Standards
How Mango lines up with your standards
Before a world language program gets approved, someone has to show it meets the standards it will be assessed against. That someone is usually you. Here's the evidence: the framework alignment, the state-by-state audits, and the instructional design underneath them.
The frameworks
Mango's course and classroom guides are organized around ACTFL's Five Cs (Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons, Communities) and the World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages. The Mango Proficiency Scale maps level by level onto the ACTFL and CEFR frameworks, so you can state where a course lands in the terms your district already uses.
Two documents cover this in full, and both are yours to attach to a proposal: the Mango Proficiency Scale, with level-by-level descriptions mapped to ACTFL and CEFR, and the Mango Curriculum whitepaper, on how the K-12 curriculum is built and how it aligns to state and national standards.
State alignment
Every state, and what the audit found
A third-party review covering all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the ACTFL World-Readiness Standards. Every figure is for Spanish, at levels 1–4 (Novice Low to Intermediate High).
| Jurisdiction | Standards met, courses alone | With the Guide to Best Practices |
|---|---|---|
| AlabamaCovers levels 1–4. Mango's content thins out at level 4 and above, so a program teaching level 5 should ask what that means for them. | 95% | 99% |
| Alaska | 100% | 100% |
| Arizona | 100% | 100% |
| Arkansas | 100% | 100% |
| California | 100% | 100% |
| ColoradoColorado's framework defines 9 general standards, and Mango meets all of them. | 100% | 100% |
| Connecticut | 100% | 100% |
| Delaware | 75% | 87% |
| District of ColumbiaExcludes Intermediate High, which falls outside the range Mango's courses cover here. | 85% | 93% |
| FloridaWorld Languages Next Generation Sunshine State Standards | 95% | 98% |
| Georgia | 95% | 98% |
| HawaiiMeasured against Hawaii's 2022 standards. The review is current for that edition; the gap analysis for it is still in progress. | 69% | 80% |
| Idaho | 96% | 96% |
| IllinoisIllinois Learning Standards for World Languages | 100% | 100% |
| Indiana | 96% | 100% |
| Iowa | 100% | 100% |
| Kansas | 87% | 93% |
| KentuckyMeasured against Kentucky's previous edition of these standards. A review against the current edition is under way. | 100% | 100% |
| Louisiana | 90% | 96% |
| Maine | 90% | 92% |
| Maryland | 83% | 88% |
| Massachusetts | 89% | 92% |
| Michigan | 85% | 94% |
| Minnesota | 100% | 100% |
| MississippiCovers levels 1–3. Mango has no level 4 content for this framework. | 97% | 97% |
| MissouriCovers levels 1–3. Mango's level 4 and 5 coverage is minimal. | 87% | 95% |
| MontanaCovers Benchmarks I and II. Mango's Benchmark III coverage is minimal. | 89% | 95% |
| Nebraska | 100% | 100% |
| Nevada | 96% | 97% |
| New HampshireOne standard could not be meaningfully correlated and is counted as met, so treat this as an upper bound. | 100% | 100% |
| New JerseyNew Jersey Student Learning Standards for World Languages | 81% | 95% |
| New Mexico | 100% | 100% |
| New York | 100% | 100% |
| North Carolina | 89% | 95% |
| North Dakota | 87% | 90% |
| Ohio | 88% | 94% |
| Oklahoma | 98% | 98% |
| Oregon | 96% | 98% |
| PennsylvaniaCovers stages 1–4, but Mango addresses only 2 of the 14 stage-4 standards. | 68% | 75% |
| Rhode Island | 100% | 100% |
| South Carolina | 100% | 100% |
| South Dakota | 100% | 100% |
| Tennessee | 91% | 96% |
| TexasTexas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) | 96% | 100% |
| Utah | 96% | 98% |
| Vermont | 100% | 100% |
| VirginiaVirginia Standards of Learning for World Languages | 83% | 86% |
| Washington | 100% | 100% |
| West Virginia | 93% | 95% |
| WisconsinSome Novice-level gesture and visual-support standards were counted as met on our own reading rather than the auditor's, so treat this as an upper bound. | 99% | 100% |
| Wyoming | 100% | 100% |
Every figure here is a third-party audit result, not our own scoring. The Guide to Best Practices is Mango's set of 101 lesson plans; where a district licenses the courses without it, the first column is the figure that applies.
Against the ACTFL World-Readiness Standards themselves, the review found 100% on the courses alone and 100% with the Guide to Best Practices.
Five states have a page of their own, with the local framework mapping and the audit result set out in full: see the state pages.
Instructional design
What the alignment rests on
Bloom's Taxonomy and DoK
The 101 lesson plans in the Guide to Best Practices are each tagged with a Bloom's tier and a Depth of Knowledge level, with adaptations for novice through advanced learners.
Speaking, out loud
Voice Comparison, Phonetic Pop-Ups, and native-speaker audio put a student's own speech at the center of the lesson, so speaking is practiced from the first chapter rather than saved for a test.
Course Guides for every course
Auto-generated readouts of exactly what each course covers and where, so you can map Mango against your scope and sequence yourself rather than taking our word for it.
See the resourcesSeal of Biliteracy support
Mango's listening, reading, and pronunciation tools help students prepare for the speaking portion of Seal of Biliteracy assessments.
Reading these figures
What the alignment data does and doesn't say
A figure on this page is the share of a state's world language standards that Mango's courses address, audited by a third party rather than scored in-house. It measures curriculum coverage, not student outcomes, and it is not an endorsement by ACTFL or by any state. Its ceiling is ACTFL Intermediate High, where the audited coursework ends, so it says nothing about instruction above that or about what your district requires on top of the state. Ask our K-12 team about either and you'll get a straight answer rather than a percentage.
Disclaimer
"The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) guidelines" and "Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) Levels" are the property and/or marks of their respective owners and have no official association with Mango Languages or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates. Neither ACTFL nor CEFR have in any way endorsed, sponsored, or otherwise agreed to partner or be associated with Mango Languages, or the Mango Languages Proficiency Scale, and no such partnership or association is intended or implied.
What your approval process still needs
You have the frameworks, the audited results, and two documents to attach. Tell us the standards you're held to and our K-12 team assembles the rest.