K-2nd Grade - Gateway 3

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 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 do not meet the expectations of offering assessment accommodations that allow MLLs to demonstrate their knowledge and skills without changing the content of the assessment. While the program includes references to general diagnostic uses of assessments, it does not offer accommodations or supports designed specifically to ensure MLLs can access assessment tasks equitably or demonstrate their knowledge. As a result, MLLs are left without the scaffolds necessary to participate meaningfully in assessments while preserving the rigor and integrity of the content being evaluated.

The materials provide no assessment accommodations tailored to MLLs, and the Assessment Handbook, the primary source of guidance on assessment, includes only a single mention of MLLs. The Diagnose section of the Assessment Handbook explains that lesson assessments and benchmark assessments provide diagnostic information for teachers and that “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 this reference acknowledges the existence of the English Learner Teacher’s Guide, it does not describe or offer actual accommodations for assessments themselves. Instead, it points teachers back to instructional lessons rather than providing assessment-specific strategies such as clarified directions, linguistic scaffolds, visual supports, or flexible response formats. This is the only mention of MLLs in the Assessment Guide.

Overall, the absence of MLL-specific guidance within the assessment system means that Open Court does not meet the expectations of this indicator. The materials do not guide teachers in accounting for varied levels of English proficiency, nor do they maintain the kinds of instructional supports that appear elsewhere in the program during assessment. The materials do not equip teachers with the tools needed to ensure MLLs can access assessments equitably or show mastery of grade-level content independent of language barriers.