Biliteracy para todos: Preview-View-Review Early

Evaluation for 1.1a
Materials include an explanation of the stated purpose of the supplemental program (e.g., additional instruction and/or practice, targeted remediation or acceleration).

The Biliteracy Para Todos: Teaching for Language Connections Early Biliteracy Preview-View-Review Teacher Resource Book does not include an explanation of the stated purpose under “The Purpose of Preview-View-Review.” The materials instead describe how the program supports different bilingual program models. The materials do not clearly explain how the program supports the English Language Arts Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) for first grade. The materials do not clearly define the overall purpose of the supplemental program for core reading instruction.

The material includes general strategies for different learners without stating whether the focus is extra practice, support, or enrichment. For example, the chart lists “Purposes for students when the View is in English.” The materials only provide an explanation of which language programs the resource can be used for, including Transitional, One-Way Dual Language, or Two-Way Dual Language, rather than clearly defining the overall purpose of the supplemental program for core reading instruction.

Evaluation for 1.1b
Materials include guidance on how to appropriately use the supplemental program to support an existing core reading and language arts program.

The materials do not include clear guidance on how to appropriately use the supplemental program. In the Preview-View-Review Teacher Resource Book, under the heading “The Purpose of Preview-View-Review,” the materials explain the rationale for certain teaching structures and connect these structures to different bilingual program models. However, they do not explicitly explain how or when these strategies should be implemented in alignment with the core curriculum.

The materials include guidance on how to supplement different bilingual programs such as Transitional, One-Way Dual Language, and Two-Way Dual Language. In “The Structure and Sequence of a PVR Lesson,” the materials describe the lesson structure for bilingual settings rather than explaining how the supplemental program aligns with or supports core reading and language arts instruction.

Evaluation for 1.1c
Materials include a scope and sequence outlining student expectations, skills taught, and a rationale for the design of the scope and sequence.

The Teacher Resource Book includes TEKS alignment in each lesson and includes a scope and sequence outlining the skills taught. For example, the Early Biliteracy Teacher Resource Book provides the “Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills Alignment,” listing 18 sets of books, and each set includes a list and explanation of targeted TEKS to show the specific skills addressed through the lessons and book sets.

In the Teacher Resource Book, materials include a chart, and each set and lesson includes TEKS correlations from different grade levels, including kindergarten and grade 1, such as TEKS 1.6i. However, the materials do not provide a rationale explaining the design of the scope and sequence.

Evaluation for 1.1d
Materials include guidance on time requirements (e.g., duration, frequency) and suggested pacing for effective implementation.

The materials do not include time requirements, the duration of each lesson, or suggested pacing for effective implementation. For example, in the Teacher Resource Book, under “How often should I conduct a PVR lesson?,” the materials include only general guidance for implementing the lessons.

In the Preview-View-Review Teacher Resource Book, in the section titled “How often should I conduct a PVR lesson?,” the materials state, “Based on teacher’s observation of the progress of the students and the information from the reading assessment, the teacher decides on how often to meet with the students.” However, the materials do not provide the duration of each lesson or pacing information for individual lessons.

Evaluation for 1.1e
Materials include resources and guidance to support educators with implementing the materials as designed.

The materials do not include guidance or a suggested pacing for effective implementation. The materials do not provide pacing suggestions for each lesson. However, there is guidance on adapting the materials based on student needs and educator observations. The Teacher Resource Book provides a section titled “How often should I conduct a PVR lesson?,” which includes general guidance for implementing the lessons. However, the educator decides how often to meet with students based on observations of student progress and reading assessment information.

The program includes an explanation of the Preview-View-Review strategy that is used in the program, which is intended to support educators in building students’ background knowledge. However, the materials do not include resources to help educators with implementation of the materials. The materials do not provide additional support to explain the key features of each part of the lesson to effectively use the program with students.

Evaluation for 1.1f
Materials contain supports for families in both Spanish and English with suggestions on supporting the progress of their student.

The materials do not include supports for families in either Spanish or English. The materials do not offer resources for educators to use in guiding families on how to support the progress of their students at home. No family letter was found in the English or Spanish materials. The Teacher Resource Book provides only guidance to educators and is intended for classroom implementation, with instructional supports for developing language skills focused on educator and student use.

Evaluation for 2.1a
Materials include appropriate instructional assessments for the stated purpose of the supplemental program (e.g., diagnostic placement assessments for targeted remediation or acceleration).

The materials include appropriate instructional assessments for the stated purpose of the supplemental program by providing reading assessments that monitor students’ decoding, fluency, and comprehension skills. For example, the Early Biliteracy Teacher Resource Book, under “Assessment,” explains, “A reading assessment (Assessing Reading: Decoding, Comprehension, Fluency) is a tool used to assess a student’s reading, fluency, and comprehension. It provides a snapshot of the student’s reading behaviors. An individual student’s reading assessment should be taken at regular intervals so that the teacher can gather information to support targeted reading and language instruction. The teacher can use the information from the reading assessment to plan for their future instruction.”

The materials provide guidance for educators to use ongoing assessment data to monitor student literacy performance and inform targeted instructional decisions aligned with the supplemental program’s purpose. This guidance supports educators in collecting ongoing student reading data to inform targeted instruction and monitor student progress. However, the materials do not include summative assessments that evaluate student performance on literacy skills developed across the lesson set or instructional sequence.

Evaluation for 2.1b
Materials include the definition and intended purpose for the instructional assessments included.

The materials include the definition for the instructional assessment and identify its intended purpose of monitoring student literacy development and informing instructional planning. For example, in the Early Biliteracy Teacher Resource Book, the materials define the assessment by stating, “A reading assessment (Assessing Reading: Decoding, Comprehension, Fluency) is a tool used to assess a student’s reading, fluency, and comprehension.” The materials further explain that the assessment provides “a snapshot of the student’s reading behaviors.”

In “Assessment,” the materials state that educators can use assessment results to “plan for their future instruction.” Additionally, the materials state that students should take reading assessments at regular intervals so educators can gather information to support targeted reading and language instruction and plan future instruction based on student performance data.

Evaluation for 2.1c
For instructional assessments administered by educators, materials include guidance to ensure consistent and accurate administration of instructional assessments.

The materials include guidance to support the consistent and accurate administration of instructional assessments. The materials contain a reading assessment that evaluates decoding, comprehension, and fluency skills. The assessment guidance explains that the assessment provides “a snapshot of the student’s reading behaviors” and should be administered “at regular intervals.” Educators gather information to support targeted reading and language instruction and use assessment results to plan future instruction.

At the top of each assessment tool, under the title of the book and grade level, the materials state, “Read the title to the student. Ask the student to read the text. Mark the decoding errors on this transcript. Write the total number of errors on each page.”

Evaluation for 2.1d
Instructional assessments include items at varying levels of complexity.

The instructional assessments include items at varying levels of complexity through decoding, fluency, comprehension, and language analysis tasks. The “Assessing Reading: Decoding, Comprehension, Fluency” assessments require students to read connected text while educators record decoding errors and observe reading behaviors in both English and Spanish. The materials further extend assessment complexity by guiding educators to evaluate meaning-making, cross-linguistic transfer, pronunciation patterns, and oral language development for emergent bilingual students. The materials include instructional supports such as translanguaging, sentence stems, and extended wait time to support students as they engage with increasingly complex literacy tasks across languages.

The materials include instructional assessments evaluating varying levels of complexity. For example, the materials include comprehension questions that address literal, inferential, and critical thinking skills rather than a single skill area. These question types require students to demonstrate understanding at multiple levels of comprehension. However, the materials do not include guidance for educators on how to interpret data collected from the comprehension portion of the assessment. Additionally, the assessments do not include a variety of item types beyond the provided comprehension questions.

Evaluation for 2.2a
Instructional assessments and scoring information provide guidance for interpreting student performance.

The instructional assessments and scoring information provide guidance for interpreting student performance through decoding accuracy measures and performance indicators. For example, the instructions for each assessment include a “Decoding Accuracy” table that identifies the number of decoding errors, corresponding accuracy percentages, and associated levels of difficulty. The materials also provide an “Accuracy Score” formula that educators can use to calculate students’ reading accuracy percentages. These scoring tools support educators in determining student decoding performance and identifying levels of reading difficulty based on assessment results.

However, once the calculations have been made, the materials do not include guidance for interpreting student performance data. There is no guidance for identifying performance trends, strengths, areas of need, or recommendations for instructional next steps.

Evaluation for 2.2b
Materials provide guidance for the use of the supplemental program to respond to student trends in performance on assessments.

The assessment materials include directions for administering and scoring assessments, such as marking decoding errors and recording the total number of errors on each page. However, the materials do not provide guidance for using the supplemental program to respond to student trends in performance on assessments.


The materials do not include guidance for analyzing assessment trends, identifying student strengths or areas of need, or adjusting instruction to provide targeted intervention or support based on student performance data. Additionally, the materials do not provide intervention strategies, targeted instructional recommendations, or procedures for responding to patterns identified in student assessment data.

Evaluation for 2.2c
Materials include tools for educators to track student progress and growth, and tools for students to track their own progress and growth.

The materials do not include tools for educators to track student progress and growth over time. For example, the assessment materials provide directions for educators to mark decoding errors and record the total number of errors per page during administration. The materials also include general suggestions for considering instructional decisions based on assessments in students’ dominant and additional languages. However, the materials do not provide progress-monitoring tools, data-tracking systems, growth charts, or structured resources for documenting, monitoring, or analyzing student progress and growth across multiple assessments or instructional periods.

The materials do not provide tools for students to monitor their own progress over time. The materials include assessment administration procedures and scoring information. However, the materials do not include progress-monitoring charts, student-tracking forms, data-collection systems, goal-setting tools, or structured resources for documenting and analyzing growth across multiple assessments. Additionally, the materials do not provide student-facing tools that support self-monitoring, reflection, or goal-tracking based on assessment performance.

Evaluation for 2.2d
If applicable for the stated purpose of the supplemental program, materials include guidance for entry and exit criteria.

This guidance is not applicable to the program because the program has a stated purpose of additional instruction and/or practice, not targeted remediation or acceleration.

Evaluation for 3.1a
If applicable for the stated purpose, materials include educator guidance for differentiated instruction and activities for students who have not yet reached proficiency in grade-level skills.

The materials do not include educator guidance for differentiated instruction or activities for students who have not yet reached proficiency in grade-level skills. In the “After Reading” section, the materials direct educators to “Promote discussions by choosing questions that are appropriate for your students.” This direction tells educators to select questions but does not specify which questions are appropriate for students who are struggling, nor does it provide guidance on how to adjust or scaffold questions based on student needs.

Instead, the materials provide guidance on the language structure used to deliver instruction. For example, in the Preview-View-Review Teacher Resource Book, the materials state that English language arts educators present the Preview in Spanish, the View in English, and the Review in Spanish. This guidance describes how instruction is organized across languages but does not provide recommendations for differentiating instruction for students who are performing below grade level. The materials do not include targeted supports, such as small-group instruction, additional scaffolds, modified activities, sentence stems, graphic organizers, or other lesson-specific recommendations to support students who have not yet reached proficiency in grade-level skills.

Evaluation for 3.1b
If applicable for the stated purpose, materials include educator guidance for differentiated instruction and activities for students who have demonstrated proficiency in grade-level skills.

In the Preview-View-Review Teacher Resource Book, the “Target Language” chart describes the purpose of instruction when the View is presented in English for emergent bilingual students. The chart provides guidance related to language acquisition and instructional language use. However, the guidance does not include recommendations for extending learning or increasing the complexity of instruction for students who have already demonstrated grade-level proficiency.

Instead, the materials provide guidance for determining the level of linguistic support needed for emergent bilingual students. For example, the materials state, “When working with emergent bilinguals, consider if the independent level is a reflection of the student’s language development or reading development to help you decide the extent of linguistic support.” The materials do not provide recommendations for extending learning for students who have already demonstrated proficiency in grade-level skills. The materials do not include lesson-specific enrichment opportunities, accelerated tasks, advanced application activities, or other differentiated supports designed for students who have mastered grade-level content.

Evaluation for 3.1c
Materials include educator guidance for providing specially designed instruction (SDI) for students receiving supports and services through special education.

The materials do not include educator guidance for providing SDI for students receiving special education services. Instead, the program provides a structured Preview-View-Review lesson format used when the target language is English. In this structure, the Preview is conducted in Spanish and includes background knowledge and vocabulary development. The View is presented in English and includes activities such as word study, text introduction, and reading instruction, followed by a Review discussion. The materials describe the sequence and language of instruction but do not provide recommendations for adapting instruction to meet the individualized needs of students receiving special education services.

The materials do not include educator guidance for providing specially designed instruction for students receiving special education services. The materials state, “Preview-View-Review supports the systematic development of language and reading across both languages of instruction.” The materials do not include guidance for adapting instruction to meet the individualized needs of students receiving special education services. The materials do not include recommendations for instructional modifications, accommodations, specialized intervention strategies, adjusted lesson delivery, or other supports that guide educators in providing specially designed instruction.

Evaluation for 3.2a
Educator-led supplemental programs include explicit (direct) prompts and guidance to support the educator in modeling and explaining the skill(s) to be learned.

The materials include prompts and guidance to support educators in modeling and explaining academic vocabulary and language skills. For example, in the Preview-View-Review Teacher Resource Book, the “Preview” section under “Activate Prior Knowledge” directs the educator to say, “Listen to me as I read the book aloud.” After the read-aloud, the materials provide specific questions, including “What can the boy do?” and “What can you do?” The lesson also includes discussion prompts and sentence starters that support modeling academic language and guiding students in using complete comparative responses.

In the “View” section in “Academic Vocabulary: Word Study,” guidance leads educators to model and explain skills. For example, the educator introduces the vocabulary word look and guides students in identifying letters that make /oo/. Educators write “loo_, _ook, l _ _” on the board. The lesson also includes discussion frames to help students answer “What letters are missing?” The frames include “The letter(s) ____ in the word _____ is (are) missing.”

Evaluation for 3.2b
Educator-led supplemental programs include educator guidance and recommendations for effective delivery and facilitation using a variety of instructional approaches.

The “Target Language: English Lesson Framework” in the Preview-View-Review cycle outlines instructional components that support lesson implementation. The framework includes opportunities for activating prior knowledge, academic vocabulary instruction, word study, book introduction, during-reading support, discussion activities, language connections, writing and oracy activities, and reading review. For example, the materials identify instructional components such as “Academic Vocabulary: Word Study,” “Introduce the Book,” “During Reading,” “Talking About the Book,” “Language Connections,” and “Academic Language: Writing and Oracy.”

The materials include guidance and recommendations for effective lesson delivery and facilitation using a variety of instructional approaches. For example, in Set 3 of the Preview-View-Review Teacher Resource Book, the materials provide scripted directions and prompts that guide educators in discussion. Following the reading, students participate in a collaborative discussion activity in which they share and discuss their writing with peers. The material includes lessons with a “Review” activity, in which students respond to educator-generated statements by choosing to agree or disagree and moving to the corresponding side of the room.

Evaluation for 3.2c
Materials include guidance for educators on recommended structures (e.g., whole group, small group, individual) to support effective implementation.

The materials do not include clear educator guidance on recommended instructional structures to support effective implementation. While the materials include lesson activities and instructional routines, they do not consistently identify whether those activities should be implemented in whole-group, small-group, partner, or individual settings. For example, the Preview-View-Review Teacher Resource Book outlines the sequence of lesson components and provides guidance on language use within different bilingual program models.

The Preview-View-Review Teacher Resource Book includes a section titled “The Structure and Sequence of a PVR Lesson.” This section explains which language should be used during each component of the lesson based on the type of bilingual program. However, the guidance focuses on language allocation and does not identify recommended instructional structures for implementing the lesson components. The materials do not provide explicit recommendations regarding instructional grouping for lesson delivery. As a result, educators must determine the instructional structure for implementation based on their own interpretation rather than following clear guidance provided within the materials.

Evaluation for 3.3a
Materials include educator guidance on providing linguistic accommodations for various levels of language proficiency [as defined by the English Language Proficiency Standards (ELPS)], which are designed to engage students in using increasingly more academic language.

The materials do not include educator guidance for providing linguistic accommodations differentiated by English Language Proficiency Standards (ELPS) proficiency levels. The materials do not reference proficiency level descriptors or provide recommendations for adjusting instruction based on students’ language proficiency needs. As a result, the materials do not include structured guidance that supports students in using increasingly more academic language across varying levels of language development. However, the materials include language supports for multilingual learners. For example, throughout the “Academic Vocabulary” section, academic vocabulary is presented in both English and Spanish to support comprehension and cross-linguistic connections. While this support promotes vocabulary development, the materials do not provide educator-facing guidance for differentiating linguistic accommodations by proficiency level or for increasing the complexity of students’ academic language based on ELPS expectations.

In the guidance for working with emergent bilingual students, educators are directed to “consider if the independent level is a reflection of the student’s language development or reading development” and to use that information to “help . . . decide the extent of linguistic support.” This guidance encourages educators to consider student language needs when selecting supports. However, the materials do not include specific linguistic accommodations, language supports differentiated by proficiency level, or guidance aligned to ELPS proficiency level descriptors.

Evaluation for 3.3b
Materials include implementation guidance to support educators in effectively using the materials in state-approved bilingual and English as a Second Language (ESL) programs.

The materials include implementation guidance to support educators in effectively using the materials in state-approved bilingual programs. Within the Preview-View-Review framework, the materials provide guidance for implementation across different bilingual program models and student populations. For example, the materials distinguish between emergent bilingual students whose home language is Spanish in Transitional Bilingual Education, One-Way Dual Language, and Two-Way Dual Language programs, as well as emergent bilingual students whose home language is English in Two-Way Dual Language programs. The implementation guidance identifies the language used during each lesson component and explains the instructional purpose of the Preview, View, and Review phases.


The “Target Language: English” chart provides guidance for implementing instruction with emergent bilingual students. The chart describes how the framework supports vocabulary development, comprehension, biliteracy, language development, and sheltered instruction across bilingual instructional settings.

Evaluation for 3.3c
If designed for dual language immersion (DLI) programs, materials include resources that outline opportunities to address metalinguistic transfer from English to the partner language.

The materials include resources that outline opportunities to address metalinguistic transfer between English and Spanish. For example, the Teacher Resource Book explains that cross-linguistic connections occur across levels of language, including phonology, morphology, syntax, and grammar. The materials address how the program can help students transfer knowledge and skills across languages.

The materials include resources that outline opportunities to address metalinguistic transfer between English and Spanish. Within the English “View” component, the Language Connections: Semantic Level Anchor Chart activity prompts students to compare vocabulary across languages using the sentence frame, “In Spanish you say ____, but in English you say ____.” Similarly, within the “Vista/Lección” component, the Conexiones de lenguaje: nivel semántico activity prompts students to compare vocabulary using the sentence frame, “En inglés se dice ____, pero en español se dice ____.” These language connection activities require students to identify and discuss relationships between English and Spanish vocabulary, supporting the transfer of linguistic knowledge across languages.

Evaluation for 8.1a
[English reading language arts] Materials include opportunities for students to read high-quality, grade-level, complex texts as appropriate for the program's stated purpose, in a variety of text types (e.g., literary, informational). [Spanish reading language arts] Materials include opportunities for students to read high-quality, grade-level, complex authentic or transadapted Spanish texts as appropriate for the program's stated purpose, in a variety of text types (e.g., literary, informational).

The materials provide opportunities for students to read high-quality, grade-level texts in both literary and informational forms. In Set 4, students read the paired texts “Going Places”/“Ir a lugares” and “What Did You Do?”/“¿Qué hiciste?” through a structured sequence of before-, during-, and after-reading activities. During reading, students read connected texts while educators provide instructional support through echo reading, choral reading, partner reading, and repeated reading to promote accuracy and comprehension. After reading, students return to the texts to answer literal, inferential, synthesizing, and critical-thinking questions using evidence from the illustrations and text. The paired English and Spanish lessons also connect vocabulary, writing, and discussion across both texts.

The materials provide opportunities for students to read high-quality, grade-level texts in both informational and literary forms. Each text study unit pairs a published informational text with a narrative text organized around a shared topic, allowing students to apply comprehension skills across multiple genres. The program includes increasingly complex texts with published Lexile measures, and the Teacher Resource Book sequences instruction through both informational and narrative text studies. Running record assessments in English identify the texts for instructional use with students in grades 1–2 after classroom instruction, providing supported practice with increasingly complex grade-level-connected text.

Evaluation for 8.1b
Materials include a variety of high-quality texts at different levels of complexity.

The Early Biliteracy materials include a variety of high-quality texts across informational and narrative genres. Students read paired texts such as “Big Brothers,” “Looking for Animals,” “Going Places,” “What Did You Do?,” “Cat and Mouse,” and “Where Is Frog?” The informational texts build knowledge through features such as headings, photographs, diagrams, and labeled visuals, while the narrative texts include characters, settings, dialogue, problems, and resolutions.

The Early Biliteracy materials include high-quality texts that increase in complexity through knowledge demands, vocabulary, and text structure. For example, in “Target Language: English” Set 5, students read “Big Brothers,” an informational text about family relationships and growing up, before reading “Cat and Mouse,” a narrative that requires students to analyze character motivations, problem-solving, and cause-and-effect relationships. In “Target Language: English” Set 6, students progress from “Looking for Animals,” an informational text introducing camouflage and animal habitats, to “Where Is Frog?,” a narrative that applies the scientific concept of camouflage within a story as students explain why Frog is difficult to find and identify appropriate hiding places.

Evaluation for 8.1c
Texts include content that is relevant, engaging, and authentically reflects students' diverse backgrounds and experiences.

The materials include texts with content that is relevant and engaging, centering on familiar experiences, animals, and everyday observations. Across the Early Biliteracy units, students read paired texts about cats and mice (“Cat and Mouse”), animal camouflage (“Where Is Frog?” and “Looking for Animals”), siblings (“Big Brothers”), and animal homes (“Big Homes,” “Little Animals,” and “Tiff Leaves Home!”). The materials include topics such as finding a safe home, escaping predators, and comparing family relationships.

The materials include texts with content that is relevant, engaging, and authentically reflects students’ backgrounds and experiences while introducing new perspectives. For example, in “Target Language: English” Set 5, students read “Big Brothers,” an informational text about sibling relationships that connects to familiar family experiences, before reading “Cat and Mouse,” a narrative that engages students with a problem-solving story about a cat pursuing a mouse. In “Target Language: English” Set 6, students read “Looking for Animals,” an informational text that builds knowledge about camouflage and animal habitats, followed by “Where Is Frog?,” a narrative in which Frog, Bird, and Snake play hide-and-seek.

Evaluation for 8.2a
Materials activate or supply background knowledge.

The materials consistently activate students’ background knowledge before reading by prompting them to recall personal experiences related to each text’s topic. For example, during the “Preview/Activate Prior Knowledge” section, educators ask students questions such as, “Have you ever seen a cake stall?”, “What did it sell?”, and “What do you think people do to get a cake stall ready?” Similarly, before reading “At Grandpa’s House,” students discuss things the girl likes to do with her grandpa, her special person. Before reading “What Did You Do?” students discuss places they like to go with family and friends.

The materials build background knowledge by explicitly introducing the topic and essential concepts before students begin reading. Prior to each selection, educator guidance provides a brief overview of the text’s topic and establishes a purpose for reading. For example, students learn that “Where is Frog?” is about a snake, a bird, and a frog. The teacher asks students to think of places each of these creatures would hide. Students also talk about playing Hide-and-Seek and discuss the roles of the hiders and the seeker. “Cat and Mouse” introduces the usual relationship between cats and mice.

Evaluation for 8.2b
Materials include pre-teaching of unfamiliar vocabulary in texts.

The materials consistently provide pre-teaching of unfamiliar vocabulary before students read each text. During the “Academic Vocabulary: Word Study” and “Academic Vocabulary: Vocabulary” sections, educators explicitly introduce unfamiliar words that will appear in the text, such as cat, mouse, run, paint, catch, and hide in “Cat and Mouse” and where, frog, snake, plants, and camouflage-related vocabulary in “Where Is Frog?”

The materials include explicit educator guidance for pre-teaching unfamiliar vocabulary using multiple research-based instructional supports prior to reading. For example, each lesson introduces vocabulary using picture-supported anchor charts in both English and Spanish, engages students in discussion about word meanings, and revisits the vocabulary during language connections and after-reading activities.

Evaluation for 8.2c
Materials include explicit (direct) instruction on using contextual analysis to determine the word meaning of unfamiliar vocabulary in texts in alignment with grade-level TEKS as appropriate for the program's stated purpose.

The materials do not include explicit instruction on using contextual analysis to determine the meaning of unfamiliar vocabulary in connected text. Although each lesson contains dedicated “Academic Vocabulary” sections that introduce unfamiliar words through vocabulary anchor charts, student-friendly definitions, illustrations, and discussion prior to reading, the materials do not model or explain how students can use surrounding words, phrases, examples, or other context clues within the text to determine the meaning of unfamiliar vocabulary while reading. Instead, word meanings are provided directly before students encounter the text.

The materials do not provide educator guidance for explicitly teaching contextual analysis as a vocabulary strategy. Throughout the Early Biliteracy lessons, educators are directed to introduce vocabulary, discuss definitions, and revisit vocabulary after reading; however, the lessons do not include think-alouds, modeling, or guided practice demonstrating how to identify and use context clues within authentic text to determine word meaning. Students receive definitions rather than instruction in using contextual clues to infer meaning.

Evaluation for 8.2d
Materials include opportunities for students to practice using contextual analysis to determine word meaning of unfamiliar vocabulary in texts in alignment with grade-level TEKS as appropriate for the program's stated purpose.

The materials do not include opportunities for students to practice using contextual analysis to determine the meaning of unfamiliar vocabulary in connected text. Each lesson introduces vocabulary before the “Academic Vocabulary” or “Word Study” sections, where educators explicitly teach target words and students discuss or pronounce them prior to reading. However, the student tasks do not require students to use surrounding words, sentences, or paragraphs from the text to infer the meaning of unfamiliar vocabulary. Instead, word meanings are established before students encounter the text.

The materials do not provide student practice activities that require contextual analysis as a vocabulary strategy. During and after reading, students answer literal and inferential comprehension questions, participate in discussion prompts, complete language connections, and write about the text. However, these activities do not ask students to determine the meaning of unfamiliar words using context clues, identify the textual evidence that supports a word’s meaning, choose the meaning of a word based on context, or complete context-based vocabulary tasks. Students are not provided opportunities to practice inferring word meaning from connected text.

Evaluation for 8.3a
Materials include systematic and explicit (direct) instruction on reading comprehension skills at multiple levels (i.e., literal, inferential, evaluative) in alignment with grade-level TEKS as appropriate for the program's stated purpose.

The materials include systematic instruction in reading comprehension through a progression from literal to inferential and evaluative thinking across the lesson cycle. During reading, educators begin with literal questions that require students to recall explicit information from the text (e.g., identifying characters, settings, or events). After reading, discussion prompts advance to inferential questions that ask students to explain causes, predict outcomes, or draw conclusions using textual evidence. Lessons conclude with evaluative questions that require students to express opinions, justify responses, or make judgments about characters, events, or ideas (e.g., “Why?” or “Do you think . . . ?”). However, the materials do not include explicit educator guidance that teaches the comprehension process required to analyze, compare, or evaluate information across texts.

The materials include systematic and explicit instruction on reading comprehension skills at multiple levels in alignment with the grade-level TEKS, as appropriate for the program’s stated purpose. For example, the “Review” section asks students to compare information across two texts by responding to the question “Do you think it is best for turtles to live in a small pond at home or in a pond in nature?” and provides a sentence stem to support oral discussion. The materials do not include explicit educator guidance that teaches the comprehension process required to analyze, compare, or evaluate information across texts. The lesson does not provide educator modeling, think-alouds, step-by-step instruction, or guided practice demonstrating how to use text evidence to support comparisons before students independently respond to the discussion prompt.

Evaluation for 8.3b
Materials include opportunities for students to practice reading comprehension skills at multiple levels (i.e., literal, inferential, evaluative) with a variety of grade-level texts in alignment with the grade-level TEKS as appropriate for the program's stated purpose.

The materials include repeated opportunities for students to practice reading comprehension at multiple levels through educator-guided questioning before, during, and after reading. For example, in “Target Language: English” Set 8, after reading “A Good Trap,” students answer the literal question “Why did Little Rabbit have to go to sleep?” followed by the inferential question “Why did the animals want to go to sleep?” and the synthesizing prompt “Do all animals sleep at night? Explain.” In “Target Language: English” Set 9, after reading “Tiff Leaves Home!,” students respond to the literal question “Who did Tiff visit when she was looking for a home?,” the inferential question “Why did Tiff go back to her home?,” and the critical-thinking question “Why do you think the author chose an ant as the main character?” Similarly, in “Target Language: English” Set 10, after reading “When the Sun Comes Up,” students answer the literal question “At what time did Tina come out in search of new grass?” and the inferential question “Why did Tina return to her cave?,” followed by a critical-thinking prompt.

The materials provide opportunities for students to practice literal, inferential, and evaluative comprehension skills across a variety of grade-level literary and informational texts. For example, in “Target Language: English” Set 5, students read the informational text “Big Brothers” and respond to literal prompts such as “What can the boy’s brother/sister do?” They then read the narrative “Cat and Mouse” and answer literal questions (e.g., “What things did the cat want the mouse to do with him?”), inferential questions (e.g., “How did the cat try to get the mouse down from the top of the door?”), and evaluative questions (e.g., “Do you like the story’s ending? How else could it have ended?”). Similarly, in “Target Language: English” Set 6, students read “Looking for Animals” and “Where Is Frog?” and answer literal questions about where Frog hides, inferential questions explaining why Frog is difficult to find, and evaluative questions asking what other animals could play hide-and-seek like Frog and why.