3rd-5th Grade - Multilingual Learner Supports

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 3–5 of Open Court partially meet the expectations of amplifying rather than simplifying texts while maintaining complexity to provide access for MLLs without watering down texts. The materials amplify texts in some places, primarily through background-building routines and vocabulary pre-teaching. Yet, these supports are inconsistent, limited in scope, and not sufficiently connected to the linguistic demands of complex texts. As a result, multilingual learners receive only partial support when engaging with grade-level texts, and many of the complexities inherent in the selections remain unaddressed.

Unlike the core ELA materials, which offer teacher scripting, stopping points, and differentiated comprehension strategies aligned to the demands of the text, the MLL scaffolds remain surface-level and rely heavily on background building and isolated vocabulary practice. These supports do not extend into targeted linguistic scaffolds that would help students make sense of complex sentence structures, genre shifts, or disciplinary vocabulary while reading or during deeper post-reading analysis. Although the program acknowledges text complexity, the supports provided for MLLs do not fully correspond to that complexity, hindering MLL access to the full range of meaning-making opportunities offered by the texts.

For example, in Grade 5, Unit 2, Lesson 1, Day 2, for the selection “Monsoons: From Myth to Modern Science” by Elaine David, the English Learner Teacher’s Guide includes a Pre-teach: Build Background routine in which the teacher introduces Vietnam’s location, rural communities, and the text’s shift from myth to informational writing. These before-reading supports help orient MLLs to the topic and genre. However, no additional scaffolds are provided during or after reading—despite the text’s abstract concepts, myth-to-fact transition, and specialized disciplinary vocabulary. The lack of instructional moves to support students in navigating these complexities limits MLLs’ ability to engage deeply with the text and prevents the materials from amplifying the language demands embedded in the reading.

Similarly, in Grade 3, Unit 4, Lesson 4, Day 1, Reading and Responding, the English Learner Teacher’s Guide offers another limited pre-teaching routine under Preteach: Present Vocabulary for the text “Amazing Animals.” The routine presents target vocabulary, such as advantage, defenses, flexible, predator, and trait, and directs students to pronounce the words and look for them in the text. An EL tip embedded in the core lesson also draws attention to Spanish cognates. While these supports help familiarize students with vocabulary from the text, they do not address the full range of language demands of the text identified by the program itself, such as long, information-dense sentences, embedded clauses, and scientific concepts that require linguistic unpacking. The supports do not show teachers how to amplify sentence structures, guide students’ analysis of how ideas are linked across paragraphs, or support comprehension of unfamiliar scientific processes.

Across the program, MLL supports appear inconsistently and focus mainly on pre-teaching vocabulary or providing context before reading. There is no evidence of text engineering or deliberate amplification of language structures to preserve text complexity while making disciplinary language more transparent. Nor do the materials offer multimodal supports—such as modeled annotation, sentence deconstruction, or structured partner talk—that would allow MLLs to make meaning of complex texts during reading. Instead, MLLs are often left without guidance during the moments of highest cognitive load, resulting in missed opportunities to support meaning-making in ways that maintain textual rigor.

In summary, while the materials include some background-building and vocabulary supports for MLLs, the materials do not consistently amplify language or provide scaffolds tailored to the linguistic demands of complex texts. The lack of text engineering, limited focus on vocabulary, and absence of robust during- and after-reading supports prevent MLLs from fully accessing grade-level texts. As a result, the materials only partially meet expectations for this indicator.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 3–5 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, these supports sometimes do not allow MLLs to fully and completely participate in the ELA task because they are simplified or diverge from the academic intent of the core instruction.

The materials provide strategies and supports that encourage MLL participation in text-based questions and tasks, but these supports do not consistently promote engagement in the higher-order thinking expected of all students. For example, in Grade 5, Unit 6, Lesson 2, Day 2, Reading and Responding, students in the core lesson engage in a second read of “The Storyteller” by Saki, focusing on making inferences to understand connections among events, characters, and situations. The teacher prompts students to connect background knowledge with textual evidence to infer meaning (e.g., “What inference can you make here?”). In contrast, the corresponding supports in the English Learner Teacher’s Guide direct MLL students to clarify unfamiliar words or phrases using sentence frames such as “I need help. What does _____ mean?” Although this support develops vocabulary awareness, which could provide some support to MLLs in participating in tasks about the text, it emphasizes clarification over inferencing—the key comprehension skill targeted in the main lesson. Consequently, MLLs practice a related but less complex task and are not guided toward the inferential reasoning expected of their peers.

A similar pattern occurs in Grade 3, Unit 2, Lesson 5, Day 4, Reading and Responding. The whole-class lesson engages students in a close reread of “Hot Enough to Fry an Egg” by Raymond Huber to analyze genre knowledge and text features. However, the corresponding support in the English Learner Teacher's Guide focuses on vocabulary practice and factual recall. MLL students respond to questions such as “What causes the water in the desert to evaporate?” or “Why can mirages be dangerous in the desert?” differentiated by proficiency level through sentence frames or visuals. While these tasks promote oral language practice and comprehension of content words, which could provide some support to MLLs in participating in tasks related to the text, they do not align with the analytic goal of examining how text features contribute to meaning. As a result, MLLs’ engagement is limited to vocabulary reinforcement rather than full participation in grade-level literary analysis.

The materials also present structural barriers that may reduce the accessibility and consistent application of MLL supports. Many MLL resources appear in a separate English Learner Guide tab or the English Learner Teacher’s Guide in the print materials, requiring teachers to navigate away from the core lesson to locate them. If teachers overlook this additional component, MLL-specific supports may go unused. Moreover, guidance for implementing Preteach and Reteach scaffolds lacks explicit direction on when and how to integrate them within the daily instructional flow. This lack of embedded, task-specific guidance can result in inconsistent application of supports and reduced opportunities for MLLs to build toward grade-level expectations across all lessons.

Overall, Open Court provides structured and differentiated supports to assist MLLs in engaging with text-based questions and tasks; however, these supports are inconsistently aligned with the cognitive and analytical demands of the ELA program. The MLL activities often emphasize vocabulary clarification and literal understanding rather than inferential and interpretive analysis. The separation of supports into supplemental materials and the limited guidance for integration diminish the consistency and depth of MLL engagement, preventing students from fully and equitably participating in text-based comprehension and analysis across Grades 3–5.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 3–5 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 some 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 regularly includes preteach and reteach opportunities, these supports often emphasize skill practice or concept review rather than directly reinforcing the lesson’s analytical or meaning-making goals.

For example, in Grade 3, Unit 1, Lesson 5, Day 4, in the whole class lesson, students explore how authors use figurative language and vivid word choices to create sensory imagery while reading “The Prairie Fire” by Marilynn Reynolds. The accompanying lesson in the English Learner Teacher's Guide includes a reteach lesson on identifying main ideas and details in the text Hatchet by Gary Paulson. Teachers are guided to model finding the main idea and supporting details, record them in a graphic organizer, and help MLL students use sentence frames to produce complete sentences that restate the main idea and details. While this lesson provides structured language practice and supports comprehension at the paragraph level, the English Learner Teacher's Guide support activity focuses on literal understanding rather than prompting students to make deeper text connections, which is the goal of the ELA lesson. As a result, MLLs receive partial support for participating in the broader analytical task.

Similarly, in Grade 4, Unit 5, Lesson 3, Day 3, during the whole-class lesson, students identify main ideas and supporting details from “Our Constitution: Blueprint for Government” by William Bale by analyzing topic sentences and completing a class graphic organizer. The accompanying lesson in the English Learner Teacher's Guide offers a reteach lesson on identifying cause-and-effect relationships in “Our Constitution: A Blueprint for Government.” Teachers model how to record causes and effects using a graphic organizer and sentence frames such as “________ because ______.” Differentiated prompts are provided for lower proficiency levels, including either/or questions to support comprehension (e.g., “Is the cause that the colonists did not want to be ruled by the king or that the colonists went to war against England?”). While this lesson supports students in understanding text relationships, it focuses on identifying isolated cause-and-effect pairs rather than guiding MLLs to synthesize these relationships into a broader understanding of the main idea, which is the stated goal of the whole-class ELA lesson.

Across lessons, Open Court offers regular opportunities for MLLs to engage in listening, speaking, reading, and writing tasks through structured routines such as preteach, reteach, and guided practice. These routines build access to key vocabulary and concepts, yet they often operate in parallel to rather than integrated within the core instructional sequence. As a result, language supports do not always scaffold toward the analytical or evaluative dimensions of comprehension that the lessons intend to develop.

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 Teacher's Guide tab, 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 consistent routines in the English Learner Teacher's Guide provide an access point for MLLs to engage with lesson content, the supports would be strengthened by more intentional alignment with the main ELA tasks to ensure MLLs’ full and complete participation in developing their ability to comprehend, analyze, and evaluate complex ideas across texts.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 3–5 of Open Court partially meet the expectations for supporting MLLs’ full and complete participation in evidence-based discussions about the texts they are reading. While the English Learner Teacher's Guide provides opportunities for MLLs to respond to text-based questions, these supports do not consistently promote full participation in higher-level discussion tasks such as interpreting the author’s intent, analyzing textual evidence, or engaging with peers’ ideas. In many lessons, MLL supports focus primarily on literal comprehension or recall rather than the interpretive and collaborative aspects of academic discourse.

For example, in Grade 4, Unit 5, Lesson 1, Day 2, Reading and Responding, the English Learner Teacher's Guide includes a Preteach: Discuss the Selection activity designed to help students engage in discussion about the text. Students answer factual questions about the reading, such as “What is Paul Revere looking for in the Old North Church tower?” and “What large ship does Paul Revere see in the water?” The leveled supports guide teachers to reread and point to illustrations for beginning English learners (Levels 1–2) or have students look for answers in the text (Levels 3–4). If students respond incorrectly, the materials direct teachers to provide the correct answer so that students can repeat it. While this sequence supports comprehension and vocabulary reinforcement, it does not scaffold students toward inferential reasoning or the kind of interpretive talk emphasized in the main ELA discussion. 

Similarly, in Grade 3, Unit 3, Lesson 2, Day 1, Reading and Responding, the English Learner Teacher's Guide provides a Preteach: Discuss the Selection activity for “The Harlem Renaissance” by Matthew Gollub. Students answer factual questions, including “What were the names of the laws that took away basic rights from African Americans in the South?” and “What kinds of books did Langston Hughes and Countee Cullen publish?” These questions help build background knowledge and reinforce key details; however, the activity does not include scaffolds that extend to inferential or collaborative discussions. MLLs are supported in identifying information but not in interpreting or comparing ideas, agreeing or disagreeing with peers, or explaining reasoning—language functions central to evidence-based discourse.

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.

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 the materials provide structured supports that strengthen MLLs’ recall and background knowledge, providing an access point for structured academic discussions, they do not consistently embed the discourse scaffolds necessary for higher-order interpretation and discussion. 

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 3–5 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 words to build knowledge within and across texts. Vocabulary instruction is embedded throughout lessons and includes opportunities for students to hear, define, and apply new words in relevant contexts. However, supports for MLLs are not consistently comprehensive or integrated across all lessons. While the materials provide structured routines for introducing and practicing vocabulary, the level of guidance and linguistic scaffolding varies, which may limit MLLs’ ability to fully participate in grade-level vocabulary work alongside their peers.

In Grade 4, Unit 2, Lesson 1, Day 2: Reading and Responding, teachers introduce the Concept Vocabulary word innovation and provide a definition before students discuss the word in context. This explicit instruction helps MLLs by clearly defining the word, connecting meaning to use, and embedding it in meaningful discourse before students encounter it in the reading. The sequencing—teaching the vocabulary prior to reading—supports comprehension and allows MLLs to focus on understanding how the term functions within the text. In this case, the instructional design is supportive. However, the accompanying lesson in the English Learner Teacher's Guide, which focuses on pre-teaching vocabulary, does not include the word innovation in its list of targeted vocabulary words. This disconnect could lead to confusion for both teachers and students as to which vocabulary to target and in what way, decreasing the effectiveness of both strategies and lessening MLLs' engagement in grade-level work.

Similarly, Grade 5, Unit 2, Lesson 1, Day 3: Foundational Skills introduces students to the concept of base words and how suffixes can form new words. Students work with examples such as observe, study, norm, and commerce to create derived forms. In the English Learner Teacher's Guide, this lesson appears as a reteach activity, where MLLs define and use the same set of words in sentences, with differentiated supports available across proficiency levels. Although this follow-up offers practice, it occurs after the main lesson rather than during core instruction, limiting opportunities for MLLs to engage alongside their peers in real time. The EL support provided in the Developing Oral Language activity within the core lesson introduces an idiom (made history) and highlights cognates (e.g., observante, estudiante, normal, comercial), which provide some linguistic access. However, these supports are not integrated with the primary vocabulary routine, which focuses on morphological awareness. As a result, while MLLs gain some comprehension, the scaffolds do not adequately address the key vocabulary skills taught in the lesson or ensure their full participation in the whole class's academic language work.

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.

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 Core ELA provides a consistent structure for vocabulary instruction, including teacher modeling, discussion, and application of new words. However, the implementation of MLL supports is uneven. At times, the materials introduce strategies for general vocabulary learning, but these are not always extended to ensure full integration for MLLs within the same instructional sequence as their peers. In some cases, guidance for teachers directs vocabulary instruction to occur separately or in supplemental contexts rather than during the main lesson, which can limit authentic opportunities for MLLs to practice language in meaningful, content-connected ways.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 3–5 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. While the materials include vocabulary routines and opportunities for word practice, supports for MLLs are not consistently aligned to lesson content or fully designed to promote mastery of vocabulary use in context.

In Grade 4, Unit 6, Lesson 1, Day 2, Reading and Responding, students use the Word Analysis strategy (see 2l report for details) to study the prefix un- in unusual, drawn from the day’s text. They also use context clues to determine the meanings of drift, cradle, lumberjack, towering, and border through the Selection Vocabulary Routine. While this routine offers a structured process for all students to analyze and apply new words, supports for MLLs are limited. The materials direct teachers to use Routine 6: Selection Vocabulary to review key words with MLLs, asking students to identify antonyms for disrespect, gathering, and competition. However, this activity does not explicitly connect to the text or extend practice to ensure comprehension and application in speaking and writing. As a result, MLLs may complete the task without developing a deeper understanding of the words’ meanings or their usage in authentic contexts.

Similarly, on Day 3 of the same lesson sequence, students respond to Text Connections questions in their notebooks using evidence from the text. Although this provides an opportunity to reinforce new vocabulary through writing, the materials do not prompt students to integrate or reuse the academic vocabulary they have been learning. The lesson includes no MLL-specific supports or scaffolds that could help MLLs apply vocabulary in context. Without structured opportunities to revisit and meaningfully use these words, MLLs are less likely to internalize them for independent reading and writing tasks.

The materials also include MLL routines differentiated by proficiency level (Levels 1–4); however, these supports typically appear only in pre-teaching sections that are presented in the separate English Learner Teacher's Guide. If teachers do not have time to complete the pre-teach routines before instruction, MLLs—especially those at lower proficiency levels—may enter lessons without sufficient background knowledge or vocabulary access. Additionally, some lessons introduce new words for only one or two days before embedding them in reading and writing tasks without providing follow-up practice or reinforcement, which can hinder retention and comprehension.

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 Teacher's Guide tab, 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 practicing independent word-learning strategies and developing vocabulary. While the materials include routines for introducing and analyzing vocabulary, support for MLLs is inconsistent, often limited to isolated activities and not fully integrated into reading, discussion, or writing tasks. As a result, MLLs have uneven opportunities to build, apply, and sustain new academic vocabulary across lessons and units.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 3–5 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. While the materials include explicit grammar and sentence-composition lessons across the grade levels, MLL supports are provided for some, but not all, of these lessons. In many cases, the included supports do not provide enough scaffolding to ensure full access to the task or complete participation in connected writing activities.

For example, in Grade 3, Unit 3, Lesson 3, Day 3, Language Arts, the core lesson on Compound Sentences and Conjunctions includes guidance for teachers for MLLs. In addition to the four model sentences in the main lesson, the MLL support provides two extra sentence pairs for students to join into compound sentences.

• “Sonia forgot her lunch. Dad will bring it to school.”

• “Malik loved that book. He didn’t think the movie was very good.”

The English Learner Teacher's Guide also offers a reteach lesson with three compound sentence examples and includes linguistic guidance for teachers about subject–verb order differences between English and Korean, referencing the Contrastive Analysis Chart for Speakers of Other Languages: Grammar in the Appendix. These additions provide valuable linguistic context and opportunities for targeted practice. However, the lack of accompanying visual or conceptual supports, may limit MLLs’ comprehension of the examples. Without additional supports to illustrate meaning, MLLs may struggle to connect the abstract grammar rule to real-world usage.

In contrast, in Grade 4, Unit 1, Lesson 4, Day 2, Language Arts, no MLL supports are included in the core lesson or in the English Learner Teacher's Guide.  The materials direct teachers to explain that “an adverb is a word that modifies a verb, an adjective, or another adverb.” The lesson includes examples such as quietly, tomorrow, and outside to show how adverbs describe how, when, or where an action occurs. While the materials provide clear modeling of the concept, the lack of MLL support limits their engagement with the task. Furthermore, while students are later prompted to “use adverbs” during their opinion writing, no additional guidance is provided to support language development or skill transfer. As a result, MLLs receive explicit instruction on the concept but lack the targeted scaffolds necessary to apply it in writing.

While Open Court includes explicit instruction in grammar and sentence composition, the MLL supports are inconsistently aligned with the core lessons. Some lessons include valuable linguistic notes or additional practice sentences, but many omit visual or semantic scaffolds that would help MLLs access both meaning and form. 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 highlight cross-linguistic differences that may influence sentence construction. However, this guidance is not consistently integrated into daily lessons.

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 Teacher's Guide tab, 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 partial and uneven support for MLLs’ participation in sentence-composition instruction. Although the program includes clear, structured grammar lessons, the lack of consistent, aligned MLL scaffolds—such as visual supports, modeled examples, and opportunities for language application in writing—limits MLLs’ ability to fully engage in learning and producing grammatically complete and meaningful sentences at grade level.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 3–5 of Open Court partially meet the expectations for supporting MLLs’ full and complete participation in sentence composition practice and editing of their own writing, appropriate for their grade level. While some supports are present, they are inconsistent and often unevenly distributed across proficiency levels. The English Learner Teacher's Guide provides more explicit guidance for higher-proficiency MLLs than for students at beginning levels, limiting opportunities for those students to engage in meaningful sentence construction and revision of their own writing.

In some lessons, the English Learner Teacher's Guide provides reteach activities aligned to the core writing task, offering MLLs opportunities to participate in editing or revising with structured teacher support. For example, in Grade 4, Unit 6, Lesson 1, Day 3, Language Arts, students revise their letter of request. The teacher models how to revise a sample letter and directs students to use the checklist in Skills Practice 2 to revise and edit their own letter. The Editing/Proofreading section of the checklist asks:

• “Did you use proofreading symbols when editing?

• Did you check for mistakes in capitalization and punctuation in the addresses?

• Did you punctuate the opening and closing of your letter correctly?

• Did you check the writing for misspelled words?

• Did you eliminate all contractions?”

While there are no MLL supports embedded in the core lesson, the English Learner Teacher's Guide includes a reteach lesson that mirrors the editing focus. Teachers are guided to facilitate peer editing sessions, allowing students additional time to complete and revise their letters. For students at lower proficiency levels, however, the reteach activity replaces the editing process with a cloze-copy task in which students complete and handwrite sentences from a pre-written model letter provided in the Appendix. The lesson concludes by prompting teachers to “review letters to verify that students are using polite, formal language.” While this approach exposes MLLs at lower English proficiency levels to formal writing conventions, it does not allow them to practice editing their own authentic drafts, thereby reducing opportunities for language production and the application of new writing skills.

In other lessons, MLL supports are entirely absent from both the core materials and the English Learner Teacher's Guide, leaving gaps in access to key sentence-composition and editing practice. For instance, in Grade 5, Unit 4, Lesson 3, Day 2, Language Arts, students learn about punctuation in dialogue. They practice inserting commas and quotation marks in guided examples and then write their own sentences with dialogue. However, no MLL-specific scaffolds or reteach lessons accompany this activity. Without visual models, sentence frames, or targeted guidance, MLLs may struggle to internalize the conventions of punctuating dialogue, which rely on precise syntax and understanding of sentence boundaries—skills that often require explicit linguistic modeling for MLLs.

Some lessons show partial alignment between MLL reteach supports and the core writing process, but do not provide equitable access for all language proficiency levels. In Grade 3, Unit 3, Lesson 5, Days 1–4, Language Arts, students progress through the full writing cycle as they plan, draft, revise, and share a fantasy story. The core lessons emphasize narrative elements, including setting, characters, and plot. While no MLL supports appear in the core materials, the English Learner Teacher's Guide provides a reteach sequence for each day. MLLs at higher English proficiency levels are guided through the same fantasy-writing process as their peers, but lower-proficiency MLLs complete a fantasy cloze passage from the Appendix and rewrite it in their own handwriting before editing. No visuals or language frames accompany the task, and no opportunity is given for original story creation. As a result, higher-proficiency MLLs receive meaningful support aligned to the grade-level activity, while lower-proficiency students engage in disconnected, limited-language exercises that do not build toward independent composition or revision.

Across the grade band, the lack of alignment between core writing lessons and MLL supports reduces the consistency and quality of sentence-level writing instruction for MLLs. In some reteach lessons, students engage in language-building activities that reinforce conventions or sentence structure, but these are often disconnected from the authentic writing tasks of their peers. In other instances, supports are missing entirely, leaving MLLs without structured opportunities to practice or apply revision skills. Lower-proficiency students in particular are often given simplified substitution or copying exercises rather than authentic composition and editing experiences that would build transferable writing proficiency.

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 Teacher's Guide tab, 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 3–5 partially meet expectations for supporting MLLs’ full participation in sentence composition and editing. The English Learner Teacher's Guide includes some relevant reteach activities and linguistic considerations, but these are inconsistently integrated into the main instructional flow. To better support all MLLs, the materials would benefit from ensuring that MLLs—especially those at lower proficiency levels—have structured opportunities to write, revise, and edit their own authentic texts, with scaffolds that promote increasing independence rather than substitution tasks.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 3–5 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 supports that address key steps of the writing process, these supports are inconsistently implemented and are not always aligned with the core writing instruction. The result is that MLLs may not have consistent opportunities to engage fully and equitably in grade-level writing tasks.

In some lessons, the materials provide explicit modeling and guided writing activities that give MLLs some access to the writing process. For example, in Grade 3, Unit 4, Lesson 2, Day 5, Language Arts, students review a model of an informative research report in the Language Arts Handbook, which demonstrates effective organization and structure. Teachers remind students that a good informative text includes a topic sentence, at least three facts related to the topic with explanations, and a conclusion. The model report connects to the unit’s broader theme of Animals and Their Habitats while allowing students to explore a topic of personal interest. The English Learner Teacher's Guide adds a reteach lesson that includes modeling of an idea web to help students generate and organize their ideas before writing. The lesson also provides a separate activity on writing abbreviations. While this reteach lesson offers useful language practice, it is not directly tied to the primary writing goal of developing a research report. Modeling how to create an idea web as part of pre-writing, however, is a valuable scaffold that helps MLLs organize information and begin the writing process more effectively.

In other lessons, supports for MLLs are not adequately aligned to the demands of the writing task. For example, in Grade 4, Unit 5, Lesson 1, Language Arts, students write a persuasive essay on one of several topics, such as laws, the environment, or technology. Over several days, the core lessons guide students through the prewriting, drafting, revising, and editing processes. The teacher models how to brainstorm ideas, plan using the TREE graphic organizer (see 2p report for details), and revise during peer writing conferences. However, in the English Learner Teacher's Guide, the corresponding support lesson focuses on defining vocabulary words such as liberty and independence using EL Photo Library Cards 265 and 273. The EL Photo Library Cards highlight key vocabulary in each unit, including a photo, an English definition, and translations in ten different languages. The lesson directs teachers to review the sentences “I enjoy my independence. I am free and self-reliant,” and to explain the suffix -ence as meaning “state or quality of.” While this vocabulary development is important, it is disconnected from the persuasive essay writing task that students are working on in the core lesson. MLLs receive no specific guidance on how to use this vocabulary in their writing, how to develop arguments, or how to organize ideas to support a claim. As a result, they miss the opportunity to apply new language in a meaningful academic context.

Across grades 3–5, Open Court provides some opportunities for MLLs to participate in the writing process through prewriting tools, reteach lessons, and grammar or vocabulary support. However, these supports are frequently placed in preteach or reteach contexts rather than integrated into the main writing instruction. This structure isolates MLLs from the central learning experience, as they may spend instructional time on prerequisite skills rather than on engaging in the same writing tasks as their peers. The materials also lack targeted supports for intermediate and advanced MLLs (Levels 3 and 4), who may need scaffolds that move beyond word- and sentence-level skills to focus on developing ideas, using text evidence, and refining organization and style.

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.

Additionally, many of the supports provided in the English Learner Teacher's Guide focus on discrete language skills—such as word definitions or suffixes—rather than on the broader writing competencies required for different genres, including informative, narrative, and persuasive writing. While vocabulary instruction supports comprehension, it does not fully equip students to plan, draft, or revise extended pieces of writing. The limited attention to language functions tied to writing (e.g., explaining, arguing, or describing) means that MLLs have few opportunities to apply newly learned vocabulary and structures in authentic written communication.

Overall, the Open Court Grades 3–5 materials provide some supports that MLLs need to participate in varied writing processes; however, these supports are inconsistent and often misaligned with the central writing tasks. Preteach and reteach lessons provide valuable practice with grammar and vocabulary, but do not substitute for consistent, embedded scaffolding during the main writing instruction. Without integration of language supports throughout each stage of the writing process—planning, drafting, revising, and editing—MLLs may struggle to access the full rigor of grade-level writing and to develop the linguistic skills necessary for academic success.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 3–5 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 provide some strategies and supports designed to assist MLLs through the writing process; however, these supports are inconsistent, often limited to reteach structures, and do not consistently appear at the point of use during core writing instruction. As a result, MLLs do not receive full access to the whole writing process, nor the sustained scaffolding needed to participate in grade-level writing tasks alongside their peers.

Some lessons include support structures that help MLLs engage in components of the writing process, but these supports frequently occur outside the main instructional arc. For example, in Grade 4, Unit 6, Lesson 3, Day 2, Language Arts, during the whole-class lesson, students begin planning their historical fiction piece using a Graphic Organizer Routine to think through the main character, conflict, and story elements after the teacher has modeled it. The accompanying reteach lesson in the English Learner Teacher's Guide prompts teachers to tell students that they “will continue to plan the drafts of their historical fiction,” then display and model completion of a blank graphic organizer. The teacher narrates the thought process for planning a narrative, including introducing the main character and conflict, developing rising action, creating a climax, and crafting an ending, and reminds students to develop their characters. While this modeling and use of sentence frames can support MLLs in understanding narrative structure, it appears only in the Reteach block, not within the whole-group instruction that their peers receive. As a result, MLLs planning their stories are working on different components of the writing process—such as rising action, climax, and resolution—at a different time from their peers and disconnected from the core instruction. This limits their opportunity to participate fully and synchronously in the writing process as intended for all students.

Across the writing process, supports for MLLs appear intermittently and rarely address all necessary phases of writing. For example, in Grade 3, Unit 6, Lesson 2, Day 2, Language Arts, during the whole-class lesson, students begin drafting their narratives in the genre of their choice after the teacher has modeled.  In the accompanying English Learner Teacher's Guide Reteach lesson, MLLs review how to write a narrative using the WWW-H2-W2 graphic organizer. The teacher reviews key narrative elements (characters, setting, plot, conflict, resolution) and prompts students to analyze a familiar story in order to complete the organizer. While this modeling helps clarify the components of narrative writing, the support again appears in a reteach setting. MLLs who rely on this reteach block may not have received adequate access to the initial whole-group instruction or may encounter delays in beginning their own drafts while peers move forward. Because many of the MLL supports are dependent on preteach/reteach routines rather than integrated into core instruction, opportunities for these students to engage meaningfully in drafting, revising, or developing ideas at the same depth as their classmates are reduced.

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.

While the materials provide occasional modeling, sentence stems, and reminders for teachers to support Levels 1 and 2 MLLs as they revise or recheck their work, these supports do not span the full writing process and rarely include targeted linguistic scaffolds aligned to grade-level writing tasks. The reliance on reteach structures places the burden on teachers to deliver necessary scaffolds at the right time, leaving significant portions of the writing process—such as idea generation, planning, revising, and publishing—without consistent or fully developed support. Overall, although the materials offer some strategies that can help MLLs access parts of the writing process, these supports are uneven and inconsistently applied across units and lessons, meaning MLLs may not receive the comprehensive, embedded scaffolding required to fully participate in grade-level writing tasks from start to finish.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 3–5 of Open Court partially meet the expectations for providing support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in opportunities to practice evidence-based writing. While there are meaningful opportunities for students to engage in text-based writing throughout the program, MLL-specific supports are not uniformly implemented. Most supports are located in the English Learner Teacher's Guide rather than embedded in the core lessons. They are designed as preteach or reteach activities rather than real-time scaffolds that would enable MLLs to fully engage in grade-level, evidence-based writing tasks alongside their peers.

Throughout the materials, Open Court provides opportunities for all students to write about texts, analyze character actions, and express opinions using textual evidence. However, MLL supports often occur before or after the core instruction rather than during it, limiting MLLs’ access to authentic evidence-based writing practice. For example, in Grade 3, Unit 1, Lesson 1, Day 2, Language Arts, all students write a paragraph describing Robinson Crusoe’s cleverness and creativity, using textual evidence and details about his actions and thoughts to support their conclusions. In the accompanying English Learner Teacher's Guide, a reteach lesson titled Opinion Essay Prewrite guides teachers to introduce students to a simple graphic organizer labeled TREE—Topic Sentence, Reason, Explanation, and Ending. MLL students are directed to identify one reason for their opinion and add an explanation. While this organizer provides valuable structure for students developing writing fluency, it functions as a preteach or parallel activity rather than a scaffold embedded within the text-based writing lesson. As a result, MLLs may gain procedural understanding of essay elements without directly connecting those elements to evidence from Robinson Crusoe. Embedding this kind of support within the lesson itself would enable MLLs to apply the organizer directly to the text, thereby strengthening both comprehension and writing simultaneously.

Similarly, in Grade 4, Unit 5, Lesson 3, Day 4, Reading and Responding, the core lesson tasks students with writing a petition requesting a change in a state or federal law. The assignment requires them to cite evidence from “Our Constitution” to ensure that their proposed law aligns with constitutional principles. This activity presents a valuable opportunity for MLLs to engage in evidence-based writing that connects textual analysis to civic understanding. However, the English Learner Teacher's Guide provides a separate activity focused on editing and proofreading nonfiction responses. Students use a checklist to identify capitalization and punctuation errors and are encouraged to trade papers with a partner for peer review. Level 1 and 2 MLLs are guided to check their work against a provided cloze model rather than their original writing, while no differentiation is offered for Level 3 or 4 learners. While the editing checklist supports foundational writing mechanics, it does not align with the higher-order skills required in the main lesson, such as citing evidence from the Constitution or constructing a persuasive argument. The result is a disconnect between the MLL supports and the evidence-based writing expectations of the unit. This inconsistency makes it difficult for MLLs to meaningfully participate in the same analytical writing process as their peers, especially those working toward grade-level proficiency in citing and explaining textual evidence.

Across Grades 3–5, there are consistent missed opportunities to embed language scaffolds and writing supports within the main lesson flow. Although the program includes rubrics, checklists, and graphic organizers, these tools are not always paired with explicit guidance for teachers on how to support MLLs in using them to interpret text or to construct written responses supported by evidence. Many of the MLL supports that do exist emphasize grammar or vocabulary rather than sentence- and paragraph-level writing tasks that engage students in citing and explaining textual evidence.

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 students with frequent opportunities to write in response to texts, the materials only partially meet expectations for supporting MLLs’ participation in evidence-based writing. MLL scaffolds are often provided as reteach activities rather than integrated into the lesson sequence, and supports for higher-proficiency learners (Levels 3–4) are especially limited. Embedding targeted language supports within the core lessons—such as modeling how to use sentence frames to introduce evidence, guiding students in quoting or paraphrasing key text details, or supporting them in revising analytical statements—would better ensure that MLLs can fully engage in and benefit from the evidence-based writing opportunities designed across the program.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 3–5 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 research and writing projects to develop students’ knowledge using multiple texts and source materials. While the program includes tasks aligned with shared research, inquiry, and content-based investigations, the supports provided for MLLs are limited, inconsistently applied, and do not fully meet the linguistic or conceptual demands required for MLLs to participate equitably in grade-level research processes.

Overall, the MLL supports in the English Learner Teacher's Guide tend to emphasize thematic vocabulary, building background knowledge, oral language routines, and comprehension of the anchor texts. These supports create a partial foundation for participating in research and inquiry, particularly by orienting students to key concepts and disciplinary themes. However, they do not consistently bridge students from vocabulary and background activities into the actual inquiry-based thinking and language required in the main ELA tasks—such as generating research questions, formulating lines of investigation, or synthesizing information across sources. As a result, MLLs can participate in preliminary activities but are often left without the linguistic scaffolds needed to fully and successfully complete research steps.

For example, in Grade 5, Unit 2, students complete an inquiry project centered on the theme, Cycles. In Lesson 1, Day 1, Reading and Responding, the core lesson, students are expected to think about cyclical phenomena and develop questions to guide inquiry. In contrast, the English Learner Teacher's Guide includes supports focused almost exclusively on building oral language skills, defining thematic vocabulary, and building background for the story “Chinook!” by Michael O. Tunnell. It prompts teachers to display vocabulary, use EL Photo Library Cards, define words, and provide background context about cycles and the setting of “Chinook!” While these activities help students access the unit topic, indirectly supporting all lesson tasks, they do not guide MLLs to engage directly in the inquiry process, such as generating questions about cycles or making connections between the story and the investigation required in the grade-level task. The gap between vocabulary-focused support and inquiry-specific support prevents full and complete participation in the research expectations for the unit.

A similar pattern appears in Grade 3, Unit 3, where the unit-level investigation prompts students to develop questions about how communities change over time, as part of the theme "A Changing Nation." The English Learner Teacher's Guide supports MLLs through thematic vocabulary introduction, background building about American history and westward expansion, and preteaching of the Read Aloud using photographs, clarifying questions, and EL Photo Library Cards. These supports strengthen comprehension, but they stop short of supporting MLLs in developing inquiry questions about community change, which is the central thinking task of the grade-level lesson. Without scaffolds for question generation or meaning-making around the concept of community change, MLLs are only partially supported in participating in the shared research process.

Across the program, these patterns reveal several missed opportunities. For example, the English Learner Teacher's Guide does not offer language frames or question stems that would help MLLs develop inquiry questions, nor does it provide structured support for navigating multiple texts or synthesizing information. Research requires students to engage in language functions such as asking questions, describing cause and effect, identifying patterns, comparing information across sources, and articulating explanations using academic vocabulary. Yet the supports in the Open Court materials remain centered primarily on vocabulary learning and background building, without extending into the explicit modeling of these research-related language functions.

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.

Additionally, while the program includes opportunities for reading aloud, discussing images, and building oral language, the materials do not consistently integrate the four language domains—speaking, listening, reading, and writing—into the research process itself. Students may write responses or discuss vocabulary, but there is little explicit support for reading research-related texts with appropriate scaffolds, writing using academic structures, or engaging in collaborative discussions that promote negotiation of meaning or shared inquiry. In particular, the materials do not guide teachers in supporting MLLs to understand the complete research task, including interpreting what the task is asking them to do, navigating the resources required for the task, participating fully in inquiry routines, and demonstrating understanding through what they produce.

In conclusion, while the materials offer supports that help MLLs access story content and unit concepts, these supports do not consistently extend into the inquiry and research tasks central to grade-level expectations. This leaves MLLs only partially supported in participating across all steps of shared research, limiting their ability to fully engage in speaking, listening, reading, and writing about content in ways that build knowledge and meet standards.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 3–5 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 frequently offers supports that help MLLs build vocabulary, comprehend texts, and engage in oral language practice, these supports are not consistently aligned with the research tasks students are expected to complete. As a result, MLLs can participate in necessary preliminary learning but do not receive adequate scaffolding to fully and meaningfully apply research skills such as generating research questions, analyzing sources, or synthesizing information.

Across the grade band, the MLL supports most often focus on thematic vocabulary, background knowledge, and clarifying meaning while reading. These are important foundations for comprehension, but they do not extend to the specific language demands of research, such as paraphrasing, note-taking, formulating inquiry questions, or using academic structures to present findings. In many lessons, the MLL supports strengthen students’ understanding of the content, but stop short of connecting that understanding to the inquiry steps embedded in the core ELA tasks. As a result, MLLs can engage with texts but lack the scaffolds needed to transfer that knowledge into research processes.

For example, in Grade 5, Unit 4, Lesson 4, Day 3, Language Arts, students generate questions to guide their research and are introduced to the concepts of paraphrasing and citing sources. The EL Tip, embedded directly in the whole-class lesson plan accompanying this lesson, reinforces the importance of paraphrasing, reminding students that they must rewrite information in their own words and record bibliographic details. It also encourages pairing MLLs with peers and checking their comprehension while helping them paraphrase texts. While the support is aligned with the core task, it relies primarily on verbal explanation and peer assistance rather than providing concrete modeling, visual scaffolds, or structured language frames that would help MLLs understand and practice paraphrasing more independently. The Reteach lesson in the English Learner Teacher's Guide aligns well with the core instructional task of using an idea web to generate research questions. However, because it is positioned after the whole-class lesson, it does not provide supports that would enable MLLs to fully participate during the initial instruction. As a result, MLLs are only partially supported in completing an essential component of the research process. 

A similar pattern appears in Grade 4, Unit 2, Lesson 1, Day 3, Reading and Responding, where students work with the text “The Discovery Fair” by ​​Vidas Barzdukas, and the whole class lesson emphasizes clarifying meaning and analyzing information. The MLL supports provided in the Reteach lesson in the English Learner Teacher's Guide include sentence frames for clarifying, guidance for rereading confusing passages, and vocabulary routines using photo cards and context clues, which are strong supports for comprehension. They help students negotiate meaning and build essential disciplinary vocabulary. However, they do not extend to the research dimension of the unit, where students are expected to generate research questions based on their reading and observations. The supports remain focused on understanding the text rather than helping MLLs connect comprehension to the analytical and inquiry-based practices embedded in the ELA task.

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, while the materials include several helpful supports for vocabulary, comprehension, and oral language development, these supports are not consistently connected to the research tasks students are expected to undertake. MLLs are scaffolded in understanding what they read, but not in applying that understanding to research processes. This disconnect limits their ability to fully participate in tasks that require inquiry, question generation, analysis of information, or synthesizing findings into written or oral research products.

In summary, Open Court Grades 3–5 provides MLL supports that strengthen vocabulary and comprehension; however, it does not consistently extend these supports to the research tasks that require students to apply knowledge across multiple texts and sources. Without explicit bridging between language routines and inquiry steps, MLLs are not provided with the targeted, task-aligned scaffolding necessary for full and complete participation in research activities.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 3–5 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. MLL students are guided in the development of language throughout units in the course; however, there is no evidence that the lessons are a part of an intentional sequence of instruction over the course of 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.

Throughout the materials, MLLs engage in lessons that connect language learning with content-based tasks, but these activities often appear as isolated reteach or preteach opportunities rather than as part of a cohesive, year-long plan for building disciplinary language. For example, in Grade 5, Unit 1, Lesson 3, Day 3, Reading and Responding, the English Learner Teacher's Guide provides an example of how content, language, and disciplinary practice interact. The reteach lesson supports students in identifying fact and opinion using the text “One Small Step” by Vidas Barzdukas. Teachers model using sentence frames such as, “This/That is a _________. This is a/an _________,” giving examples such as, “The Earth is round. This is a fact,” and “This book is interesting. This is an opinion.” Students then use a Fact and Opinion chart to classify statements from the text and create their own complete sentences using the sentence frames. The lesson guides teachers in differentiating by proficiency level, from simple oral identification of facts and opinions for Levels 1–2 to the use of complete sentences and reasoning for more advanced students. While MLLs learn language forms in this moment that are integrated with their content learning, there is no evidence that this lesson is part of a coherent plan to develop language, rather than just a reaction to the content being taught.

In subsequent lessons, such as the Build Background and Discuss the Poem activities for “It Couldn’t Be Done” by Edgar Albert Guest, teachers are provided with differentiated preteach routines that explicitly connect vocabulary, comprehension, and academic language to literary analysis. Teachers introduce key content-specific words (e.g., scoffed, tackle, assail) and model their meanings through gestures, repetition, and context clues. The differentiated questioning routines for Levels 1–4 gradually increase in linguistic complexity—from single-word or phrase responses to complete compound or complex sentences that connect to the poem’s central theme. For example, Level 4 students answer, “How does this poem connect to the men and women involved in the space program in the 1960s?” using complete sentences that link the poem’s ideas to real-world contexts. This set of lessons demonstrates a thoughtful integration of language, content, and practice, enabling students to apply disciplinary language to reason about texts; however, it does not provide a strategic framework for developing disciplinary language over time.

Similarly, in Grade 3, Unit 3, Lesson 6, Day 5, the English Learner Teacher's Guide includes a reteach lesson that focuses on cumulative vocabulary development. Teachers review words from multiple units and stories, such as brigade, treaty, recital, and citizen, asking students to define the words, use them in context, and demonstrate understanding through gestures or short skits. Sentence frames like “________ means/is ________” provide structure for oral language production, while Level 1 and 2 students receive additional scaffolded practice with fill-in-the-blank sentences. This cumulative review reinforces language exposure across time and texts; however, because these reteach lessons are disconnected from the core instruction, they function as stand-alone activities rather than integral steps in a systematic plan for building academic language.

Overall, Open Court includes several strong examples of language development within lessons, particularly through the explicit integration of vocabulary, reading comprehension, and structured oral responses. The materials also offer consistent differentiation across proficiency levels, supporting MLLs’ engagement with content and gradual progression toward disciplinary ways of communicating. However, these supports exist primarily in reteach or preteach lessons in the English Learner Teacher's Guide, not within the core instructional flow. The absence of an overarching scope and sequence for language development means these lessons do not build coherently over time. As a result, while individual lessons effectively integrate language and content learning, the program as a whole lacks an intentional framework to ensure that MLLs’ disciplinary language skills develop in a progressive and cumulative way throughout the year.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 3–5 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 and cites research by Lesaux, Kieffer, Faller, and Kelley, noting 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 wide 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 3–5 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. The materials provide some helpful resources and general guidance for teachers, including suggestions for differentiated instruction, an English Learner Teacher's Guide, and opportunities for small-group or workshop-based support. However, this guidance is not comprehensive. The materials do not consistently provide detailed, lesson-embedded guidance for teachers on how to anticipate language demands, scaffold complex tasks, or notice and respond to students' language needs in real-time.

The Program Overview includes a section on Workshop and Differentiating Instruction. The Workshop model establishes daily time for small-group or individual work, allowing teachers to reteach, preteach, extend, 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,” and encourages teachers to use this time for linguistic pre-teaching, vocabulary development, and small-group conversation. The materials suggest strategies such as 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 teachers to engage MLLs in small-group interaction and guided oral language practice. However, while these suggestions represent a strong foundation for supporting MLLs, they rely 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.

Beyond workshop guidance, the Program Overview: Differentiated Instruction section outlines available program components such as Differentiated Instruction Tips and the English Language Development Kit. These tools offer four levels of instructional scaffolding—Substantial, Moderate, Light, and Extension—to support diverse learners. Teachers are encouraged to use these resources during the Teach/Practice/Apply cycle to provide extra support or challenge as needed. While these materials acknowledge that differentiation is essential, the guidance is broad and lacks specific examples of implementation within particular lessons. The program does not clearly explain how teachers should determine when to use each level of support, how to match scaffolds to the language objectives of a task, or how to evaluate when students are ready to progress to the next level.

Additionally, while Open Court provides some professional learning supports—such as short implementation videos explaining vocabulary routines or sentence-stem use—these are inconsistent and sometimes misaligned with their stated topics. For example, one professional development video labeled as sentence-construction support instead models phonics blending practice. This inconsistency limits the usefulness of the resource for teachers seeking concrete examples of how to implement strategies with MLLs. Moreover, these videos generally introduce strategies at a surface level without modeling how to extend them or differentiate by language proficiency.

The materials do include information on language levels within the English Learner Teacher Guide, which defines descriptors for various stages of English proficiency. However, these descriptors are not explicitly connected to the lesson-level supports in the Teacher Edition. There is little guidance for how teachers should anticipate or address differences across the four language domains (speaking, listening, reading, and writing) or how to support students who demonstrate uneven proficiency profiles. The materials also lack a clear system for monitoring or measuring ongoing progress in language development, which would help teachers adjust scaffolds over time.

Overall, Open Court offers some guidance for teachers to differentiate and implement MLL supports. However, guidance is often presented at a general level rather than embedded within lessons, and implementation relies heavily on teacher expertise. The materials do not sufficiently prepare teachers to anticipate linguistic challenges, respond flexibly to student language use, or connect scaffolds to content and language objectives. In addition, professional learning resources are inconsistent, and the connection between proficiency levels and classroom application remains underdeveloped. As a result, while the materials provide some teacher guidance for MLL support, they fall short of offering the comprehensive, actionable teacher guidance needed for consistent and effective implementation across the grade band.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 3–5 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 levels; however, there is minimal guidance for teachers to be responsive in how they select and apply 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 provides an overview of the four stages of English proficiency—Levels 1 through 4—and general characteristics of students at each level. For instance, Level 1 students are described as producing one- or two-word responses with significant teacher support through gestures, illustrations, and modeling, whereas Level 4 students are expected to respond using detailed, compound, and complex sentences and demonstrate consistent comprehension of meaning, including implied and nuanced meanings. The Guide notes that these stages are intended to help teachers “support students in reading, speaking, and writing while advancing along the continuum of English acquisition.” This framework establishes a useful reference for teachers to understand differences in student proficiency; however, there is no guidance on how to reliably match MLLs with the provided language levels, nor on how to adjust or transition supports as proficiency develops over time. As a result, the continuum functions as a descriptive outline rather than an instructional tool for monitoring growth or matching students to appropriate supports in real time.

Some lessons within the English Learner Teacher’s Guide demonstrate differentiated scaffolds that correspond to proficiency levels. For example, in Grade 5, Unit 3, Day 3, Word Analysis, a Reteach lesson aligns with the core lesson objective of practicing suffixes –ous, –eous, and –ious, as well as the Greek root onym. The lesson specifies teacher moves for each proficiency level. Level 1 students respond to either/or questions about suffixes, Level 2 students identify suffixes on a word line, Level 3 students identify suffixes and generate additional examples, and Level 4 students create and use new words with the suffixes in complete sentences. This is an example of guidance that differentiates by proficiency level and aligns with the language demands of the content. However, the materials do not describe how teachers should determine which students receive which level of support or when to adjust that support.

In other cases, responsiveness is limited. For example, in Grade 3, Unit 6, Lesson 6, Day 2, Reading and Responding, Developing Vocabulary, the Reteach lesson in the English Learner Teacher’s Guide guides students to define words from the story “Ah, Music” by Allki using context clues, noting cognates that students with Romance language backgrounds may recognize. While this activity supports vocabulary comprehension, it does not include differentiated scaffolds for each proficiency level, leaving teachers without specific guidance for addressing the varied needs of students at Levels 1 through 4.

Overall, Open Court provides a clear continuum of English proficiency levels and some aligned scaffolds within the English Learner Teacher’s Guide. However, guidance for matching students to supports or responding to their developing language needs is inconsistent. The materials lack an explicit process for teachers to assess students’ proficiency levels, track language growth, and adjust supports over time. As a result, while teachers are given examples of leveled scaffolds, they must independently determine how and when to apply them to meet students’ evolving linguistic and academic needs.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 3-5 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 3, Unit 5, Lesson 3, 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. 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 appears in the Assessment Handbook 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. Furthermore, teachers are not provided with guidance 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 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 Learners Teacher Guides. 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 3–5 of Open Court partially meet the expectations for providing guidance to encourage teachers to draw upon student home language to facilitate learning. While the materials occasionally acknowledge students’ linguistic backgrounds, the guidance is minimal, inconsistent, and does not meaningfully support teachers in leveraging home languages as assets for learning.

The materials provide limited and surface-level references to students’ home languages. Lessons do not consistently incorporate or reference students’ linguistic or cultural knowledge to support understanding of key concepts. Some general reminders appear throughout, but these are sparse and do not offer actionable strategies for integrating home languages into instruction in ways that would deepen comprehension or foster linguistic connections. For example, in Grade 5, the Professional Development Video for the EL Photo Library Cards includes multilingual translations of vocabulary words on the back of each photo card. A sample card for the word allergy includes translations in Spanish, Vietnamese, Hmong, Cantonese, Korean, Haitian Creole, Arabic, Russian, Tagalog, and Khmer. While the inclusion of multiple languages acknowledges linguistic diversity, the materials provide no guidance on how teachers should use these translations. It is unclear whether teachers are expected to pronounce the words, ask students to read them, or use them to support cross-linguistic comparisons. Without explicit instructional direction, the potential benefits of these multilingual references are significantly limited.

Similarly, across multiple lessons, teachers are prompted to reference cognates for students whose home languages are Romance languages such as Spanish or French. Notes such as: “COGNATES: If students’ native language is a Romance language, they may recognize the following cognates: cement/cemento, balcony/balcón, tea/té, valley/valle, curtains/cortinas,” appear in some lessons. While these connections may support some students in recognizing familiar forms, they include minimal guidance and apply only to a narrow subset of MLLs. Teachers without expertise in multilingual instruction may not know how to extend or apply these isolated cognate lists. Moreover, the materials do not offer parallel supports for students whose home languages are not Romance languages, leaving significant linguistic groups without meaningful home-language connections.

Overall, the materials rarely present multilingualism as an instructional asset and do not consistently guide teachers in integrating students’ full linguistic repertoires into ELA learning. Missing are supports that help teachers gather or use information about students’ home languages, such as their preferred family language for communication, literacy abilities in other languages, schooling experiences, or previous exposure to academic English. Without this intentional guidance, teachers cannot leverage this essential information strategically in instruction. These limitations result in missed opportunities to support MLLs’ meaning-making through home-language connections. While the materials include occasional references to other languages, these features are not embedded systematically across lessons. As a result, the materials provide only partial support for teachers in drawing upon student home languages to facilitate learning.