports for sentence composition instruction. For example, in Grade 6, Unit 1, Peer-Group Learning, students read “Eleven” and then complete a Study Language and Craft activity on pronoun-antecedent agreement. The materials provide no MLL supports for this lesson. They do provide Teacher Facing Notes, prompting teachers to 1. Check for Readiness, 2. Differentiate, and 3. Monitor Progress. None of these three prompts includes guidance on supporting students with different language proficiencies. The Differentiate step suggests teachers provide additional examples for both the Substantial and Moderate support levels, which is not sufficient to ensure MLLs can fully and completely participate in this grade-level sentence composition activity.

In some lessons, materials include targeted, leveled scaffolds that align with the sentence composition instruction. However, other lessons lack MLL-specific supports altogether, and general differentiation guidance does not address varied language proficiency levels. This inconsistency limits MLLs’ access to grade-level sentence composition instruction across the program.

The instructional materials reviewed for grades 6-8 of myPerspectives partially meet expectations for supporting Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) full and complete participation in evidence-based opportunities for sentence composition practice and editing of their own writing, appropriate for their grade level. The materials provide supports and strategies for MLLs for sentence-composition activities; however, they are not consistently integrated or clearly aligned with the core writing instruction provided to the entire class. 

In some instances, such as during a whole-class review of an argumentative writing checklist, the support for MLLs is directly connected to the core task for all students. For example, in Grade 8, Unit 3, Writer’s Handbook, all students are directed to, “Use the Revision Checklist for Argument to evaluate and strengthen your editorial.” The Differentiate - Multilingual Learners call-out box in the Teacher Edition guides teachers to “have students revise their editorial to ensure a variety of sentence lengths. Help students revise pairs of related simple sentences to form compound sentences.” Each level of support (Substantial, Moderate, and Light) focuses on supporting students in combining sentences. One of the points for evaluation in the Revision Checklist for Argument used by all students is, “Have I used a variety of sentence types and lengths?” The MLL differentiation guidance provides direct support for this. However, these moments of alignment are infrequent, and there is a general lack of clarity about how and when to implement MLL-specific strategies, particularly for teachers new to teaching MLLs.

The materials include some responsive supports designed to target student needs, which could benefit MLLs. However, these supports are not clearly designated for MLLs nor differentiated by language proficiency level. For example, in Grade 6, Unit 2, Whole-Class Learning, students read an excerpt from “My Life with Chimpanzees” by Jane Goodall. After reading, they complete a Study Language and Craft activity on reflexive and intensive pronouns. After learning about both, students practice marking reflexive or intensive pronouns in sample sentences from the core text. Then, they write three sentences on their own to the prompt, “Write three sentences about Jane Goodall’s experiences at Stream National Park. In each sentence, use an intensive or reflexive pronoun.”  There is no specified MLL support in the Teacher Edition, but there are prompts to “1. Check for Student Readiness, 2. Differentiate,” the latter of which includes Substantial and Moderate supports. While some MLLs may benefit from these general supports, the lack of specific linguistic scaffolds and differentiation by language proficiency requires teachers to either omit these supports or develop them independently.

Furthermore, in many cases, the differentiation tasks designed for MLLs are separate from what their peers were doing. There is no clear explanation of when or how teachers should implement those activities within the flow of whole-class instruction. For example, in Grade 7, Unit 4, students read “The Bee Highway: Making a Place for Bees in the City” by Kathryn Hulick. After reading, they complete several tasks, including writing a formal letter in response to the prompt, “Imagine that your school administration is considering adding rooftop bees to your school building. Write a formal letter to your principal, expressing your opinion on the matter.” As part of the activity, students are required to use a “formal style throughout, providing students with an opportunity to adapt their language based on the intended audience and purpose. The Differentiate - Multilingual Learners call-out box in the Teacher Edition directs teachers to “Help students employ English spelling rules needed for salutations and closings.” While using appropriate titles for people in English and closely with sincerely, cordially, or respectfully contribute to a formal tone, the Teacher Edition does not include guidance on how to make this connection for students, nor are other supports for the use of formal tone provided. This lack of connection between MLL-specific supports and core academic tasks leaves MLLs without entry points to the grade-level activity.

Additionally, while there are examples encouraging students to draft or brainstorm in their home language before rewriting in English, there is no guidance provided on how to scaffold this practice, especially for students who are not literate in their home language. The materials provide no additional guidance for teachers as to how to use home language to support their completion of editing activities as part of the writing process (for more information on home language use in the materials, see Indicator 3.2.MLL-1). These activities allow students to practice and apply sentence composition skills by examining their drafts with a particular instructional focus and revising sentences to make improvements. Leveraging students’ home languages as a bridge to learning is a valuable strategy; however, its effectiveness is limited by the lack of integration throughout the writing process. Without clear teacher guidance as to how to match students appropriately with this support, this strategy is impractical and inequitable in all classrooms and for all MLL profiles, such as Students with Limited or Interrupted Formal Education (SLIFE) or long-term MLLs.  

In conclusion, while the materials include some supports for sentence composition and editing, they fall short of ensuring MLLs can fully and completely engage in these writing activities alongside their peers. Supports are inconsistently integrated and are frequently disconnected from core instruction. Without clear guidance for implementation, teachers are left to create additional resources on their own. 

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6–8 of myPerspectives partially meet the criteria of providing support for Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) full and complete participation in all instruction of varied writing processes. The materials provide some strategies to support MLLs during writing instruction; however, these supports are limited in consistency, depth, and alignment to the academic and linguistic demands of the tasks. While certain scaffolds exist, they do not consistently ensure that MLLs can fully and independently engage in the full range of writing processes at grade level.

For example, in Grade 8, Unit 5, Whole-Class Learning, students read “Nikola Tesla: The Greatest Inventor of All Time” by Vicky Baez. After reading, they complete various activities, including a Writing task. The Writing task prompts students to write “a memorial that captures Nikola Tesla’s life and shares his accomplishments.” The Teacher Facing Notes include some general prompts to support students with writing, such as question prompts and a Monitor and Adjust note suggesting providing a graphic organizer to help students who need it organize their ideas. The materials do not provide a graphic organizer here, just the suggestion to use one. The Teacher Edition includes a Differentiate - Multilingual Learners call-out box for this assignment. For Substantial support, the materials suggest that students “write their drafts in their home language(s) before translating them into English.” For Moderate support, the material suggests teachers “support students in using words from the Word Walls in their writing. Scaffold support of transitions, commas, and semicolons.” For Light support, “Have students work individually. Encourage them to use a print or online dictionary to help them use transitions and then to work with a peer editor to check conventions.” These three levels of support are not tailored consistently to the writing task itself, focusing vocabulary in each to various degrees without including language models or structured frames that guide MLLs in how to use transitions, introduce anecdotes, or provide a conclusion, all of which are required for this assignment. These omissions limit the effectiveness of support, particularly for students developing academic writing in a second language.

This lack of directly connected support for writing skills also occurs during written Performance Tasks. In Grade 6, Unit 1, the written Performance Task assigns students to write a detailed personal narrative, yet the materials lack specific supports for MLLs to understand and produce narrative structures. There is some guidance for MLLs provided for some aspects of this task, including support for writing a detailed opening dialogue, subject-verb agreement, and spelling. While supports for the writing assignment retain appropriate rigor, the instructional materials offer minimal guidance to scaffold language development around sequencing events, using descriptive details, or formatting dialogue—key skills that MLLs must master to fully engage in narrative writing. The materials sometimes suggest associated peer or group work but do not include embedded language development goals or structured opportunities to practice relevant language in speaking and writing.

The instructional design assumes that all students, including MLLs, can access writing tasks without a consistent, intentional approach to language scaffolding. The few supports that do exist are often general (e.g., sentence starters) and are not clearly aligned to the grade-level writing demands, such as building claims in argument writing or integrating text evidence in analysis. The lack of more advanced scaffolds limits students’ ability to internalize and replicate complex academic writing structures.

The materials consistently expect students to follow a structured writing process (prewriting, drafting, revising, and editing). However, the accompanying language support for MLLs during these stages is inconsistent. In some cases, teachers are encouraged to monitor student understanding or clarify instructions, but there is little explicit guidance on how to scaffold grammar, syntax, or genre-specific discourse to support full MLL participation. As a result, students may struggle to understand the expectations of writing tasks or lack the academic language needed to successfully complete them. These missed opportunities undermine the goal of equitable access to writing tasks. 

While the materials include some attempts to support MLLs during writing instruction, these supports are often too general, inconsistently applied, and insufficiently aligned to the specific demands of grade-level writing tasks. The lack of targeted language scaffolds—particularly those embedded within each stage of the writing process—limits MLLs’ ability to fully engage in and succeed with complex academic writing. 

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6-8 of myPerspectives partially meet the criteria of providing support for Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) full and complete participation in opportunities to practice the writing process using evidence-based strategies, embedded in what students are studying throughout the unit. The materials provide some strategies to support MLLs during writing instruction; however, these supports are limited and inconsistent. 

The materials include some differentiated support for MLLs within writing assignments; however, this support is limited in scope and does not extend to the full writing process. For example, in Grade 6, Unit 1, after reading “My Achilles Meal,” students are asked to write a personal narrative following a sequence of events in chronological order, incorporating dialogue, including descriptive details, and maintaining a consistent first-person point of view. The Differentiate - Multilingual Learners call-out box in the Teacher Edition suggests that “Students may wish to blend languages in their own narratives, as in ‘My Achilles’ Meal,’” followed by supports for Substantial, Moderate, and Light needs. Each level guides teachers to support students in the inclusion of their home language in their personal narratives. No additional MLL supports are provided with this assignment, leaving MLLs without guidance for the writing process or support to complete the assignment in its entirety.

Similarly, in Grade 7, Unit 5, the written Performance Task is an Informational Essay. The materials provide three Differentiate - Multilingual Learners call-out boxes in the Teacher Edition. Two focus solely on grammar and conventions without directly supporting the writing process. The third directs teachers to “Help students plan their essays by providing graphic organizers, such as concept maps, or cause-and-effect charts. Provide an outline template as well. Explain that a well-developed outline will help them write a strong essay.” Specifics for Substantial, Moderate, and Light supports follow. While this support facilitates MLLs’ full and complete participation in the Planning and Prewriting step of the writing process, the materials leave MLLs without guidance for the rest of the writing process.

While the materials include some instructional supports for MLLs within the writing process, they are limited in scope and inconsistently applied across writing tasks. In some cases, the materials provide differentiated guidance for one step in the writing process, but lack supports throughout the whole writing process. As a result, MLLs do not receive the comprehensive scaffolds needed to successfully practice the writing process from start to finish.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6–8 of myPerspectives partially meet the criteria that materials consistently provide strategies and supports for Multilingual Learners (MLLs) to fully and completely participate in opportunities to practice evidence-based writing (by drawing from the texts and knowledge built throughout the unit) to explain what the text says explicitly and implicitly. While materials include opportunities for students to engage in various modes of writing, including research and analytical writing, the supports provided do not consistently ensure that MLL students can fully and meaningfully participate in these writing tasks alongside their peers.

Some strategies, supports, and accommodations support MLL students’ regular and active participation in speaking, listening, reading, and writing. These include general references to bilingual glossaries, suggestions for extended time, and options for multimodal responses. Additionally, some writing activities provide differentiated support specifically for MLLs. For example, in Grade 8, Unit 3, in the Writer’s Handbook for the written Performance Task, all students revise their drafts using a Checklist for Argument, which asks them to analyze their writing style by ensuring the use of “a variety of sentence types and lengths.” The accompanying Differentiate - Multilingual Learners call-out box in the Teacher Edition guides teachers to “help students revise pairs of related simple sentences” to form compound sentences. The supports focus on revising editorials to ensure varied sentence lengths. MLLs revise pairs of related simple sentences to form compound sentences, with a review of conjunctions such as and, but, so, nor, for, and yet, along with explanations of the relationships between ideas that each conjunction conveys. These scaffolds are described across three levels of support—Substantial, Moderate, and Light—allowing for differentiation based on students’ language proficiency. While the materials provide this grammatical support for MLLs as part of the revision process for this argument writing task, this task lacks any supports for MLLs to cite textual evidence to support their analysis of the text to build the argument needed to reach grade-level expectations of writing an editorial for this performance task.

However, while this example demonstrates intentional support for sentence-level writing development within evidence-based writing, the materials are inconsistent in providing targeted scaffolds across all units. For example, in Grade 6, Unit 5, students are tasked with writing a research paper, and no specific strategies or supports are provided for MLLs. There is no explicit guidance on how to scaffold essential components of the research process, such as analyzing sources, organizing information, or structuring evidence-based writing. Without these task-specific supports, MLL students may struggle to fully access grade-level content and meet the demands of the writing task.

Although the materials provide some general strategies for supporting all learners, many of these are broad and not tailored to specific lessons or academic tasks. Generic suggestions such as sentence frames, peer collaboration, or vocabulary support are frequently recommended, but they do not consistently address the core writing skills needed for MLL students to develop evidence-based arguments or engage with research-based writing. This results in a lack of clarity regarding task expectations and limits students’ ability to demonstrate their learning effectively.

Furthermore, while vocabulary development (e.g., bilingual glossaries, word walls, translation tools) is a common focus, the materials do not consistently extend beyond vocabulary to develop language functions or disciplinary practices tied to writing tasks. Opportunities for building functional academic language, such as synthesizing information, citing textual evidence, and drawing conclusions, are limited, hindering MLL students’ full and complete participation in evidence-based writing assignments.

While materials provide some intentional supports for MLL students, these supports are inconsistent and often limited in scope. Task-specific scaffolds, such as those found in the Writer’s Handbook example, are not applied uniformly across units, leaving gaps in support for complex writing tasks. Stronger alignment between academic writing demands and MLL supports is needed to ensure all students can fully engage in and demonstrate proficiency in evidence-based writing.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6–8 of myPerspectives partially meet the criteria of providing support for Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) full and complete participation in the explicit instruction of research skills that guide research and writing projects to develop students’ knowledge using multiple texts and source materials. While the program includes tasks aligned with research instruction, support for MLLs is limited, inconsistently applied, and does not fully meet the linguistic needs required to engage in and complete rigorous research-based tasks.

The materials offer some models and protocols for research instruction; however, they do not consistently consider the specific scaffolds needed by MLLs. The materials give teachers general guidance for facilitating research projects and assignments, such as steps for inquiry, organizing evidence, and developing presentations. In some cases, students are directed to use digital tools and graphic organizers to plan their research. However, the teacher-facing materials rarely include linguistic scaffolds or structured support plans tailored for MLLs. This makes it difficult for educators to implement research instruction in a way that promotes full MLL participation without developing their own extensive modifications.

For example, in Grade 7, Unit 4, students write a research paper as the written Performance Task on the prompt, “Write a research paper in which you answer a focused research question about the following broad topic: specific ways that humans are trying to solve a problem faced by animals.” The Teacher Edition breaks down the research and writing process into multiple steps, many of which include supports designed explicitly for MLLs. Some of this guidance directly supports MLLs’ full and complete participation in writing their research papers. For example, in Planning and Prewriting, Refine Your Research Question, the Differentiate - Multilingual Learners call-out box in the Teacher Edition guides teachers to “Explain that once students have chosen a general topic, the next step is to refine the topic to formulate a research question.” Detailed guidance on Substantial, Moderate, and Light supports follows. However, the rest of the MLL supports for this performance task emphasize isolated vocabulary, grammar, and translation activities, rather than addressing the language functions required to complete the assignment. Additionally, two steps in the writing process essential to reaching grade-level research standards, gathering and evaluating sources, lack any MLL-specific supports. The general supports provided are limited to helping struggling students determine relevant sources and do not include any linguistic scaffolding or other guidance for teachers on supporting students who understand the concepts but may not be able to access the material.   

In addition, many of the texts include additional activities titled Build Knowledge. These activities often provide teachers with guidance on how they can support students in facilitating further learning related to the text under study across different topics such as science, social studies, and history. However, this guidance never mentions MLLs, effectively limiting their access to the activity.

The materials include multiple writing and research-based tasks throughout the program. For instance, the Writing and Research Center offers mini-lessons on grammar and writing-related topics such as active vs. passive voice and argumentative writing skills. These lessons include closed-captioned videos and multiple-choice comprehension checks. While these tools can support general writing development, they do not include language-specific scaffolds or differentiated instruction to meet the varying needs of MLLs. For example, when the materials direct students to identify strong claims or revise sentences, there is limited explicit instruction on how to use academic language or sentence structures to support research-based writing. The focus remains on general language development rather than the specific demands of research.

Where supports are present, they do not go far enough in assisting students in producing the language needed to demonstrate their understanding. There is minimal use of language models or frames that would help MLLs construct research questions, summarize evidence, or write findings using the appropriate academic register. Supports tend to be general, often focused on reading comprehension or writing mechanics rather than on discipline-specific language needed for research synthesis and communication. They are not consistently aligned with the linguistic functions required to conduct and present research, such as arguing a claim, citing sources, or evaluating the credibility of information. Additionally, the materials do not adequately integrate opportunities for students to develop language across all four domains—speaking, listening, reading, and writing—during the research process. While students do engage in writing and sometimes present findings, there are few explicit supports to help MLLs listen for, talk through, or read complex research-related content with appropriate scaffolding. Opportunities to use language collaboratively or reflect on and revise language choices are especially limited.

There are missed opportunities to help students build on new learning through structured revisions of their research and writing. Though research projects often include drafting and editing stages, the materials do not guide teachers in providing feedback that addresses both content understanding and language use for MLLs. Nor are there language-specific checkpoints or strategies to help MLLs monitor their use of academic vocabulary, syntax, or text structure over multiple drafts.

While the materials offer multiple opportunities for students to learn research skills, they lack the consistent, targeted scaffolding needed for MLLs to fully engage in and demonstrate understanding through integrated speaking, listening, reading, and writing. The absence of explicit support for language production and the coordinated use of all four language domains limits MLLs’ ability to access and benefit from research instruction on par with their peers.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6–8 of myPerspectives partially meet the criteria of providing support for Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) full and complete participation in opportunities to apply research skills to develop knowledge of a topic by confronting and analyzing different aspects of a topic. The materials include lessons and tasks that ask students to apply their research skills, but support for MLLs is limited and inconsistently applied, limiting MLLs’ opportunities to apply research skills to develop their knowledge of topics.

While the materials provide MLL supports for participation in applying research skills, they do not sufficiently support students in completing the full scope of the task. For example, in Grade 7, Unit 4, Whole-Class Learning, students read an excerpt from Silent Spring and complete a research task. In order to complete the report, students must generate questions and examine sources for credibility. Then, they follow steps to paraphrase, quote, and cite sources so that they use their source materials ethically and avoid plagiarism. The accompanying Differentiate - Multilingual Learners call-out box directs teachers to “help students use your support and that of peers to develop background knowledge that will help them generate questions for their research and comprehend challenging language.” Leveled supports follow to prompt or strengthen background knowledge, but do not include guidance to support MLLs in generating research questions:

• Substantial: Provide visuals related to the effects of DDT on the environment and use them to elicit or develop background knowledge. Preteach unfamiliar words that students are likely to encounter in their research, such as environment, pesticide, harmful, and ban. Have students share what they know, filling in meanings as needed.

• Moderate: Provide visuals that show the effects of DDT. Have small groups researching the same topic refer to them while discussing background knowledge. As they begin research, have them note new terms and work together and with you to define them.

• Light:  Have students researching the same topic share background knowledge with partners. Provide visuals for them to refer to if possible. Have them discuss how their background knowledge relates to the research topic.

Activating background knowledge is an essential scaffold for MLLs. However, this is the only MLL support provided for this research task. The materials do not provide guidance for teachers on differentiating the core steps in the process: 

• Conduct Research, which has students generate questions and examine sources, 

• Paraphrase, Quote, and Cite Sources, which consists of a series of steps to use sources ethically.

Furthermore, many of the texts in the program include additional activities titled Build Knowledge. These activities often provide teachers with guidance on how they can support students in facilitating further learning related to the text under study across different topics such as science, social studies, and history. However, this guidance never includes differentiation considerations, nor does it mention MLLs.

While the program includes research tasks and some supports for background knowledge, support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in opportunities to apply research skills to develop their knowledge of topics is limited and inconsistently applied.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6-8 of myPerspectives partially meet the criteria of intentionally developing language in ways valued by disciplinary practices over time, through lessons, units, and throughout the course. The materials include both broad and targeted recommendations for fostering language development. However, these supports focus mainly on vocabulary and rarely on functional language development, are applied inconsistently, and are not present across all grade-level resources.

The materials provide limited intentional plans to develop language in ways valued by disciplinary practices over time. In Grade 6, Unit 3, to support reading the text “from Cinder,” a differentiation Teacher Facing Note entitled Vocabulary Development prompts teachers to discuss multiple-meaning words. The word list is used to show that some words have multiple meanings and that these meanings can vary depending on how the word is used. The Vocabulary Development call-out box in the Teacher Facing Notes box asks teachers to “Explain that when students come across a word for which their known meaning does not fit the context, it may be because it is a multiple-meaning word.”  This initial prompt encourages students to build awareness of vocabulary by looking out for multiple-meaning words; however, this concept is not revisited later in the unit.

Another example of the materials providing language development as a standalone component is in Grade 8, Unit 2. The pre-reading Differentiate Multilingual Learners call-out box in the Teacher Facing Notes for “The Diary of Anne Frank,” Act II, guides teachers to “Generate Questions as prereading support to enhance comprehension of Act II of the play. Explain to students that they will use a two-column chart and generate pre-reading questions. Have students answer these questions as they read.”  The activity is differentiated by substantial, moderate, and light supports. Those students needing substantial support are provided wh- question words with modeling of their use. Students needing moderate support review wh- questions, and those needing light support work independently to generate prereading questions. While this example shows the introduction of disciplinary ways of communicating, as well as language development in response to the content, the use of wh- questions is never revisited. Similar instances of language instruction occur in isolation throughout the text and unit, but there is no evidence that this language is developed intentionally over time. 

The materials provide both general and specific guidance to support language development. However, the supports are not consistent or found in every text in every unit. Some supports are provided for everyone, and others are MLL-specific. There are some places where teachers can help develop language, but there is a missed opportunity to build on the development throughout the lesson and unit. 

For example, at the beginning of each unit, in the Selection Overview, the materials provide Teacher Facing Notes, including a call-out box answering the question “How can I support my Multilingual Learners?” with a “Vocabulary and Language Support” section. Teachers are guided to use the extra instructions in the Vocabulary Development notes, including a high-utility word list. Teachers can also use the MLL notes in the Teacher Edition to provide differentiated strategies for helping students read the selection and complete core tasks. Teachers are also directed to the additional Language Support lesson. Although each Language Support Lesson has its own individual guidance on language, this guidance is solely responsive to content while lacking the continuity and progressive growth needed for the intentional development of language in ways valued by disciplinary practices over time, across lessons, units, and throughout the course. 

Overall, resources and supports are present, but it is up to the teacher to implement them in a meaningful and helpful way for MLLs. As noted in the report for 2.2.MLL-2, the materials lack a scope and sequence for language development, which may contribute to the limited guidance teachers have to determine when and how to implement language development resources and supports in a coherent way over time. Throughout the lessons, there are plans for teachers to refer to the Teacher Facing Notes as a way to differentiate and provide differentiated language support for MLLs at all proficiency levels. At the same time, there is a disconnect in the intentionality and organization of these supports that may lead educators to feel they are supplemental or to be unsure of how to best utilize them. There is no intentional flow or development of language or domains across lessons in the unit. A coherent set of linguistic supports for functional language that support all lessons would be a meaningful shift towards effective linguistic practices for MLLs. 

The instructional materials reviewed for grades 6-8 of myPerspectives partially meet the criteria of providing teacher guidance to support MLL students and to utilize the strategies, supports, and/or accommodations found. The materials offer some guidance for teachers on implementing the provided strategies and supports; however, this guidance is often general. Fully enacting the MLL strategies often requires background knowledge and expertise in teaching MLLs, making it challenging for those new to teaching this student population to enact.

At the beginning of each unit, teachers are provided with Language Checkpoint boxes for reading, speaking, listening, and writing. These checkpoints use WIDA-aligned descriptors— Beginning/Entering, Developing/Expanding, and Bridging/Reaching—to assess student proficiency after engaging with the Mentor Text. Teachers are guided to match students to levels if they can do specific aspects of the task. For example, in Grade 8, Unit 1, the Language Checkpoint for Speaking and Listening instructs teachers to “Use these criteria to evaluate students during the Icebreaker activity:

• Beginning/Entering - If students can:

  • Contribute in a limited way to the discussion

  • Formulate only simple sentences to communicate basic ideas.

  • Understand and use only basic vocabulary.

Then consider using the Multilingual Learner Substantial Scaffolds offered throughout the unit.

• Developing/Expanding - If students can:

  • Contribute to the discussion, responding to questions

  • Use some variation in sentence patterns and grammatical structures to convey ideas.

  • Understand and use general vocabulary with some academic and concept terms

Then consider using the Multilingual Learner Moderate Scaffolds offered throughout the unit.

• Bridging/Reaching - If students can:

  • Participate in fast-paced discussion, responding to and asking questions

  • Use a range of sentence patterns and grammatical structures to convey ideas precisely

  • Understand and accurately use academic and concept vocabulary

Then consider using the Multilingual Learner Light Scaffolds offered throughout the unit.

This structure is a strength, as it establishes a potential foundation for differentiation and provides teachers with concrete guidance in noticing student moves relative to content and language. 

While the guidance for teachers starts strong in each unit, guidance for teachers throughout the unit consists of brief explanations of how to enact supports in the Differentiate - Multilingual Learners and Multilingual Learner Support call-out boxes. This guidance usually supports teachers in enacting that specific support with MLLs leveled by the Language Checkpoints from the unit introduction activities. For example, in Grade 7, Unit 3, during Peer Group Learning, while reading “Learning Rewires the Brain,” teachers are directed to “Help students derive meaning from environmental print. Explain the meaning of environmental print and say that the images and captions in ‘Learning Rewires the Brain’ are similar to environmental print students might see in a museum exhibit.”  Specific supports for each level - Substantial, Moderate, and Light - follow.

Additionally, each text includes a list of ways teachers can support MLLs in the How Can I Support Multilingual Learners section of the Selection Overview. These suggestions are general and offer minimal guidance to teachers on how to implement them effectively. They often include reminders to teachers of other kinds of supports offered throughout the selection. For example, in Grade 6, Unit 2, students read “Horses as Healers Around the World” as part of Whole Class Learning. The How Can I Support Multilingual Learners section of the Selection Overview has three sections: Lesson Preview, Vocabulary and Language Support, and Transition into English. The Vocabulary and Language Support suggestions are as follows:

• Before students read the entire selection, read aloud a few paragraphs, such as 7 and 10, so students can get a sense of the writer’s syntax and voice. Point out conversational elements such as “the very act” and “And, of course” that help the writer express personality even in an informational text.

• Mutilingual Learner notes in the Teacher’s Edition provide differentiated strategies for helping students read the selection and complete core tasks. 

• An additional Language Support lesson, which includes a suggested language target for this selection, is available on Realize.

Neither of these types of supports includes guidance on how to support productive struggle, anticipate language demands, or notice student moves, and respond with flexible, goal-aligned questions and feedback that support language development across levels of proficiency.

Additionally, the materials do not include guidance that differentiates support for teachers based on their experience level. New teachers are not provided with foundational explanations, and experienced teachers are not offered opportunities to refine their practice. As a result, educators at all levels may struggle to understand when and how to implement the strategies and supports embedded in the curriculum.

While the materials include helpful guidance, such as the Language Checkpoints, which show teachers how to respond to MLLs’ needs in response to content, overall guidance is general and often limited to brief explanations tied to specific call-out boxes. The materials lack support for helping teachers anticipate language demands, notice student language moves, or provide flexible, goal-aligned responses that promote language development. Furthermore, the guidance does not differentiate for teacher experience, offering neither foundational explanations for novice teachers nor opportunities for experienced teachers to deepen their practice. As a result, implementing the MLL supports consistently across the curriculum may be challenging for many educators.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6-8 of myPerspectives partially meet the criteria of guiding teachers on how to match students with language supports, progress along a continuum, and be responsive to students’ current language development in relation to the content. The instructional materials provide some support to teachers in aligning language supports with Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) proficiency levels and current language development in relation to the content.

While the materials include some strategies for addressing MLLs’ current language development in relation to the content, this guidance is limited. Supports are primarily presented in call-out boxes in the Teacher Edition, offering only minimal direction on how to align them with specific levels of English proficiency.

For example, in Grade 8, Unit 2, the Language Checkpoint for Multilingual Learners in the Unit Introduction directs teachers to “Have students complete the Mentor Text summary. Evaluate proficiency using these criteria.”  And follows with suggestions for support phrased as “If summaries show... then consider using...” and follows with which level of supports would be appropriate for students throughout the unit. For example, the Beginning/Entering level suggestion is:  

If summaries show:

• Limited understanding of structures of informational texts, such as introduction and conclusion

• Misstatements of central idea or evidence

• Errors in word usage and sentence formation

Then consider using the Multilingual Learner Substantial Scaffolds offered throughout the unit.

This Language Checkpoint is specific to reading and is followed by Language Checkpoints for Speaking and Listening, and Writing, also as part of the unit introduction. The Language Checkpoints are responsive to student needs in the moment. MLLs who need substantial support at the beginning of the unit may not continue to require that level of support throughout the unit for every task.

Within the units, Differentiate – Multilingual Learners call-out boxes in the Teacher Edition provide support suggestions at Substantial, Moderate, and Light levels, helping teachers match students with appropriate support using their evaluations from the Language Checkpoints in the unit introductions. For example, Grade 6, Unit 5, The World’s Best Blind Mountain Biker, contains a Differentiate - Multilingual Learners call-out box guiding teachers to prepare students for an oral presentation. Substantial support suggests that students write the presentation out in their home language first. Moderate support suggests having students in pairs with fluent English speakers, and having the fluent speakers offer additional support in choosing words and phrases. Sentence frames were also provided. Light support suggests giving students additional time to rehearse their oral report and offering feedback. This example shows that the materials contain specific scaffolds that allow teachers to consider MLLs’ language proficiency levels and the level of support MLLS may need. However, teachers are not prompted to consider how to match MLLs with these supports throughout the unit, as their language needs may change over time and in response to content.

The Language Checkpoints provide some support ideas for teachers based on students’ current language proficiency. However, the supports do not provide a continuum to monitor language development. The call-out boxes in the Teacher Edition are helpful, but they lack additional guidance for teachers on how to match students to supports as their language progresses throughout the unit. 

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6-8 of myPerspectives partially meet the criteria of including guidance for intentional and flexible grouping structures for Multilingual Learners (MLLs) to ensure equitable participation. The materials provide some suggestions for facilitating student collaboration for MLLs but lack consistent support for creating intentional, flexible groupings, particularly for MLLs with varied English proficiency levels.

Specifically, in Grade 7, Unit 5, the Differentiate - Multilingual Learners box included as students start to read “A More Accessible World” suggests using small groups for moderate support and pairs for light support, however there is no guidance for teachers on how to intentionally structure these groups or pairs within levels of support based on student needs, such as language proficiency. Within this reading and throughout units and grades, there are Grouping Opportunity call-out boxes that guide teachers in leading group activities, but do not facilitate grouping structures, nor do they mention MLLs. The materials incorporate some degree of grouping flexibility but miss the opportunity to promote intentional grouping that supports MLLs’ language development and access to content.

Similarly, in Grade 8, Unit 1, the speaking and listening Performance Task: Present a Nonfiction Narrative is designed for all students as a group presentation. Students are expected to write a narrative and then present it collaboratively. The Multilingual Learner Support box provides suggestions to help students who may be uncomfortable presenting, including “Flexible Assignments” allowing some students to take behind the scenes group roles; “Creative Solutions” for students to translate parts of the presentation into their home language and present it to the class, and “Prerecording” for, “students who want a presenting role but are afraid to present to the class.” These supports offer thoughtful flexibility and aim to provide inclusive participation options, but do not address group formation in any way, including using language proficiency.

Although the materials do not consistently provide grouping strategies specific to MLLs, they include thoughtful attempts to support diverse learners through flexible assignments and alternative participation options. These attempts demonstrate a student-centered approach that values individual comfort and access, especially in performance tasks. However, there is a missed opportunity to equip teachers with practical guidance on forming groups that consider language proficiency, peer support dynamics, and equitable participation. 

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6-8 of myPerspectives partially meet the criteria of providing guidance to encourage teachers to draw upon students’ home language to facilitate learning. The materials do provide some support for teachers to integrate Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) home languages into instruction. However, these are limited and not consistently embedded across the materials.

Specifically, in Grade 8, Unit 1, in the Concept Vocabulary section at the end of First-Day Fly, the materials suggest that students who require substantial support be prompted to elicit vocabulary from their home languages. The Differentiate call-out box provides this guidance, encouraging teachers to ask students for equivalent words in their home language, use the words in sentences, and add them to a Word Wall. However, this strategy is only suggested for students identified as needing substantial support, rather than being a universally encouraged practice for all MLLs. Similar evidence is found sporadically in other sections, often through call-out boxes or in supplemental resources. However, these are not always connected directly to the lesson and require the teacher to reference other pages or external materials, which can create inconsistency in implementation. The Differentiate - Multilingual Learners box does incorporate a strategy that acknowledges the value of leveraging MLLs’ home language, which is a meaningful step. However, the strategy is narrowly applied—targeted only at students requiring substantial support—and is not woven throughout the materials in a sustained or systematic way. 

Additionally, authentic Spanish-language texts aligned with unit themes are available, but only in select units. These resources must be manually assigned; however,  the program does not provide guidance for who these assignments are most appropriate for, nor on how teachers should implement or differentiate their use based on student language needs or proficiency levels. Texts aligned with unit themes are not available in languages other than Spanish.

In some units and lessons, differentiation strategies are clearly labeled and provide scaffolds for MLLs. As noted in the reports for 2j.MLL and 2l.MLL, the inclusion of vocabulary work that integrates student-generated content, such as adding translated words to a Word Wall, supports comprehension and vocabulary acquisition. The materials consistently provide vocabulary development strategies and prompts for sentence generation, which are effective components of language instruction. However, the use of home language as an asset in these supports is sporadic and usually limited to students identified as needing substantial support. This is a missed opportunity to fully realize the benefits of home language use for all MLLs and excludes MLLs who do not need substantial support. Additionally, guidance for teachers to use home language often requires teachers to reference other pages or supplemental resources to access home language guidance, and may reduce the likelihood of consistent implementation.

Although the materials do not provide comprehensive or systematic guidance for integrating home languages, they include instances in which MLL students are prompted to use their home language in learning the content. These attempts demonstrate a thoughtful but limited approach to addressing the use of students’ home language. The Concept Vocabulary section, which incorporates this home language strategy, suggests an awareness of the role of linguistic assets in vocabulary development. These strategies aim to provide culturally and linguistically responsive support to MLLs by validating their linguistic identities and reinforcing meaning-making through first-language connections. This is a missed opportunity to deepen all students’ engagement with vocabulary through home language connections, not just those identified for intensive support. The materials also lack teacher 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. The materials show an understanding of the importance of using home language, but fall short in broad, consistent application for all MLL students.