K-2nd Grade - Multilingual Learner Supports

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K–2 of Open Court partially meet the criteria of amplifying rather than simplifying texts while maintaining complexity to provide access for MLLs without watering down texts. While the materials include an English Learner Guide with supports intended to assist MLLs in reading and responding to complex texts, these scaffolds focus primarily on broad, generic comprehension strategies—such as asking literal recall questions, clarifying unfamiliar words, and monitoring comprehension—rather than amplifying the linguistic features of the texts themselves. Consequently, the materials sometimes support MLLs in engaging with texts but do so inconsistently and without providing the deeper linguistic access needed to fully engage with grade-level content.

For example, in Grade K, Unit 3, Lesson 1, Day 2, Reading and Responding, the English Learner Guide includes a Preteach routine titled “Discuss the Read Aloud” for the selection Hail: Ice from the Sky by Cynthia Light Brown. Students are asked a series of literal comprehension questions:

• What is hail?

• Where does hail form?

• What does the inside of a hailstone look like?

• Why does hail usually come in the summer?

The guide also includes a brief genre reminder explaining that the selection is explanatory text. Although these supports align loosely with the ELA task, they do not amplify the linguistic features that make the text complex—such as cause-and-effect language, scientific vocabulary, or the explanatory structures used in the passage. The questions and teacher moves focus on retrieving information rather than helping students access the text’s conceptual or linguistic complexity. This illustrates the broader pattern across the materials: supports are present, but they are not engineered to deepen MLLs’ engagement with disciplinary language or text structure.

Another example appears in Grade 1, Unit 8, Lesson 3, Day 2, Reading and Responding, during the lesson How Animals Move. The core ELA guidance includes instruction on asking and answering questions to monitor comprehension. Teachers are instructed to model question generation (e.g., “How do dolphins jump so high?”) and guide students through using question words such as who, what, where, when, how, and why. However, no MLL-specific supports are scripted for this section. The English Learner Guide does not extend or amplify the ELA task; instead, it provides general supports on asking and answering questions, using text evidence, and clarifying unknown words. There is no guidance that helps MLLs access the linguistic complexity of informational texts, such as understanding how movement verbs, descriptive phrases, or text features convey scientific information. As a result, MLLs are partially supported in general comprehension but not in accessing the deeper linguistic or disciplinary layers of the text.

Across the program, the MLL scaffolds focus on general comprehension routines rather than text amplifications that expose and support the complex language structures embedded in the texts. Supports such as EL Photo Cards, vocabulary routines, and question prompts can help some students gain surface-level understanding, but they do not consistently assist MLLs in navigating the syntax, cohesion, academic vocabulary, or discourse structures that make grade-level texts challenging. Additionally, many MLL supports are housed separately in the English Learner Guide, meaning teachers must locate and integrate them on their own, and supports do not consistently appear at the point of use or address the specific language demands of the text.

Because the materials inconsistently integrate linguistic scaffolds and do not provide intentional engineering of texts to amplify key language structures, MLL access to grade-level texts varies widely from lesson to lesson. While the program offers some helpful supports, the lack of systematic amplification limits equitable access for MLLs and keeps the materials from fully meeting expectations for this indicator.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K–2 of Open Court partially meet the expectations for supporting MLLs’ full and complete participation in text-based questions, tasks, and assignments, and demonstrating their thinking in various formats. The materials include opportunities for engagement in text-based tasks and offer differentiated suggestions across proficiency levels; however, the supports sometimes do not allow MLLs to fully and completely participate in the ELA tasks because they are simplified or diverge from the academic intent of the core instruction.

The materials provide strategies and supports for MLLs to participate in text-based questions and tasks. Yet, these supports do not consistently ensure that MLL students engage in the same depth of analysis or comprehension as their peers. For example, in Grade 1, Unit 3, Lesson 2, Day 1, Reading and Responding, the whole class lesson guides students to predict and visualize while listening to the story “Jake’s Tree” by Dennis Fertig. Students later reread the text to make inferences, compare and contrast, and consider the author’s craft. MLL supports are only found in the corresponding English Learner Guide. The supports center on literal comprehension, vocabulary clarification, and genre identification. MLL students are prompted with questions such as “What does Jake see out his window?” and “What color is the sky?” While these supports build background knowledge and vocabulary that could provide some support to MLLs in participating in tasks about the text, the materials do not include direct supports that extend to inferential or analytical tasks aligned with the core lesson objectives. As a result, MLLs’ engagement may remain limited to surface-level understanding rather than full participation in the text-based analysis emphasized in the whole-class instruction.

Similarly, in Grade 2, Unit 5, Lesson 5, Day 4, Reading and Responding, the core lesson invites students to explore writers’ craft and symbolism through the poem “D Is for Democracy” by Elissa Grodin. However, the corresponding English Learner Guide emphasizes preteaching and reteaching of vocabulary, focusing primarily on rhyming, repetition, and factual recall. For instance, MLL students answer factual questions such as “Who created the U.S. Constitution?” or “What is the act of leaving one’s country called?” While these supports reinforce vocabulary comprehension, which could provide some support to MLLs in participating in tasks about the text, they do not align with the literary analysis task of examining craft and symbolism. This disconnect limits MLLs’ opportunity to engage in the same text-based interpretive work as their peers.

The materials also present logistical barriers that may reduce the accessibility and consistent application of MLL supports. Many of the supports appear in a separate English Learner Guide tab in the digital materials, or the English Learner Teacher’s Guide in the print materials, requiring teachers to navigate outside the main lesson flow to locate them. Without direct integration or prompts in the core teacher materials, there is a risk that teachers may overlook these supports. Additionally, while MLL guidance often appears in Preteach or Reteach sections, the materials provide little direction on how teachers should implement these strategies during the lesson sequence, reducing the likelihood that MLLs will receive timely scaffolds that build toward grade-level expectations.

Overall, Open Court provides structured supports for MLLs to engage with text-based questions, tasks, and assignments; however, these supports are inconsistently aligned to the full range of ELA learning objectives. The MLL activities often focus on vocabulary and literal comprehension rather than inferential or analytical reasoning tied to grade-level texts. The separation of MLL supports into supplemental materials and the lack of integrated, task-specific guidance limit MLLs’ opportunities for full and equitable participation in text-based analysis and demonstration of understanding across all lessons.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K-2 of Open Court partially meet the expectations for providing support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in developing their ability to comprehend complex ideas within and across texts by engaging them in opportunities to analyze and evaluate those texts. The materials include strategies and supports to help MLLs comprehend complex ideas and participate in opportunities to analyze and evaluate texts; however, these supports do not consistently align with the central tasks of the lessons, limiting their effectiveness in ensuring MLLs’ full and meaningful participation. While the English Learner Teacher's Guide frequently includes preteach and reteach routines, these supports often focus on discrete skills or vocabulary development rather than on helping MLLs engage deeply with the core ELA tasks that promote comprehension across and within texts.

For example, in Grade K, Unit 2, Lesson 1, Day 1, during the whole-class lesson, students learn about authors and illustrators through the poem “Cobbler, Cobbler, Mend My Shoe” and practice directionality with another poem from the anthology. The accompanying lesson in the English Learner Teacher's Guide includes preteach opportunities such as Identify Spoken Sentences (“Students will listen for complete sentences”) and How the Alphabet Works: I Can Spell Anything (“Students will play with letters to learn about forming words”). These activities support foundational language awareness by helping MLLs recognize sentence boundaries and experiment with letter–sound relationships. While generally supportive of text comprehension, the focus remains on spelling and sentence recognition rather than on understanding print concepts, such as text directionality or structural features, or learning about authors and illustrators, which limits opportunities for MLLs to make meaning from connected text or to participate fully in comprehension-focused tasks.

Similarly, in Grade 2, Unit 5, Lesson 5, Day 1, all students connect ideas about citizens’ rights and responsibilities across multiple texts, using “D Is for Democracy” by Elissa Grodin to deepen their understanding of themes introduced in earlier selections. The accompanying lesson in the English Learner Teacher's Guide provides a preteach lesson to accompany the reading of “D Is for Democracy.” Teachers are directed to display the text, read it aloud or have students read, and use visuals such as photo library cards to support vocabulary understanding. Differentiated prompts are provided for students at Levels 1 through 4 of English proficiency. MLL students repeat and define key terms such as amendment, constitution, and Bill of Rights, and answer guided questions with sentence frames at increasing levels of complexity. While these strategies support text comprehension, which is indirectly supportive of the whole-class task, and effectively build word knowledge and support oral language development, they focus primarily on vocabulary acquisition and sentence production. The supports do not explicitly prompt MLLs to connect ideas across texts or to engage in analytical thinking aligned to the lesson’s broader goals of interpreting democratic concepts.

Across lessons, Open Court provides systematic language support that helps MLLs access foundational and content vocabulary. However, these supports are often peripheral to the main ELA tasks and do not consistently scaffold toward the deeper comprehension and text analysis expected in grade-level work. As a result, MLLs receive partial support for developing the ability to comprehend complex ideas within and across texts, but are not consistently provided opportunities to engage in analysis and evaluation that demonstrate full participation in academic discourse.

The materials also present logistical barriers that may reduce the accessibility and consistent application of MLL supports. Many of the supports appear in a separate English Learner Guide tab or the English Learner Teacher’s Guide in the print materials, requiring teachers to navigate outside the main lesson flow to locate them. Without direct integration or prompts in the core teacher materials, there is a risk that teachers may overlook these supports. Additionally, while MLL guidance often appears in Preteach or Reteach sections, the materials provide little direction on how teachers should implement these strategies during the lesson sequence, reducing the likelihood that MLLs will receive timely scaffolds that build toward grade-level expectations.

Overall, the materials partially meet expectations for this indicator. While structured routines for preteaching and vocabulary reinforcement support MLLs’ access to content, stronger alignment between language supports and core analytical tasks would be needed to ensure that MLLs can fully and completely participate in meaning-making, analysis, and evaluation of ideas across texts. 

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K–2 of Open Court partially meet the expectations for providing support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in evidence-based discussions about the texts they are reading. The English Learner Teacher's Guide provides some discussion prompts and preteach supports that connect to the core reading selections; however, these opportunities do not consistently align with the level of discourse required in the main lesson. In many instances, MLLs are prompted to answer teacher-led factual questions rather than engaging in peer-based conversations or building on others’ ideas, thereby limiting their full and meaningful participation in evidence-based discussions.

In some cases, the materials include activities that prepare MLLs to participate in class discussions about shared texts. For example, in Grade K, Unit 7, Lesson 1, Day 2, Reading and Responding, the English Learner Teacher's Guide includes a Preteach: Discuss the Read Aloud activity for “What Green Beans Need” by Carol Elliot. Students respond to questions about the sequence of events in the story, like “What do Grandpa and Leah do first to grow green beans? What do they do next? What do they do last?” and share what parts of the story could happen in their own lives. These guided questions help MLLs recall details and connect text content to their personal experiences, preparing them for broader classroom discussions. This pre-teach sequence aligns with the topic of the core task and helps MLLs build familiarity with key ideas and vocabulary before participating in the main ELA activity.

However, other lessons provide less direct support for MLLs’ engagement in evidence-based discussion. For instance, in Grade 1, Unit 3, Lesson 2, Day 5, Reading and Responding, the English Learner Teacher's Guide offers a Preteach: Discuss the Poem activity for “Spring Rain” by Elena Vasquez. Students answer comprehension questions such as “What is this poem describing?” and “Why is the water so important to the plants?” While these prompts address the same text as the main lesson, they do not support MLLs in developing or expressing ideas beyond recall-level responses. MLLs are not scaffolded to retell, comment on, or build on others’ ideas—the core expectations of evidence-based discussion in the main ELA task. As a result, MLL participation is limited to teacher-directed factual questioning rather than collaborative reasoning or interpretation.

Across lessons, the materials provide some structured opportunities for MLLs to respond to text-based questions; however, the level of linguistic and conceptual support varies. The English Learner Teacher's Guide often introduces preteach discussions aligned to the reading selection, but explicit scaffolds for discussion—such as sentence frames, peer interaction prompts, or modeled academic discourse—are rarely carried into the main “Discuss the Read Aloud” or “Reflect and Share” portions of lessons. Consequently, MLLs are sometimes prepared for the content of the discussion but are not fully supported in applying that preparation to active, peer-based discourse.

The materials also present logistical barriers that may reduce the accessibility and consistent application of MLL supports. Many of the supports appear in a separate English Learner Guide tab or the English Learner Teacher’s Guide in the print materials, requiring teachers to navigate outside the main lesson flow to locate them. Without direct integration or prompts in the core teacher materials, there is a risk that teachers may overlook these supports. Additionally, while MLL guidance often appears in Preteach or Reteach sections, the materials provide little direction on how teachers should implement these strategies during the lesson sequence, reducing the likelihood that MLLs will receive timely scaffolds that build toward grade-level expectations.

Overall, the materials partially meet expectations for this indicator. The supports provide an access point for MLLs to build text meaning and practice oral responses, but they do not consistently promote full participation in the evidence-based discussions central to the core instructional sequence. Strengthening the connection between pre-teach activities and in-lesson discourse routines would better enable MLLs to contribute independently, respond to peers, and demonstrate comprehension through collaborative discussion.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K–2 of Open Court partially meet expectations for supporting 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 introduced and practiced in lessons, and some supports are included. However, these supports are not always aligned with the same vocabulary or texts used in whole-class instruction, and they are not consistently embedded in instructional routines that allow MLLs to fully participate alongside their peers.

The Program Guide details how vocabulary instruction is structured across the curriculum’s three strands. The program provides a structured, multi-step vocabulary routine in which teachers introduce and model key words and strategies, and students repeatedly practice, apply, and extend vocabulary through varied activities before, during, and after reading. The English Learner Teacher's Guide provides pre-teach activities for vocabulary words that include, but are usually not exactly the same as, the core Selection Vocabulary. For example, in Grade 2, Unit 5, Lesson 2, Day 2, Reading and Responding, the teacher uses the Selection Vocabulary Routine to introduce the vocabulary words for the day’s text to the whole class. In the English Learner Teacher's Guide, the accompanying lesson is designated as Preteach: “Practice Vocabulary: Selection Vocabulary Routine for English Learners.”  This group reviews target words together, defining them in their own words using context clues, demonstrations, EL Photo Library Cards, other photos or illustrations, and realia. While these are all supportive practices for vocabulary instruction for MLLs, the words targeted in this supplemental lesson are not all the same as those for the whole class. The English Learner Teacher's Guide lesson focuses on eight vocabulary words, only three of which overlap with the twelve vocabulary words in the core Selection Vocabulary Routine. As a result, MLLs may only be partially supported in participating in the core instructional routine.

However, vocabulary instruction for MLLs is not consistently integrated into the whole-class lessons. In Grade 1, Unit 1, Lesson 1, Day 1, for instance, the whole-class Reading and Responding lesson introduces the words long and hot-air balloon. The teacher models how words can have multiple meanings and uses a read-aloud of “Molto’s Dream” by Raoul Krischanitz to help students interpret these words in context. Afterward, students use the new vocabulary in various contexts. In contrast, the English Learner Teacher's Guide for the same lesson provides a different reading, “First Day Jitters” by Julie Danneberg, for MLL students to practice vocabulary and vowel sounds. While the English Learner Teacher's Guide offers additional phonics and decoding support, using a separate text limits opportunities for MLLs to engage in shared meaning-making and discourse about the same story as their peers. This separation weakens alignment between vocabulary instruction and the broader lesson objectives, making it harder for MLLs to develop language through authentic interaction around shared texts.

Across lessons, the English Learner Teacher's Guide provides consistent opportunities for MLLs to preview and review text content; however, these preteach activities are often separate from the main class discussions. Because scaffolds such as sentence starters, discussion stems, or modeled exchanges are not extended into the “Discuss the Selection” or “Reflect and Share” components of the ELA block, MLLs are not consistently supported in transferring their pre-teach understanding to active participation in peer discussions. As a result, the materials promote comprehension but not full participation in the interpretive and collaborative language of evidence-based discussion.

Throughout the course, Open Court includes several resources to support vocabulary development, such as glossaries, contextual examples, and prompts that emphasize oral language practice. However, the extent and quality of these supports vary. The materials sometimes provide only brief guidance or alternate texts, rather than integrated scaffolds that guide MLLs through the same vocabulary tasks as the rest of the class. As a result, teachers may need additional expertise to bridge the gap between the MLL supports and the core vocabulary instruction.

The materials also present logistical barriers that may reduce the accessibility and consistent application of MLL supports. Many of the supports appear in a separate English Learner Guide tab in the digital materials or the English Learner Teacher’s Guide in the print materials, requiring teachers to navigate outside the main lesson flow to locate them. Without direct integration or prompts in the core teacher materials, there is a risk that teachers may overlook these supports. Additionally, while MLL guidance often appears in Preteach or Reteach sections, the materials provide little direction on how teachers should implement these strategies during the lesson sequence, reducing the likelihood that MLLs will receive timely scaffolds that build toward grade-level expectations.

In summary, while Open Court includes multiple resources and instructional routines for building vocabulary knowledge, these supports are not consistently aligned or embedded in ways that allow MLLs to fully and completely participate in explicit vocabulary instruction. The program offers valuable tools—such as cognate recognition, context-based vocabulary work, and opportunities for oral practice—but these are not always connected to the same texts or tasks as those used in whole-class instruction. This partial alignment limits MLLs’ access to shared academic discourse and grade-level word-learning strategies. As a result, the materials provide a foundation for vocabulary development but fall short of ensuring equitable, integrated participation for MLLs across all lessons and contexts.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K–2 of Open Court partially meet the expectations for providing support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in the practice of independent word-learning strategies and newly taught vocabulary words. The materials include vocabulary instruction and pre-teaching routines for MLLs; however, these supports are not consistently aligned with the main ELA lessons and often do not provide the depth of practice needed for MLLs to build mastery and meaning in context.

In Grade 1, Unit 7, Lesson 2, Day 1, Reading and Responding, students learn about using context clues to determine word meanings. They practice determining the meaning of float using clues from the read-aloud text. Then, they apply the same strategy to the words place and coating using the Selection Vocabulary Routine (see 2l report for details). While the English Learner Teacher's Guide provides a pre-teaching routine that reinforces some vocabulary, including algae and pond plants, these words differ from those addressed in the main lesson. This misalignment can create confusion and limit MLLs’ ability to fully connect vocabulary practice to the anchor text. Additionally, the timing of the pre-teaching routine may make it difficult for teachers to introduce the words before the lesson, reducing its usefulness in supporting comprehension during instruction.

Similarly, at the end of the same lesson sequence, students practice note-taking from sources for their Unit Inquiry. Although this activity could be an opportunity to reinforce and apply new vocabulary, the materials do not prompt students to use the words they have been learning in their notes, responses, or discussions. In Unit 7, Lesson 2, Day 3, Reading and Responding, students read a new, unrelated text and are reminded to use context clues to define edible. While this reinforces a general strategy, it is not explicitly scaffolded for MLLs and lacks direct language support. Without consistency of context or opportunities to reuse vocabulary across lessons, MLLs may struggle to retain and apply these new words in a meaningful way.

Additionally, vocabulary review supports for MLLs are not always connected to the whole-class topic of study. For instance, in Grade K, Unit 11, Lesson 2, Day 5, Reading and Responding, students revisit vocabulary words learned earlier in the week by responding to isolated questions containing those words, even when the questions are unrelated to the unit’s central theme. This could be confusing for MLLs who have not yet mastered key terms or who require repeated contextual examples to solidify their understanding. Although the English Learner Teacher's Guide includes pre-teaching routines differentiated by proficiency levels (Levels 1–4), explicit MLL supports are not integrated into the main part of the core lesson, which limits ongoing access to grade-level academic vocabulary.

The materials also present logistical barriers that may reduce the accessibility and consistent application of MLL supports. Many of the supports appear in a separate English Learner Guide tab or the English Learner Teacher’s Guide in the print materials,  requiring teachers to navigate outside the main lesson flow to locate them. Without direct integration or prompts in the core teacher materials, there is a risk that teachers may overlook these supports. Additionally, while MLL guidance often appears in Preteach or Reteach sections, the materials provide little direction on how teachers should implement these strategies during the lesson sequence, reducing the likelihood that MLLs will receive timely scaffolds that build toward grade-level expectations.

Overall, Open Court partially supports MLLs in developing independent word-learning strategies and in practicing newly taught vocabulary. The materials provide some structures for introducing and revisiting key words, but the supports are often misaligned with lesson content or insufficiently contextualized for MLLs to build deep word knowledge. As a result, MLLs receive uneven opportunities to engage in meaningful vocabulary use across lessons and to transfer new language to speaking, reading, and writing tasks.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K–2 of Open Court partially meet the expectations for supporting MLLs’ full and complete participation in the explicit instruction of sentence composition appropriate to grade-level standards. The materials provide some strategies and supports for MLLs to participate in sentence-composition instruction; however, these supports are not consistently aligned to the core lessons, and some are only partially supportive of the intended writing and language objectives.

For example, in Grade 2, Unit 2, Lesson 1, Day 3, Language Arts, the focus is on identifying complete and incomplete sentences. The corresponding English Learner Teacher's Guide includes a reteach lesson that instructs teachers to review subjects and predicates and provide sentences for students to classify as complete or incomplete. While this reteach activity aligns closely with the whole-class lesson, its placement as supplemental support limits its reach to MLL students who need additional help afterward. This approach misses an opportunity to embed meaningful access points within core instruction, allowing MLLs to fully engage in the whole-class activity while reinforcing their understanding of sentence structure.

Similarly, in Grade 2, Unit 1, Lesson 2, Day 4, Language Arts, teachers are prompted to tell students that “action verbs show action and that students will use action verbs in most types of writing.” Students identify action verbs in model sentences and then write their own. However, no MLL supports are included in either the core lesson or the English Learner Teacher's Guide. This represents a missed opportunity to provide scaffolds, such as visuals from the English Learner Photo Library, to support MLLs in connecting action words to meaning through images or movement, thereby enhancing access to the concept and supporting active language use.

Moreover, in Grade K, Unit 9, Lesson 3, Day 2, Language Arts, students receive explicit instruction on identifying sentence end marks and capitalization. Teachers are guided to display examples, discuss sentence types, and invite students to generate and punctuate sentences. The English Learner Teacher's Guide lesson for this same lesson instead focuses on word spacing, using Cross-Curricular Big Book 2, Alphabet Sound Cards, and EL Photo Library Cards. Although students count words in sentences and match initial sounds to alphabet cards, which is generally supportive of literacy, the activity does not reference capitalization or punctuation. As a result, the support lesson for MLLs does not align with the sentence-composition objectives of the core lesson, limiting MLLs’ ability to participate fully in the shared task.

While Open Court includes explicit instruction in sentence-composition skills, the alignment between core lessons and MLL supports is inconsistent. In some cases, MLL lessons focus on foundational concepts—such as spacing or sound-symbol correspondence—without connecting to the target sentence skills emphasized in the whole-class ELA lesson. Teachers are encouraged to use the Contrastive Analysis Chart for Speakers of Other Languages: Grammar resource in the English Learner Teacher's Guide Appendix to point out grammatical differences between English and students’ home languages, which can help clarify sentence structure. However, without consistent integration of lesson-aligned scaffolds—such as visuals, modeled language frames, and connected practice—MLLs are not fully supported to engage in sentence-composition instruction at the same level of depth as their peers.

The materials also present logistical barriers that may reduce the accessibility and consistent application of MLL supports. Many of the supports appear in a separate English Learner Guide tab or the English Learner Teacher’s Guide in the print materials, requiring teachers to navigate outside the main lesson flow to locate them. Without direct integration or prompts in the core teacher materials, there is a risk that teachers may overlook these supports. Additionally, while MLL guidance often appears in Preteach or Reteach sections, the materials provide little direction on how teachers should implement these strategies during the lesson sequence, reducing the likelihood that MLLs will receive timely scaffolds that build toward grade-level expectations.

The materials provide occasional and uneven support for MLLs in developing sentence-composition skills. While some resources encourage explicit grammar and sentence awareness, the lack of consistent alignment between the English Learner Teacher's Guide and the core lessons limits opportunities for MLLs to apply sentence-composition concepts within authentic writing tasks. As a result, MLLs receive only partial support for building grammatical knowledge and producing complete, well-structured sentences in context.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K–2 of Open Court partially meet the expectations for providing support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in sentence composition practice and editing of their own writing, appropriate for their grade level. While MLLs are provided with some support in sentence composition and editing, these supports are not consistently aligned with core lessons and often lack opportunities for students to apply new learning in meaningful ways. As a result, MLLs’ participation in these foundational writing practices is limited and uneven across the program.

In some cases, supports in the English Learner Teacher's Guide provide valuable reinforcement of key sentence structures or conventions but stop short of full integration with the core lesson. For example, in Grade K, Unit 7, Lesson 1, Day 5, Language Arts, students learn about common prepositions and order words. In the Skills Practice book, students listen as the teacher reads sentences containing prepositions and circle the correct picture, such as “The cat is under the chair,” or “The butterfly is on the flower.” While the core lesson includes clear modeling and opportunities to identify prepositions, no MLL supports are embedded. The English Learner Teacher's Guide includes a reteach lesson where the teacher leads students in acting out these sentences to emphasize the key words and sequence of actions: “First, I put the book on the desk. Next, I put my pen in the drawer. Last, I push the chair under the desk.” This kinesthetic extension helps reinforce meaning, but MLLs are not prompted to generate or act out their own sentences using these prepositions. Without opportunities for independent sentence creation, language development remains limited to teacher modeling rather than active, expressive use.

In other lessons, reteach activities offer partial alignment to whole-class instruction but do not fully mirror or support the expectations of the core classroom experience. In Grade 2, Unit 2, Lesson 6, Day 4, Language Arts, students focus on publishing writing. The whole-class lesson has students revising and preparing their informative/explanatory texts. The English Learner Teacher's Guide does include a reteach activity for editing and revising. The reteach lesson directs teachers to model editing through guided questions and to have MLL students check their handwritten cloze text for capitalization and punctuation errors, circling capital letters and underlining topic sentences. This guidance reinforces basic conventions but does not parallel the broader self-editing and revision processes that peers complete using the Language Arts Handbook and checklists. The result is that MLLs practice subskills related to editing but are not supported in applying those skills within the full context of their own authentic writing.

A similar pattern emerges in Grade 2, Unit 6, Lesson 1, Day 3, Language Arts, where students revise, edit, and publish their couplet poems. The teacher models how to edit a sample poem using a checklist from Skills Practice 2, which asks, “Did you use correct spelling? Did you capitalize the title of your poem? Did you use punctuation to signal pauses?” However, no additional scaffolds or MLL-specific guidance accompany the core lesson. The English Learner Teacher's Guide provides a reteach lesson focused on writing haiku rather than couplets, directing lower-proficiency students to copy from a cloze frame provided earlier. Editing is not addressed, and the checklist used in the core lesson is omitted. Although the reteach lesson recommends allowing extra time for practice, it does not support students in participating in the same editing and revising activities as their peers. This lack of alignment between the core and reteach lessons results in a missed opportunity to provide MLLs with equitable access to the full writing process.

Across lessons, MLL supports in Open Court offer some scaffolding for sentence-level practice and limited opportunities for editing; however, these activities are not consistently connected to grade-level writing tasks or standards. The supports often occur in isolation—before or after the core lesson—and are focused on discrete skills rather than integration with students’ authentic writing. While the materials sometimes encourage teachers to model language and provide simplified examples, they do not include guidance for adapting writing checklists, sentence frames, or peer-editing routines that would enable MLLs to engage fully in sentence composition and revision alongside their peers.

The materials also present logistical barriers that may reduce the accessibility and consistent application of MLL supports. Many of the supports appear in a separate English Learner Guide tab or the English Learner Teacher’s Guide in the print materials, requiring teachers to navigate outside the main lesson flow to locate them. Without direct integration or prompts in the core teacher materials, there is a risk that teachers may overlook these supports. Additionally, while MLL guidance often appears in Preteach or Reteach sections, the materials provide little direction on how teachers should implement these strategies during the lesson sequence, reducing the likelihood that MLLs will receive timely scaffolds that build toward grade-level expectations.

Overall, Open Court materials for Grades K–2 include some sentence composition and editing supports for MLLs; however, these are inconsistently aligned with the core writing instruction and lack the depth necessary for full participation. The English Learner Teacher's Guide occasionally reinforces key concepts, such as word order or conventions, but often diverges from the primary classroom task, limiting opportunities for MLLs to apply skills in authentic writing contexts. Greater alignment between MLL supports and the core writing program, especially during revision and editing activities, would ensure that MLLs can develop and demonstrate their growing command of academic English and written expression.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K–2 of Open Court partially meet the expectations for providing support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in all instruction of varied writing processes. While the materials include some supports for MLLs during some stages of the writing process, these supports are inconsistent, often general in nature, and not always aligned with the core writing lessons. As a result, MLLs are not consistently provided with the targeted scaffolds necessary to fully engage in grade-level writing tasks alongside their peers.

In some lessons, the materials demonstrate an intentional attempt to support MLLs’ understanding of writing tasks through explicit modeling and reteaching opportunities. For example, in Grade K, Unit 10, Lesson 1, Language Arts, the materials include a note for teachers to remind the whole class that they will be writing a description of a character. Teachers are guided to help all students think about how characters show thoughts and feelings, share ideas, and speak to other characters. The English Learner: Grammar and Writing section advises teachers to provide grammar, usage, and mechanics lessons on Days 2 and 5 of each week, reteaching strands taught during the week, and highlighting linguistic hurdles MLLs might face in speaking and writing. The materials also note that a more structured and streamlined writing assignment is provided every day for students who are not able to complete the core writing. This example demonstrates a connection between the supports for MLLs and the core writing instruction. By reteaching key grammatical concepts and guiding students through the character description task, MLLs are given some scaffolds to support comprehension and output. 

In other instances, the supports for MLLs are not sufficient to ensure access to or full participation in the writing process. For example, in Grade 1, Unit 3, Lessons 1 and 2, Language Arts, the whole-class lesson involves students practicing writing descriptions as the teacher models using adjectives and sensory details. The accompanying support lesson in the English Learner Teacher's Guide directs teachers to have students revise their written drafts by adding adjectives in a reteach lesson. The teacher models a think-aloud while revising a draft about a panda, explaining, “I am writing a description of a panda. I know adding adjectives will help readers make a clearer mental image of how a panda looks.” The guidance suggests that if a student is at Language Level 1 or 2, the teacher should help them choose additional details to include in their description. Students then draw additional pictures and label them with words, saying and repeating the words aloud. While this activity supports oral language practice and helps beginning MLLs associate words with images, it takes place as a reteach lesson rather than during the main instructional time. This structure limits MLLs’ access to the full writing process as their peers experience it. In addition, no differentiated guidance is provided for students at higher language proficiency levels, such as Level 3 or 4 learners, who may require support with more complex grammatical structures or sentence elaboration.

Across grades K–2, the Open Court materials show an uneven approach to writing process instruction for MLLs. Some lessons include scaffolds that build toward grade-level writing, such as teacher modeling, explicit grammar instruction, and structured rewriting opportunities. However, these supports are often delivered in reteach or preteach lessons rather than embedded within the core writing instruction. As a result, MLLs who rely on these lessons may not have access to the same modeling, guided practice, or feedback as their peers during the primary writing sessions. Furthermore, many of the MLL supports focus narrowly on grammar or vocabulary rather than on broader writing process skills—such as planning, organizing ideas, revising for clarity, or developing text cohesion.

While Open Court includes general language development routines that can benefit MLLs, explicit and consistent integration of language-focused scaffolds into the writing process is lacking. The materials provide few opportunities for students to use structured academic discourse—speaking and listening about their ideas before writing—or to engage in collaborative revision and editing tasks. For students at beginning proficiency levels, the reliance on reteach lessons and cloze-text activities may limit their ability to generate and refine original written work. For higher-proficiency students, the lack of targeted guidance to extend sentence complexity or expand ideas through feedback and editing leaves gaps in progression toward grade-level writing expectations.

The materials also present logistical barriers that may reduce the accessibility and consistent application of MLL supports. Many of the supports appear in a separate English Learner Guide tab or the English Learner Teacher’s Guide in the print materials, requiring teachers to navigate outside the main lesson flow to locate them. Without direct integration or prompts in the core teacher materials, there is a risk that teachers may overlook these supports. Additionally, while MLL guidance often appears in Preteach or Reteach sections, the materials provide little direction on how teachers should implement these strategies during the lesson sequence, reducing the likelihood that MLLs will receive timely scaffolds that build toward grade-level expectations.

Overall, Open Court K–2 materials provide some supports that MLLs need during writing instruction, but the supports are inconsistent, peripheral, and not sufficiently connected to the core writing process. Without consistent alignment between MLL guidance and the main writing lessons, MLLs are unlikely to fully and equitably participate in the recursive stages of writing—prewriting, drafting, revising, and editing—that promote growth in both language and literacy development.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K–2 of Open Court partially meet the expectations for providing support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in opportunities to practice the writing process using evidence-based strategies. The materials offer some strategies to support MLLs during writing instruction; however, these supports are inconsistent and often rely on reteach or preteach structures rather than embedded scaffolds that allow MLLs to fully participate alongside their peers during core instruction. As a result, MLLs receive only partial access to meaningful opportunities to engage in the writing process from drafting to revising to sharing their ideas.

Some lessons include supports that help MLLs begin to participate in components of the writing process. For example, in Grade K, Unit 12, Lesson 2, Day 5, Language Arts, during the whole-class lesson, students use the information they put in a graphic organizer in a previous lesson to begin drafting sentences in their description of an object with a pattern, using provided sentence frames as a support. The accompanying English Learner Teacher's Guide Lesson is a Reteach of this lesson. The teacher reminds MLLs of the purpose of their writing—to name the topic and describe the object’s pattern—and models descriptive writing using sensory details. Students are then shown sentence frames to support writing a sentence or two about their chosen object. While this modeling and framing provide useful access points for MLLs, the support remains limited to a reteach context, which means it is offered only after initial instruction rather than being embedded in the core writing work where all students draft together. Because these supports are not provided at the point of instruction, MLLs may struggle to participate fully in the drafting process when their peers begin writing.

Other lessons offer similarly partial support. In Grade 1, Unit 8, Lesson 1, Day 2: Language Arts, students work on publishing their opinion writing. The accompanying English Learner Teacher's Guide lesson is a Reteach lesson also on editing, publishing, and presenting. The materials guide teachers through shared editing of a class report in a previous lesson. This activity is followed by directions for Level 1 and 2 learners to share drawings they made that are connected to the book report. The materials also include a separate section titled “Recommendations for Students Working on Core Writing Assignment: Help students use the Editing and Publishing Checklist in their Skills Practice 2 workbook to finish their report. Then, have them practice presenting their report to you.” The materials make it evident that the book report in the English Learner Teacher's Guide Reteach is disconnected from the core writing assignment. This misalignment makes it impossible for MLLs to fully participate in core instruction when they are expected to complete a different task: some working on the shared book report from the English Learner Teacher’s Guide lesson, while others use the Editing and Publishing Checklist from the Core Writing Assignment. Furthermore, because the supports are structured as reteach activities, it remains unclear what MLLs are expected to do during the core lesson itself.

The materials also present logistical barriers that may reduce the accessibility and consistent application of MLL supports. Many of the supports appear in a separate English Learner Guide tab or the English Learner Teacher’s Guide in the print materials, requiring teachers to navigate outside the main lesson flow to locate them. Without direct integration or prompts in the core teacher materials, there is a risk that teachers may overlook these supports. Additionally, while MLL guidance often appears in Preteach or Reteach sections, the materials provide little direction on how teachers should implement these strategies during the lesson sequence, reducing the likelihood that MLLs will receive timely scaffolds that build toward grade-level expectations.

Overall, the materials include some instructional supports for MLLs across the writing process, such as sentence stems, teacher modeling, and occasional reminders to review or revise writing. However, these supports are inconsistently applied, often appear only in reteach settings, and do not offer sustained or comprehensive scaffolding across all phases of writing. Key stages of the writing process—such as planning, organizing ideas, elaborating, and publishing—frequently lack MLL-specific guidance. As a result, MLLs are not consistently provided with the linguistic and conceptual supports needed to participate fully and effectively in the writing process from beginning to end.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K–2 of Open Court partially meet the expectations for providing support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in opportunities to practice evidence-based writing. While the materials provide some writing supports for MLLs, these supports are not consistently embedded within the lessons themselves. In many cases, MLL instruction appears in reteach or preteach activities rather than during the core writing instruction, which limits students’ ability to engage in authentic, evidence-based writing alongside their peers.

Across the grade band, Open Court includes lessons that integrate the writing process—such as drafting, revising, and publishing—with some additional supports for MLL students. However, these supports often appear in the English Learner Teacher's Guide rather than in the core materials, and they are not consistently aligned with the grade-level tasks. For example, in Grade K, Unit 6, Lesson 1, Day 4, Language Arts, the core lesson directs teachers to guide students in narrating an event in sequence. The English Learner Teacher's Guide provides additional support by instructing teachers to tell students that they may write stories using either words or drawings, and that all stories follow an order: first, next, and last. Teachers are guided to model writing a story through drawings and to ask Level 1 and 2 MLL students scaffolded questions such as, “Who is in your story?” and “What does that person do?” These supports offer meaningful entry points for MLLs at earlier English language proficiency levels, as they help connect oral language, sequencing, and visual storytelling. However, there are no supports within either the English Learner Teacher's Guide lesson or the core whole-class lesson for MLLs at higher proficiency levels (Levels 3 and 4), nor are there opportunities for students to extend this oral and visual sequencing into written evidence-based responses connected to shared texts. As a result, some MLLs may participate in the writing activity, but without consistent scaffolding toward grade-level writing expectations.

In Grade 1, Unit 10, Lesson 1, Day 3, after reading “Our Song and Our Flag: A National Symbol” by Amelia Gunderman, all students write one or two sentences summarizing what they learned about the Star-Spangled Banner, using correct capitalization and punctuation. However, the English Learner Teacher's Guide does not include direct support for this task. The preteach activity focuses on defining vocabulary, and the reteach activity emphasizes asking and answering questions about “Our Song and Our Flag.” While these supports promote general comprehension of the text, they do not provide the specific linguistic scaffolds multilingual learners need to fully engage in the core ELA instruction.

Overall, the materials offer intermittent opportunities for MLLs to practice evidence-based writing and ask and answer questions about key details in a text, but the level of support and alignment to grade-level instruction is inconsistent. While some lessons provide structured guidance through drawing, sequencing, or the use of checklists, these activities often occur outside the core lesson, focusing more on reteaching foundational language or mechanics than on integrating MLLs into the same evidence-based writing tasks as their peers. This results in missed opportunities to embed meaningful MLL supports within core ELA instruction—particularly since grammar and vocabulary practice are not always connected to shared reading texts or the writing prompts that accompany them. Additionally, existing scaffolds for early proficiency levels (Levels 1–2) are not consistently extended to meet the needs of more advanced MLLs (Levels 3–4), who require support in elaborating on ideas, using textual evidence, and articulating reasoning in writing.

The materials also present logistical barriers that may reduce the accessibility and consistent application of MLL supports. Many of the supports appear in a separate English Learner Guide tab or the English Learner Teacher’s Guide in the print materials, requiring teachers to navigate outside the main lesson flow to locate them. Without direct integration or prompts in the core teacher materials, there is a risk that teachers may overlook these supports. Additionally, while MLL guidance often appears in Preteach or Reteach sections, the materials provide little direction on how teachers should implement these strategies during the lesson sequence, reducing the likelihood that MLLs will receive timely scaffolds that build toward grade-level expectations.

Overall, while Open Court provides some supports to help MLL students participate in evidence-based writing activities, the materials do not consistently ensure that MLLs can engage fully and meaningfully in the writing process. Supports tend to occur as separate reteach activities rather than as embedded scaffolds within the core lessons, limiting opportunities for all MLLs to draw on shared texts, use evidence, and demonstrate comprehension through writing. To meet expectations more fully, Open Court would benefit from integrating MLL-specific supports throughout the writing lessons—particularly those that promote speaking, listening, and writing connections tied directly to the unit’s texts and writing tasks.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K–2 of Open Court partially meet the expectations for providing support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in the explicit instruction of research skills that guide shared research to develop students’ knowledge using multiple texts and source materials. While the program includes foundational supports that build background knowledge and vocabulary connected to unit themes, these supports are not consistently aligned with the inquiry-based tasks students are asked to complete. As a result, MLLs are only partially supported in developing the language needed to fully participate in shared research routines.

The materials provide structures for building thematic understanding—such as previewing unit vocabulary, discussing concepts using image cards, and reviewing key words across multiple lessons. These supports help establish content familiarity, which can lay the groundwork for participation in shared research. However, the MLL supports in the English Learner Teacher's Guide typically center on vocabulary identification, oral repetition, or comprehension checks. They do not consistently extend to the inquiry practices used in the core lessons, such as generating questions, contributing ideas to the concept/question board, or making meaning across multiple texts. As a result, the scaffolds provided do not fully equip MLLs to engage in the language functions essential for early research, such as asking questions, categorizing ideas, or describing observations based on texts.

For example, in Grade K, Unit 7, Lesson 1, Day 1, the whole class Reading and Responding lesson asks students to preview the unit and begin developing questions about plants using a concept/question board. In contrast, the corresponding English Learner Teacher's Guide support centers on preteaching thematic vocabulary. Students learn and discuss words by using EL Photo Library Cards—for instance, displaying the card for worth and connecting the word to familiar experiences. While this activity helps students build vocabulary related to the unit theme, indirectly supporting all steps in the lesson, it does not directly guide MLLs to engage in the inquiry step occurring in the core lesson. There is no support to help MLLs generate questions, articulate ideas, or use sentence frames to contribute meaningfully to the concept/question board. Because the support focuses on vocabulary rather than on the research process, MLLs cannot fully participate in the task as designed.

A similar gap appears in Grade 1, Unit 4, where the whole-class lesson engages students in an investigation about light and sound. As part of Lesson 1, Day 5, students develop ideas and questions related to the unit theme. The English Learner Teacher's Guide, however, provides only vocabulary review, defining and discussing words, reteaching vocabulary using Big Books, and building oral language through the EL Photo Library Cards. While this vocabulary is focused on words needed in the lesson, there is no guidance to help MLLs generate questions about light and sound, despite this being a central component of the ELA task. Because MLLs are not supported in using the language of inquiry—asking questions, expressing curiosity, or sharing observations—they cannot fully access the shared research process.

Across the program, supports consistently emphasize vocabulary, grammar, and oral language practice rather than the language functions tied to early research. While these activities are valuable and provide some comprehension support, they do not prepare MLLs for the key practices of shared research, such as posing questions, interpreting information from multiple texts, or collaboratively building knowledge. The materials also provide limited opportunities for MLLs to use all four language domains within research instruction. Students occasionally discuss vocabulary or listen to the teacher define terms, but there is little explicit support for reading and interpreting information for research, listening to peers’ ideas during inquiry routines, or contributing orally to shared writing of findings.

The materials also present logistical barriers that may reduce the accessibility and consistent application of MLL supports. Many of the supports appear in a separate English Learner Guide tab in the digital materials, or the English Learner Teacher’s Guide in the print materials, requiring teachers to navigate outside the main lesson flow to locate them. Without direct integration or prompts in the core teacher materials, there is a risk that teachers may overlook these supports. Additionally, while MLL guidance often appears in Preteach or Reteach sections, the materials provide little direction on how teachers should implement these strategies during the lesson sequence, reducing the likelihood that MLLs will receive timely scaffolds that build toward grade-level expectations.

Overall, the materials provide several instructional supports that build conceptual understanding and thematic knowledge, but these supports do not consistently align with the language demands of shared research. Without explicit scaffolds for question generation, meaning-making across resources, or participation in inquiry routines, MLLs cannot fully and completely participate in the research skills instruction envisioned by the standards. 

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K–2 of Open Court partially meet the expectations for providing support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in opportunities for students to apply research skills to develop knowledge of a topic by confronting and analyzing different aspects of topics. While the program offers recurring routines that build vocabulary, background knowledge, and oral language skills, these supports do not consistently help MLLs apply emerging language understandings to the inquiry and research tasks embedded in the core ELA lessons. Supports tend to focus on isolated word learning or general comprehension, rather than providing explicit bridges that help MLLs use language to generate questions, gather information, and make sense of the concepts being investigated.

Across the grade band, the materials include opportunities for all students to engage in inquiry aligned to the unit themes—such as exploring animal homes, community roles, plant growth, or light and sound. In these lessons, students are expected to ask questions, analyze examples, make observations, and discuss ideas with the teacher and peers. However, the MLL supports provided in the English Learner Teacher's Guide do not consistently prepare MLLs for these research-oriented components of the tasks. Instead, supports often emphasize thematic vocabulary, picture-based discussions, and comprehension checks that help students understand the stories or concepts introduced, but stop short of connecting this language practice to the inquiry steps required in the main ELA lesson.

For example, in Grade K, Unit 8, all students engage in an investigation about the unit theme, Animal Homes.  In Lesson 2, Day 5, Reading and Responding, the whole class discusses how the week’s selections add to their knowledge of animal homes and connect to their research. They then generate a list of questions they can ask an expert about their animal habitat. The MLL supports in the English Learner Teacher's Guide provide opportunities for vocabulary application and oral language development as students practice using thematic vocabulary through guided questions such as “What furry animal lives in a nest in a tree?” and discuss EL Photo Library Cards for burrow, change, plenty, search, and spread. These tasks help students build conceptual understanding and talk about animals and their habitats using key academic words. However, none of the support routines extend this language learning toward the research task included in the main ELA lesson—asking questions about animals and their homes, analyzing how animals modify their environments, or organizing information for the class concept/question board. As a result, MLLs may gain the vocabulary needed to discuss animal homes, but are not supported in applying that language to the inquiry work expected of all students.

A similar pattern appears in Grade 1, Unit 5, where students investigate community roles and places. In Lesson 2, Day 2, all students begin gathering information to research their questions and conjectures. The accompanying English Learner Teacher's Guide lesson provides support for defining vocabulary from “Places in Our Community” by Nicole DeSalle, clarifying information, and learning about text features. Yet these supports do not extend to the inquiry task in the main lesson, where students are expected to generate research questions about workers in their community or collect information to prepare for interviews. Because the MLL supports do not engage with the research-based expectations of the lesson, MLLs are equipped with general vocabulary knowledge but left without scaffolds to use that language for inquiry purposes.

The materials also present logistical barriers that may reduce the accessibility and consistent application of MLL supports. Many of the supports appear in a separate English Learner Guide tab in the digital materials, or the English Learner Teacher’s Guide in the print materials, requiring teachers to navigate outside the main lesson flow to locate them. Without direct integration or prompts in the core teacher materials, there is a risk that teachers may overlook these supports. Additionally, while MLL guidance often appears in Preteach or Reteach sections, the materials provide little direction on how teachers should implement these strategies during the lesson sequence, reducing the likelihood that MLLs will receive timely scaffolds that build toward grade-level expectations.

Overall, the materials provide useful routines that help MLLs build understanding through speaking, listening, reading, and vocabulary practice. These routines are aligned with thematic content and support comprehension of the unit’s anchor texts. However, they do not consistently scaffold up toward the grade-level research expectations embedded in the curriculum. In particular, the supports do not help MLLs understand what the inquiry task is asking them to do, how to participate fully (such as asking questions, gathering information, or using text features to extract details), or how to show their understanding through the required task products.

In conclusion, while Open Court K–2 provides consistent thematic vocabulary instruction and oral language routines that help MLLs understand unit concepts, which somewhat support MLL participation in unit tasks, the materials do not consistently extend these routines into the inquiry and research components expected of all students. As a result, MLLs receive partial support in participating in opportunities to apply research skills, but these supports are not sufficient to ensure full and complete participation alongside their peers.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K–2 of Open Court partially meet the expectations of intentionally developing language in ways valued by disciplinary practices over time, across lessons, units, and throughout the course. While MLL students are guided in the development of language throughout the units, there is no evidence that these lessons follow an intentional sequence that systematically builds language knowledge over the school year. As noted in the report for 2.2.MLL-2, the materials do not include a scope and sequence for language development, limiting opportunities for teachers to plan coherent language progression across units.

Across multiple lessons, students engage in explicit grammar and sentence-level instruction that supports foundational language awareness. For example, in Kindergarten Unit 3, MLLs participate in repeated reteach lessons from the English Learner Teacher's Guide focused on identifying and constructing declarative sentences. Teachers guide students through the use of EL Photo Library Cards (e.g., tiger, room, calendar, blue sky, green grass) to build complete sentences using naming, action, and describing words. Students practice recognizing capitalization, spacing, and punctuation in thematic sentences such as “Scientists measure weather,” and “Scientists watch the sky.” This recurring focus provides consistent opportunities for students to identify complete declarative sentences and begin understanding the grammatical structure of written English. However, the lessons remain teacher-led and oral; MLLs are not guided to generate or write their own sentences, limiting opportunities to move from informal oral practice to formal written production. Additionally, all of these lessons are in the English Learner Teacher's Guide and not incorporated into core ELA instruction.

The materials also provide an example of a plan for teachers to bridge informal and everyday ways of communicating with formal academic ways of communicating through writing routines, particularly in the use of the TREE graphic organizer (Topic, Reason, Explanation, Ending). For instance, in Grade 2, MLLs are introduced to the organizer during opinion writing in Unit 1 and revisit it in later units for persuasive essays. Teachers support students as they transition from orally sharing ideas to structuring written compositions using the steps of the writing process—prewriting, drafting, revising, and publishing. However, these supports are found in the English Learner Teacher's Guide as reteach lessons rather than being embedded in core instruction. As a result, while MLLs are encouraged to practice academic forms of communication, they may do so outside of the main classroom experience, reducing the extent to which language development is integrated with disciplinary learning.

The program also includes professional learning supports that touch on language use but lack classroom integration. A Professional Development video for Grade 2, “Using Formal vs. Informal Language,” models a quick classroom activity where teachers guide students in distinguishing between the two registers and practice switching between them. This video provides valuable insight into linguistic awareness; however, no corresponding lessons or follow-up tasks connect this learning to daily classroom routines or core texts, making the practice feel isolated rather than part of an intentional progression of disciplinary language instruction.

Overall, Open Court includes activities that expose MLLs to foundational grammatical structures and opportunities to engage in early disciplinary communication, such as opinion and persuasive writing. However, these supports are inconsistent across the program and often occur as reteach or supplemental lessons rather than as part of the core instructional path. The materials lack a clear plan or progression for language development across units, limiting opportunities for MLLs to build toward more formal, discipline-specific ways of using language over time. Greater intentionality in connecting oral practice, writing routines, and register awareness would strengthen coherence and ensure that MLLs can develop language in ways aligned with disciplinary learning throughout the course.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K-2 of Open Court partially meet the expectations for providing explanations of the instructional approaches of the program for MLLs and identifying research-based strategies. While the materials reference some research and describe elements of their instructional approach for MLLs, the explanations are limited, inconsistently applied, and do not provide a coherent or comprehensive account of the research base underlying the program’s design.

The materials include minimal explanation of the overarching instructional approach for supporting MLLs. In the Program Overview, MLLs are briefly mentioned under differentiated instruction; however, the guidance is general and does not identify or explain the rationale behind the strategies used. Although the program includes supports for MLLs at Levels 1–4, the materials do not describe how these levels were determined, how they align to language development frameworks, or why particular types of support are introduced at specific moments in instruction. As a result, teachers receive information about what supports exist, but not why they exist or how they reflect a research-based approach to language development.

The only substantial references to research appear in the English Learner Teacher's Guide, and even these are narrowly focused on vocabulary selection rather than on broader instructional design. For example, the Introduction to the English Learner Teacher's Guide explains that each lesson includes six to eight target vocabulary words, citing research by Lesaux, Kieffer, Faller, and Kelley, which notes that students develop only superficial word knowledge when exposed to too many vocabulary words per day. The guide also references researchers such as Biemiller, Graves, Stahl, and Nagy to clarify that broad exposure to vocabulary—while useful—is insufficient on its own for MLLs. Additionally, the guide cites the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) practice guide Teaching Academic Content and Literacy to English Learners in Elementary and Middle School as the basis for including both text-specific and academic vocabulary. These citations demonstrate some research-aligned decision-making at the word-selection level. However, they do not extend to other aspects of the program that are critical to MLLs’ language and literacy development, such as academic discourse, syntax, language functions, or the integration of the four language domains.

Beyond vocabulary, the materials do not meaningfully identify or embed research-based strategies connected to MLL instruction. The Program Overview briefly references differentiated instruction for MLLs but does not name any established frameworks, pedagogical models, or evidence-based practices that drive the materials’ instructional approach. Without a clear explanation of the instructional decisions or research foundations, teachers lack clarity around how and why the MLL supports are intended to work.

In summary, the materials reference a small number of research sources and describe limited elements of the program’s approach to supporting MLLs, primarily related to vocabulary. However, they do not offer a comprehensive or well-explained research base to guide teachers’ understanding of the program’s MLL design. As a result, the materials partially meet expectations: they offer some explanations and some research citations, but not enough to constitute a fully articulated, research-grounded instructional approach for MLLs.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K–2 of Open Court partially meet the expectations for providing teacher guidance to support MLL students and to utilize the strategies, supports, and/or accommodations found. While the materials include resources intended to assist teachers in addressing MLL needs, the guidance on using these supports is not always comprehensive or sufficiently detailed. The program includes some guidance, such as brief video demonstrations for teachers and differentiated tips embedded in lessons; however, implementation guidance is often general or limited in scope, and overall, not comprehensive. As a result, teachers, particularly those less experienced with MLL instruction, may find it difficult to fully enact the provided supports with consistency and depth.

The Teacher Guide includes program-level guidance on differentiation within the “Program Overview: Differentiated Instruction” section. Teachers are advised that as students progress through the Teach/Practice/Apply cycle, they may need additional support based on proficiency level. The overview notes that the program offers multiple ways to differentiate for MLLs and includes Differentiated Instruction Tips at the point of use within lessons, as well as an English Language Development Kit with four levels of instructional scaffolds. This structure represents a clear commitment to differentiation across student proficiency levels, providing teachers with practical entry points for support. However, while this general framework introduces the concept of responsive scaffolding, it falls short of providing lesson-specific examples that demonstrate to teachers how to anticipate language demands or adapt instruction in real-time. The guidance establishes what to differentiate but provides limited actionable information about how to do so effectively.

The Program Overview includes a section on Workshop and Differentiating Instruction, which establishes daily time for small-group or individual work. During Workshop, teachers can reteach, preteach, extend lessons, or support fluency while students engage in independent or partner practice. The program notes that workshop time “affords English Learners a wealth of opportunities for gaining proficiency in English,” encouraging teachers to use this time for linguistic pre-teaching, vocabulary development, and small-group conversation. Suggested strategies include pre-reading selections with MLLs to identify challenging vocabulary or concepts, reviewing key linguistic structures to support comprehension, and pairing MLLs with native English speakers to encourage peer language exchange. This model supports meaningful differentiation and provides explicit opportunities for MLLs to engage in guided oral language practice; however, it relies heavily on teacher expertise and classroom management skills. The guidance assumes teachers can design and facilitate productive workshop groups, but it does not provide step-by-step modeling, examples of how to adapt scaffolds by proficiency level, or guidance on monitoring MLLs’ linguistic progress during workshop activities.

In addition to the program-level supports, the English Learner Glossary offers instructional guidance connected to words found in the student materials. The glossary includes sample sentences, prompts for pantomime or demonstration, and suggestions for sentence frames that can help MLLs practice oral language. For example, the entry for breed provides three different contexts—animal types, plant hybrids, and germs—that illustrate how the word can change meaning depending on use. Similarly, the entry for blow includes modeled demonstrations and opportunities for students to repeat or act out meanings. These examples help teachers support word comprehension through multimodal practice and contextual reinforcement. However, while the glossary provides practical modeling strategies, it lacks consistent contextualization within the lessons themselves. Teachers are not shown where or how the target words appear in the student texts, making it challenging to connect vocabulary instruction to the reading materials in a meaningful way. Furthermore, not all key terms from the units are represented, leaving gaps in support for lesson-specific vocabulary development.

The program also provides some professional learning tools, such as short videos that explain how to implement vocabulary routines or use sentence stems to support MLLs. These resources offer valuable modeling for teachers, but they are limited in duration and scope, often presenting general overviews rather than in-depth demonstrations of practice. For example, a video in the Support All Learners Using Teacher Tips collection encourages teachers to pair physical actions with phonics sounds to build conceptual connections. While helpful, there is a missed opportunity here to include more explicit examples of how to extend or scaffold the activity for students at varying levels of English proficiency.

Overall, Open Court includes some useful guidance for teachers—such as leveled instructional guidance, a supportive glossary, and brief training videos—that can help them better support MLL students. However, these resources are not sufficiently comprehensive to ensure consistent implementation. Guidance is often general, with limited explanation of how to anticipate language demands, identify MLL student language moves, or respond flexibly in ways that promote both content and language growth. Additionally, the program does not provide differentiated guidance based on teacher experience, leaving both novice and veteran educators without clear direction for deepening their practice. As a result, while the materials offer a foundation for MLL support, teachers may require additional resources and professional learning to enact the strategies effectively and ensure equitable access to rigorous, language-rich instruction.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K–2 of Open Court partially meet the expectations for providing teacher guidance 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 materials include a general continuum describing the four levels of English proficiency and offer some guidance on how to differentiate instruction across these levels; however, there is minimal guidance for teachers on how to be responsive in selecting and applying linguistic supports. While some Preteach and Reteach lessons demonstrate leveled scaffolds that are responsive to student needs, this type of guidance appears inconsistently across units and lessons.

The English Learner Teacher’s Guide includes a descriptive continuum outlining four levels of English proficiency (Levels 1–4), along with general expectations for students’ receptive and productive language abilities. For example, Level 1 students are described as beginning with little receptive or productive English and producing one- or two-word responses using gestures or illustrations, while Level 4 students are described as producing compound and complex sentences and comprehending nuanced meaning. The guide explains that “this English Learner Teacher’s Guide offers support for students at all levels of English language acquisition as they learn to read, speak, and write using the core reading program.” While this description provides a helpful overview of the stages of English development, the materials do not include guidance for teachers to reliably assess students’ placement on the continuum or adjust supports as students advance. As a result, teachers are given a static framework rather than an actionable plan for monitoring and responding to language growth over time.

The materials offer some evidence of responsiveness to students’ language needs through Preteach and Reteach lessons in the English Learner Teacher’s Guide. In Grade 2, Unit 1, Lesson 1, Day 1, for example, teachers use photo cards and cognates to help students understand thematic vocabulary. The lesson differentiates support by proficiency level: students at Levels 1–2 respond using one word, gestures, or illustrations, while students at Levels 3–4 answer in complete sentences using vocabulary words in context. This type of leveled guidance offers teachers concrete ways to adjust linguistic demands based on proficiency. However, this level of specificity is not consistent throughout the materials. For example, in Kindergarten Unit 3, Lesson 3, Day 5, the Reteach activity guides teachers to review declarative sentences using sentence frames (e.g., “I like to ____.”), but no level-based differentiation or adaptation for MLLs is provided.

Overall, Open Court provides teachers with a continuum of English proficiency and some examples of how to adapt instruction to students’ language levels. However, the materials do not guide teachers on how to assess students’ language progress, nor do they offer consistent direction for adjusting supports over time. The absence of clear procedures for monitoring language development and applying appropriate scaffolds across lessons limits teachers’ ability to match supports responsively to the evolving linguistic needs of MLLs.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K-2 of Open Court partially meet the expectations for providing guidance on intentional and flexible grouping structures for MLLs and ensuring equitable participation in group work. Across the grade band, the program includes some general grouping structures; however, explicit guidance for grouping MLLs intentionally—based on language proficiency, task demands, or home-language assets—is minimal. As a result, grouping decisions for MLLs are largely left to teacher discretion without sufficient support.

The Small Group Guide that accompanies each unit provides teachers with structures for “Approaching Level,” “On Level,” “Beyond Level,” and “Inquiry” groups. However, MLL groupings are not included in the Small Group Guide. For example, in Grade 2, Unit 1, Lesson 6, Day 1, the Small Group Guide provides a representative example of grouping guidance within the program. It includes a chart that outlines groupings for “Approaching Level,” “On Level,” “Beyond Level,” and “Inquiry” groups, which teachers use to tailor instruction to meet the needs of their students. However, MLL groupings are not included, despite the existence of small-group MLL lessons in the English Learner Teacher’s Guide. Without explicit reference to these MLL lessons in the Small Group Guide, teachers may overlook the needs of MLLs when forming small groups.

Additional guidance for forming small groups can be found in the Assessment Handbook, specifically in the Diagnose section. The handbook explains that Lesson and Benchmark Assessments can be used to form skill-based groups and states: “Lessons from the English Learner Teacher’s Guide are available for students who are having difficulty with the concepts because they lack the necessary English language background.” While it acknowledges MLLs, the guidance remains limited because no specific guidance is provided to match MLLs with English proficiency levels used in the English Learner Teacher’s Guide.  Further, teachers are not directed on how to group students by proficiency, home language, or the linguistic demands of the lesson. Finally, grouping decisions remain primarily content-understanding rather than language-focused.

The Program Overview, Workshop and Differentiated Instruction section provides the only broader grouping guidance that references MLLs. The text suggests grouping students based on shared interests rather than ability, noting: “Since you will be working with all students individually and in small groups regardless of their reading ability and language level, students who need special help with language will not feel self-conscious about working with you.” While this acknowledges MLLs, it does not provide instructional guidance on how to intentionally group students for language development, leverage home-language resources, match grouping structures to disciplinary tasks, or ensure equitable participation during complex instructional routines.  

Finally, the English Learner Teacher’s Guide includes descriptions of four stages of English proficiency (Levels 1–4). These descriptions may help teachers conceptualize MLL development, but there is no connection between proficiency levels and suggested grouping structures; no placement tools or proficiency assessments are provided, and guidance on how to group students by proficiency—or when to group heterogeneously or homogeneously—is missing. Thus, while the proficiency continuum is present, it is not instructionally actionable in terms of grouping.

Overall, the materials include some generalized grouping ideas, such as Workshop flexibility and references to differentiated instruction, and they offer descriptions of English proficiency levels in the English Learner Teacher’s Guide. However, across the grade band, the materials lack explicit guidance for forming intentional, flexible, and equitable grouping structures that specifically support multilingual learners. Opportunities to guide teachers in grouping students based on language proficiency, home language, or linguistic task demands are consistently missed. As a result, grouping structures do not fully ensure equitable participation for MLLs.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K–2 of Open Court partially meet the criteria of providing guidance to encourage teachers to draw upon student home language to facilitate learning. While the materials include occasional linguistic notes and general reminders about differences between English and other languages, these supports are minimal and inconsistently integrated across lessons. As a result, the program does not fully leverage students’ home languages as assets in learning, nor does it provide teachers with meaningful or actionable guidance for incorporating home language knowledge into instruction.

The materials include some limited references to linguistic differences between English and other languages, but these rarely position home languages as meaningful resources for learning. For example, in Grade 1, Unit 9, Lesson 1, Day 3, the English Learner Teacher’s Guide includes a section on Linguistic Considerations that explains: “In some languages, such as Cantonese, Khmer, Mandarin, and Vietnamese, verb tense is indicated through context or by adding an expression of time. Tense inflections do not exist. Be on the alert for speakers of these languages, and remind them, in their speaking and writing, that tense is usually indicated through endings added to the verb. Model how to say and write verbs correctly when necessary. Refer to the Contrastive Analysis Chart for Speakers of Other Languages: Grammar in the Appendix for more information.” While this note identifies structural differences between English and several home languages, it positions these differences as deficits to be corrected rather than as linguistic strengths students bring to the classroom. The guidance does not suggest ways teachers might use students’ home language knowledge to support understanding, nor does it provide multilingual resources such as glossaries, visual vocabulary supports, or translation tools. As a result, the reference functions more as a warning than as asset-based guidance, limiting its utility for encouraging teachers to draw upon students’ home languages to facilitate learning.

In other cases, the materials miss opportunities entirely. Within the Professional Development resources for Grade 1, the video “Reinforcing Dialectical Variations Using Sound/Spelling Cards” discusses distinctions such as the difference between pin and pen, but does not address dialects, phonological features, or linguistic patterns common among MLLs. The absence of any mention of languages other than English represents a missed opportunity to validate and build upon the linguistic diversity students bring to early literacy instruction. Without explicit guidance for teachers on how students’ home languages—whether through vocabulary overlap, shared linguistic structures, or culturally grounded language patterns—can support ELA learning, teachers are left without tools to make meaningful cross-linguistic connections.

Overall, while Open Court includes occasional notes comparing English with other languages, these instances are sparse, inconsistent, and framed around correcting differences rather than using students’ linguistic resources strategically in instruction. The materials do not include guidance on learning about students’ language backgrounds, family language preferences, or prior schooling experiences in other languages. Nor do they offer strategies for incorporating students’ home languages into reading, vocabulary, or early writing tasks. As a result, the program only partially meets the expectations for this indicator, missing substantial opportunities to present multilingualism as an asset and to support teachers in drawing upon students’ home languages to strengthen learning.