Program Information
- ISBN
- 9781623825089
- Technical Specifications: Checklist
- Tech Specs: Checklist (pdf 524.2 KB)
- Technical Specifications: Professional Development
- Tech Specs: Professional Development (pdf 180.36 KB)
Ascend Mastery, Grade 4
ELAR Grade 4
IMRA 2026
Publisher: Reading Horizons dba HEC Software Inc.
Copyright: 2026
Series includes:
Rubric: ELAR 4–8 | 2025 (Download Not Available)
* Some programs submit evidence for only part of a standard, while others submit all sections. A 100% score means this program met all the expectations it submitted.
Quality Review
Standards Alignment
Rubric Section
| Grade | TEKS % | ELPS % |
|---|---|---|
| Grade 4 | 73.02% | 84.62% |
Criteria for Quality
Rubric Section 1
Intentional Instructional Design
Materials support educators in effective implementation through intentional course, unit, and lesson-level design.
Total
92% (22 out of 24 points)
Evaluation for 1.1a
The scope and sequence includes a 150-day calendar and program components for word study/morphology, fluency, comprehension, grammar and syntax, and writing. The scope and sequence also outlines concepts taught throughout the course, including determining the theme from details and determining the main idea and summarizing. The “Evidence of TEKS Alignment” and “Evidence of ELPS Alignment” documents outline the standards addressed in the course.
The Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) and English Language Proficiency Standards (ELPS) are embedded within the scope and sequence or directly connected to unit and lesson progression. Units and lessons identify which TEKS or ELPS appear within instruction.
Evaluation for 1.1b
The materials include a pacing guide with a 150-day instructional calendar, where each lesson corresponds to one instructional day. The “Pacing Guidance” section recommends one lesson per day within the literacy block, with a weekly day for assessment and application. This includes the components phonics, fluency, grammar, comprehension, and writing.
The pacing guide addresses the identified gap by providing pacing options for 150-, 165-, 180-, and 210-day instructional calendars while maintaining the 150-day core instructional sequence. The pacing guide also explains how responsive instruction days support reteaching, differentiation, extension, and application.The materials include general guidance, such as spending time in small groups reteaching based on assessments, extending writing assignments, or using extra days for student projects.
Evaluation for 1.1c
In the “Program Architecture Overview,” the instructional model establishes a consistent structure for core instruction and introduces concepts sequentially from simple to more complex. The program follows a linear, routine-based design and uses ongoing formative assessments to monitor student understanding and support mastery of prerequisite skills. Instruction is organized around 10 interconnected themes that recur across grade levels, enabling students to deepen their understanding and strengthen connections across domains over time.
The materials clearly explain the rationale for the course’s unit sequence. The program describes thematic progression and cross-domain connections and explains why it arranges units in their current order and how skills and concepts build systematically from one unit to the next. The course, unit, and learning progression guidance describes how learning progresses from accessible contexts to increasingly complex disciplinary knowledge, interdisciplinary connections, inquiry, and synthesis and shows how earlier learning builds a foundation for later units.
Evaluation for 1.1d
The materials include structured processes to support educator preparation for unit instruction. Through the Program Design and Instructional Routines resource, educators use the “Planning Protocol” to internalize each unit. Educators review prior assessment and benchmark data; analyze the Essential Question and “Unit at a Glance” section; and identify learning progressions, instructional priorities, and academic vocabulary. Educators also gather differentiated instructional resources to support instruction before teaching the unit.
The materials provide additional unit-level supports through the “Unit at a Glance” section and the “Program Architecture Overview.” The “Unit at a Glance” section outlines instructional sequencing, key concepts, texts, and required materials. The “Program Architecture Overview” provides pacing guidance and supports for daily instruction, small groups, differentiation, and emergent bilingual (EB) students.
Evaluation for 1.1e
The implementation guide provides structured, phase-based guidance for school leaders to support and monitor effective program implementation. The timeline guides administrators in supporting instruction for four phases, including before school starts, the first week of school, 30 days into the school year, and 60 days into the school year.
The “Use the Ascend Early Implementation Checklist” suggests that administrators use a checklist for walk-throughs, which addresses the identified gap by providing instructional leaders with observable indicators for monitoring lesson implementation and offering actionable coaching feedback.
Evaluation for 1.2a
Unit overviews provide the background knowledge and academic vocabulary necessary to teach the concepts in the unit. The “Unit Order Rationale” contains each grade level’s unit overviews. Each unit overview is organized with “Knowledge Students Will Build,” “Teacher Background Knowledge,” “Key Content Understandings,” “Academic and Content Vocabulary,” and “Teacher Planning Note” sections.
Each overview contains a “Teacher Background Knowledge” section that is specific to each unit and grade level. This component provides necessary information and possible misconceptions about the unit concepts. Both academic and content vocabulary for the unit are provided in the overviews.
Evaluation for 1.2b
Family support resources for each unit, including “Caregiver Letters,” provide overviews and at-home strategies to support student learning. These resources are available in both English and Spanish, which ensures accessibility for families and enables them to actively support their student’s literacy development.
The Caregiver portal provides families with access to lesson content and student progress, supporting ongoing engagement in both English and Spanish. For example, the “Caregiver Letter” tells families which skills students will be working on and provides practical suggestions for supporting learning progress through activities at home.
Evaluation for 1.3a
Lesson plans are structured into weekly and unit plans. Included are unit Essential Questions and weekly topics. Daily lessons include plans with tasks and questions related to the weekly topic. Lesson plans include components that have a general focus and lesson objectives.
In Program Design and Instructional Routines, the “Program Architecture Overview” provides a comprehensive and detailed lesson plan support. The “Lesson Planning: Scripted & Supported Instruction” section explains the daily objectives aligned to lesson standards, questions to check for understanding of lesson objectives, questions to promote the use of language to meet language objectives, tasks to promote mastery of the lesson objectives, and a list of necessary materials.
The materials included structured lesson plans with daily objectives, questions, tasks, and instructional assessments. For example, in unit 6, lesson 76, students analyze characters’ reactions to major events and explain how those responses show traits or motivations using the I Can statement “I can explain how a character reacts to events and what that shows about them.” The materials do not identify how the activities and objectives align with the TEKS and the ELPS.
Evaluation for 1.3b
The “Resources” tab in the educator software provides a list of materials needed for instruction, including student pages, fluency passages, comprehension texts, assessments, and homework. This organization ensures educators can easily access the materials required to effectively deliver each lesson component.
In the “Program Architecture Overview,” the “Practice and Application” section provides a lesson breakdown with time allotments for Foundations and Language Comprehension, including explicit educator instruction, student application and practice, and total time.
Evaluation for 1.3c
The “Resources” tab includes centralized access to instructional and extended practice resources, and the dedicated “Differentiation” tab provides targeted, leveled support for “developing,” “progressing,” and “proficient” students. These differentiated resources include extension, reinforcement, and enrichment opportunities aligned to student needs, supporting effective use of materials for continued practice beyond the core lesson.
Additionally, lesson-connected practice packets, homework resources, weekly checkpoints, and benchmark assessments provide structured opportunities for continued practice and reinforcement beyond core instruction.
1.1 Course-Level Design
1.1a
Materials include a scope and sequence outlining the TEKS, ELPS, and concepts taught in the course
Materials include a scope and sequence outlining the TEKS, ELPS, and concepts taught in the course
3 out of 3 points
Evaluation for 1.1a
Evaluation for 1.1a
Materials include a scope and sequence outlining the TEKS, ELPS, and concepts taught in the course
3 out of 3 points
The Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) and English Language Proficiency Standards (ELPS) are embedded within the scope and sequence or directly connected to unit and lesson progression. Units and lessons identify which TEKS or ELPS appear within instruction.
1.1b
Materials include suggested pacing (pacing guide/calendar) to support effective implementation for various instructional calendars (e.g., varying numbers of instructional days - 165, 180, 210).
Materials include suggested pacing (pacing guide/calendar) to support effective implementation for various instructional calendars (e.g., varying numbers of instructional days - 165, 180, 210).
2 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 1.1b
Evaluation for 1.1b
Materials include suggested pacing (pacing guide/calendar) to support effective implementation for various instructional calendars (e.g., varying numbers of instructional days - 165, 180, 210).
2 out of 2 points
The pacing guide addresses the identified gap by providing pacing options for 150-, 165-, 180-, and 210-day instructional calendars while maintaining the 150-day core instructional sequence. The pacing guide also explains how responsive instruction days support reteaching, differentiation, extension, and application.The materials include general guidance, such as spending time in small groups reteaching based on assessments, extending writing assignments, or using extra days for student projects.
1.1c
Materials include an explanation for the rationale of unit order as well as how concepts to be learned connect throughout the course.
Materials include an explanation for the rationale of unit order as well as how concepts to be learned connect throughout the course.
2 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 1.1c
Evaluation for 1.1c
Materials include an explanation for the rationale of unit order as well as how concepts to be learned connect throughout the course.
2 out of 2 points
The materials clearly explain the rationale for the course’s unit sequence. The program describes thematic progression and cross-domain connections and explains why it arranges units in their current order and how skills and concepts build systematically from one unit to the next. The course, unit, and learning progression guidance describes how learning progresses from accessible contexts to increasingly complex disciplinary knowledge, interdisciplinary connections, inquiry, and synthesis and shows how earlier learning builds a foundation for later units.
1.1d
Materials include protocols with corresponding guidance for unit and lesson internalization.
Materials include protocols with corresponding guidance for unit and lesson internalization.
2 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 1.1d
Evaluation for 1.1d
Materials include protocols with corresponding guidance for unit and lesson internalization.
2 out of 2 points
The materials provide additional unit-level supports through the “Unit at a Glance” section and the “Program Architecture Overview.” The “Unit at a Glance” section outlines instructional sequencing, key concepts, texts, and required materials. The “Program Architecture Overview” provides pacing guidance and supports for daily instruction, small groups, differentiation, and emergent bilingual (EB) students.
1.1e
Materials include resources and guidance for instructional leaders to support teachers with implementing the materials as designed.
Materials include resources and guidance for instructional leaders to support teachers with implementing the materials as designed.
2 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 1.1e
Evaluation for 1.1e
Materials include resources and guidance for instructional leaders to support teachers with implementing the materials as designed.
2 out of 2 points
The “Use the Ascend Early Implementation Checklist” suggests that administrators use a checklist for walk-throughs, which addresses the identified gap by providing instructional leaders with observable indicators for monitoring lesson implementation and offering actionable coaching feedback.
1.2 Unit-Level Design
1.2a
Materials include comprehensive unit overviews that provide the background content knowledge and academic vocabulary necessary to effectively teach the concepts in the unit.
Materials include comprehensive unit overviews that provide the background content knowledge and academic vocabulary necessary to effectively teach the concepts in the unit.
2 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 1.2a
Evaluation for 1.2a
Materials include comprehensive unit overviews that provide the background content knowledge and academic vocabulary necessary to effectively teach the concepts in the unit.
2 out of 2 points
Each overview contains a “Teacher Background Knowledge” section that is specific to each unit and grade level. This component provides necessary information and possible misconceptions about the unit concepts. Both academic and content vocabulary for the unit are provided in the overviews.
1.2b
Materials contain supports for families in both Spanish and English for each unit with suggestions on supporting the progress of their student.
Materials contain supports for families in both Spanish and English for each unit with suggestions on supporting the progress of their student.
2 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 1.2b
Evaluation for 1.2b
Materials contain supports for families in both Spanish and English for each unit with suggestions on supporting the progress of their student.
2 out of 2 points
The Caregiver portal provides families with access to lesson content and student progress, supporting ongoing engagement in both English and Spanish. For example, the “Caregiver Letter” tells families which skills students will be working on and provides practical suggestions for supporting learning progress through activities at home.
1.3 Lesson-Level Design
1.3a
Materials include comprehensive, structured, detailed lesson plans that include daily objectives, questions, tasks, materials, and instructional assessments required to meet the content and language standards of the lesson (aligned with the TEKS and the ELPS).
Materials include comprehensive, structured, detailed lesson plans that include daily objectives, questions, tasks, materials, and instructional assessments required to meet the content and language standards of the lesson (aligned with the TEKS and the ELPS).
3 out of 5 points
Evaluation for 1.3a
Evaluation for 1.3a
Materials include comprehensive, structured, detailed lesson plans that include daily objectives, questions, tasks, materials, and instructional assessments required to meet the content and language standards of the lesson (aligned with the TEKS and the ELPS).
3 out of 5 points
In Program Design and Instructional Routines, the “Program Architecture Overview” provides a comprehensive and detailed lesson plan support. The “Lesson Planning: Scripted & Supported Instruction” section explains the daily objectives aligned to lesson standards, questions to check for understanding of lesson objectives, questions to promote the use of language to meet language objectives, tasks to promote mastery of the lesson objectives, and a list of necessary materials.
The materials included structured lesson plans with daily objectives, questions, tasks, and instructional assessments. For example, in unit 6, lesson 76, students analyze characters’ reactions to major events and explain how those responses show traits or motivations using the I Can statement “I can explain how a character reacts to events and what that shows about them.” The materials do not identify how the activities and objectives align with the TEKS and the ELPS.
1.3b
Materials include a lesson overview listing the teacher and student materials necessary to effectively deliver the lesson, and the suggested timing for each lesson component.
Materials include a lesson overview listing the teacher and student materials necessary to effectively deliver the lesson, and the suggested timing for each lesson component.
3 out of 3 points
Evaluation for 1.3b
Evaluation for 1.3b
Materials include a lesson overview listing the teacher and student materials necessary to effectively deliver the lesson, and the suggested timing for each lesson component.
3 out of 3 points
In the “Program Architecture Overview,” the “Practice and Application” section provides a lesson breakdown with time allotments for Foundations and Language Comprehension, including explicit educator instruction, student application and practice, and total time.
1.3c
Materials include guidance on the effective use of lesson materials for extended practice (e.g., homework, extension, enrichment).
Materials include guidance on the effective use of lesson materials for extended practice (e.g., homework, extension, enrichment).
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 1.3c
Evaluation for 1.3c
Materials include guidance on the effective use of lesson materials for extended practice (e.g., homework, extension, enrichment).
1 out of 1 points
Additionally, lesson-connected practice packets, homework resources, weekly checkpoints, and benchmark assessments provide structured opportunities for continued practice and reinforcement beyond core instruction.
Rubric Section 2
Progress Monitoring
Materials support educators in effective implementation through frequent, strategic opportunities to monitor and respond to student progress.
Total
83% (15 out of 18 points)
Evaluation for 2.1a
Program Design and Instructional Routines provides embedded daily checks, weekly checkpoints, unit assessments, benchmark assessments, diagnostic assessments, and progress monitoring assessments throughout the year. These assessment opportunities support ongoing monitoring of student learning and instructional decision-making.
At the lesson level, embedded daily checks and weekly checkpoints provide formative assessment opportunities that monitor student understanding during instruction. At the unit level, unit assessments and benchmark assessments measure student mastery of concepts and skills taught across groups of lessons. Diagnostic assessments identify student readiness and instructional needs before or during instruction.
Program Design and Instructional Routines explains that diagnostic assessments are used to evaluate students at benchmark points three times throughout the year. However, the diagnostic assessments cannot be viewed by the educator.
Evaluation for 2.1b
In Program Design and Instructional Routines, the “Program Architecture Overview” defines embedded daily checks as formative assessments embedded within instruction to capture immediate evidence of student understanding. Weekly checkpoints are short-cycle assessments that monitor retention and application of recently taught skills. Unit assessments evaluate mastery of skills and concepts taught across an instructional unit. Benchmark assessments evaluate cumulative proficiency and growth at key points throughout the year. Diagnostic assessments identify literacy skill gaps that contribute to grade-level performance needs.
The materials also explain the intended purpose of each assessment type. Embedded daily checks identify misconceptions and guide immediate instructional adjustments. Weekly checkpoints support small-group instructional planning and identify students who need additional support or enrichment. Unit assessments confirm mastery and readiness for future instruction, benchmark assessments monitor long-term growth and support instructional planning, and diagnostic assessments guide targeted intervention and instructional support.
Evaluation for 2.1c
In Program Design and Instructional Routines, the “Assessments” section provides assessment blueprints, administration time ranges, explanations of assessment structures, and directions for administering specific assessment tasks. Oral reading fluency directions, educator read-aloud guidance, and standardized prompts support consistent implementation across instructional settings.
The materials further support accurate administration through explicit guidance for assessment preparation, administration procedures, reporting expectations, and use of assessment data. Weekly checkpoint educator forms include estimated timing, educator directions, dictated prompts, student tasks, and scoring spaces for reading, spelling, high-frequency words, and comprehension assessments. Together, these resources support standardized assessment administration and consistent interpretation of results.
Evaluation for 2.1d
The materials include formative and summative assessments aligned to the TEKS and instructional objectives of lessons and units. In the “TEKS-ELPS Ascend Assessment Item Alignment” document, weekly checkpoints and unit assessments identify assessment items aligned to specific TEKS. Additionally, Program Design and Instructional Routines explains that embedded daily checks are drawn directly from lesson activities and recently taught instruction, weekly checkpoints evaluate retention and application of recently taught skills, and unit assessments evaluate mastery of skills and concepts taught across a complete instructional unit.
Assessment artifacts further demonstrate alignment to instructional objectives. Each unit contains a weekly formative assessment. Every fifth lesson serves as a summative checkpoint for that week’s lessons and objectives. For example, in unit 1, lesson 1, one of the objectives is to learn the subject and predicate of sentences, which is part of the weekly checkpoint.
The materials reference diagnostic assessments and describe their intended use for identifying literacy skill gaps and informing instructional planning. However, diagnostic assessments are not available for review. As a result, the materials do not provide sufficient evidence to determine whether diagnostic assessments align with the TEKS or with the objectives of the course, unit, or lesson.
Evaluation for 2.1e
The “TEKS-ELPS Ascend Assessment Item Alignment” document identifies assessment items aligned to the specific TEKS within weekly checkpoints and unit assessments. Assessment resources include multiple item types, such as letter and word reading, spelling tasks, oral reading fluency measures, multiple-choice questions, matching activities, constructed responses, and writing tasks.
Assessment items require students to demonstrate understanding through increasingly complex tasks. For example, weekly checkpoints assess reading, spelling, high-frequency words, writing, and comprehension skills using a variety of response formats. As students progress through the year, assessment tasks move beyond foundational literacy skills to require more advanced application of reading and comprehension skills, providing opportunities for students to demonstrate learning at varying levels of complexity.
Evaluation for 2.2a
Assessment resources include educator-facing scoring supports such as answer keys for weekly checkpoints and writing rubrics with proficiency-level descriptors, developmental expectations, and sample student responses within the “Benchmark Assessment Writing Packages.” These resources help ensure consistency and accuracy when evaluating student work.
The materials also provide guidance for interpreting assessment results through the Assessment System Guide, educator dashboard resources, and reporting tools. The Assessment System Guide explains how data from embedded daily checks, weekly checkpoints, benchmark assessments, unit assessments, and diagnostic assessments can inform instructional decisions, including reteaching, intervention, enrichment, and flexible grouping. In addition, educator dashboards and instructor-level reports provide actionable data, identify student strengths and areas of need, and recommend instructional next steps. The reporting tools translate assessment results into meaningful instructional insights and support educators in analyzing performance trends and determining appropriate instructional responses.
Evaluation for 2.2b
The “Differentiation Planning Template,” differentiation guide, and educator software direct educators to review weekly checkpoints, unit checkpoints, lesson-embedded checks, and classroom observations to identify student needs and group students into developing, progressing, and proficient performance levels. Based on assessment results, educators receive targeted instructional recommendations, including reteach lessons, additional practice, intervention, enrichment, and extension opportunities.
The materials also include educator-facing data tools and dashboards that provide real-time performance data, weekly accuracy trends, instructional insights, and recommended next steps. The “Instructional Insights” and “Data” sections explain assessment results, identify areas of need, and link educators directly to relevant lessons and resources. For example, dashboard guidance may recommend reteaching a specific skill, such as a spelling objective, based on weekly checkpoint results. These tools support responsive instructional planning and help educators use the included tasks and activities to address identified trends in student performance.
Evaluation for 2.2c
The educator dashboard includes a “Data” tab that displays class- and assessment-level information, including instructional insights, weekly domain-level accuracy, weekly accuracy growth, benchmark performance, and progress monitoring data. The materials also provide literacy profiles, instructional performance levels, and a “Differentiation Planning Template” that support review of assessment results, identification of error patterns, grouping of students by instructional need, monitoring of progress, and planning of instructional adjustments. For example, the “Instructional Insights” section explains what the assessment data shows, what the results mean, and the recommended next instructional steps to support instructional planning.
The materials also include tools for students to track their own progress and growth. The “My Ascend Mastery Growth Tracker” allows students to record goals, monitor performance on weekly checkpoints and unit assessments, document scores, and reflect on their learning. Students respond to prompts such as “One Thing I Learned” and “Something I’m Proud Of,” which provide structured opportunities to monitor progress, reflect on growth, and take ownership of learning.
2.1 Instructional Assessments
2.1a
Materials include a variety of instructional assessments at the unit and lesson level (including diagnostic, formative, and summative) that vary in types of tasks and questions.
Materials include a variety of instructional assessments at the unit and lesson level (including diagnostic, formative, and summative) that vary in types of tasks and questions.
2 out of 3 points
Evaluation for 2.1a
Evaluation for 2.1a
Materials include a variety of instructional assessments at the unit and lesson level (including diagnostic, formative, and summative) that vary in types of tasks and questions.
2 out of 3 points
At the lesson level, embedded daily checks and weekly checkpoints provide formative assessment opportunities that monitor student understanding during instruction. At the unit level, unit assessments and benchmark assessments measure student mastery of concepts and skills taught across groups of lessons. Diagnostic assessments identify student readiness and instructional needs before or during instruction.
Program Design and Instructional Routines explains that diagnostic assessments are used to evaluate students at benchmark points three times throughout the year. However, the diagnostic assessments cannot be viewed by the educator.
2.1b
Materials include the definition and intended purpose for the types of instructional assessments included.
Materials include the definition and intended purpose for the types of instructional assessments included.
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 2.1b
Evaluation for 2.1b
Materials include the definition and intended purpose for the types of instructional assessments included.
1 out of 1 points
The materials also explain the intended purpose of each assessment type. Embedded daily checks identify misconceptions and guide immediate instructional adjustments. Weekly checkpoints support small-group instructional planning and identify students who need additional support or enrichment. Unit assessments confirm mastery and readiness for future instruction, benchmark assessments monitor long-term growth and support instructional planning, and diagnostic assessments guide targeted intervention and instructional support.
2.1c
Materials include teacher guidance to ensure consistent and accurate administration of instructional assessments.
Materials include teacher guidance to ensure consistent and accurate administration of instructional assessments.
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 2.1c
Evaluation for 2.1c
Materials include teacher guidance to ensure consistent and accurate administration of instructional assessments.
1 out of 1 points
The materials further support accurate administration through explicit guidance for assessment preparation, administration procedures, reporting expectations, and use of assessment data. Weekly checkpoint educator forms include estimated timing, educator directions, dictated prompts, student tasks, and scoring spaces for reading, spelling, high-frequency words, and comprehension assessments. Together, these resources support standardized assessment administration and consistent interpretation of results.
2.1d
Diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments are aligned to the TEKS and objectives of the course, unit, or lesson.
Diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments are aligned to the TEKS and objectives of the course, unit, or lesson.
4 out of 6 points
Evaluation for 2.1d
Evaluation for 2.1d
Diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments are aligned to the TEKS and objectives of the course, unit, or lesson.
4 out of 6 points
Assessment artifacts further demonstrate alignment to instructional objectives. Each unit contains a weekly formative assessment. Every fifth lesson serves as a summative checkpoint for that week’s lessons and objectives. For example, in unit 1, lesson 1, one of the objectives is to learn the subject and predicate of sentences, which is part of the weekly checkpoint.
The materials reference diagnostic assessments and describe their intended use for identifying literacy skill gaps and informing instructional planning. However, diagnostic assessments are not available for review. As a result, the materials do not provide sufficient evidence to determine whether diagnostic assessments align with the TEKS or with the objectives of the course, unit, or lesson.
2.1e
Instructional assessments include TEKS-aligned items at varying levels of complexity.
Instructional assessments include TEKS-aligned items at varying levels of complexity.
2 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 2.1e
Evaluation for 2.1e
Instructional assessments include TEKS-aligned items at varying levels of complexity.
2 out of 2 points
Assessment items require students to demonstrate understanding through increasingly complex tasks. For example, weekly checkpoints assess reading, spelling, high-frequency words, writing, and comprehension skills using a variety of response formats. As students progress through the year, assessment tasks move beyond foundational literacy skills to require more advanced application of reading and comprehension skills, providing opportunities for students to demonstrate learning at varying levels of complexity.
2.2 Data Analysis and Progress Monitoring
2.2a
Instructional assessments and scoring information provide guidance for interpreting student performance.
Instructional assessments and scoring information provide guidance for interpreting student performance.
2 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 2.2a
Evaluation for 2.2a
Instructional assessments and scoring information provide guidance for interpreting student performance.
2 out of 2 points
The materials also provide guidance for interpreting assessment results through the Assessment System Guide, educator dashboard resources, and reporting tools. The Assessment System Guide explains how data from embedded daily checks, weekly checkpoints, benchmark assessments, unit assessments, and diagnostic assessments can inform instructional decisions, including reteaching, intervention, enrichment, and flexible grouping. In addition, educator dashboards and instructor-level reports provide actionable data, identify student strengths and areas of need, and recommend instructional next steps. The reporting tools translate assessment results into meaningful instructional insights and support educators in analyzing performance trends and determining appropriate instructional responses.
2.2b
Materials provide guidance for the use of included tasks and activities to respond to student trends in performance on assessments.
Materials provide guidance for the use of included tasks and activities to respond to student trends in performance on assessments.
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 2.2b
Evaluation for 2.2b
Materials provide guidance for the use of included tasks and activities to respond to student trends in performance on assessments.
1 out of 1 points
The materials also include educator-facing data tools and dashboards that provide real-time performance data, weekly accuracy trends, instructional insights, and recommended next steps. The “Instructional Insights” and “Data” sections explain assessment results, identify areas of need, and link educators directly to relevant lessons and resources. For example, dashboard guidance may recommend reteaching a specific skill, such as a spelling objective, based on weekly checkpoint results. These tools support responsive instructional planning and help educators use the included tasks and activities to address identified trends in student performance.
2.2c
Materials include tools for teachers to track student progress and growth, and tools for students to track their own progress and growth.
Materials include tools for teachers to track student progress and growth, and tools for students to track their own progress and growth.
2 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 2.2c
Evaluation for 2.2c
Materials include tools for teachers to track student progress and growth, and tools for students to track their own progress and growth.
2 out of 2 points
The materials also include tools for students to track their own progress and growth. The “My Ascend Mastery Growth Tracker” allows students to record goals, monitor performance on weekly checkpoints and unit assessments, document scores, and reflect on their learning. Students respond to prompts such as “One Thing I Learned” and “Something I’m Proud Of,” which provide structured opportunities to monitor progress, reflect on growth, and take ownership of learning.
Rubric Section 3
Supports for All Learners
Materials support educators in reaching all learners through design focused on engagement, representation, and action/expression for learner variability.
Total
90% (18 out of 20 points)
Evaluation for 3.1a
The “Differentiation” tab directs educators to use results from weekly checkpoints, unit checkpoints, and in-lesson observations to organize students into “developing,” “progressing,” and “proficient” performance levels. Targeted support resources, reteach lessons, structured small-group routines, and differentiated activities help educators address identified skill needs while maintaining access to grade-level content. Additionally, educators use resources organized by instructional performance level to provide support during small-group and independent instructional settings.
The materials also include paired instructional routines designed to support students who have not yet reached proficiency. For example, the Decodable Reader Developing routine and Alphabet Book Developing routine provide explicit educator modeling, guided practice, oral language routines, corrective feedback, Elkonin box routines, sound tapping, tracking routines, and guided reading opportunities aligned to targeted phonics skills. The materials further support differentiated instruction through scaffolds provided in the “Notes” panel, including questioning prompts, articulation supports, EB student supports, and instructional guidance that helps students access and engage with grade-level content and skills.
Evaluation for 3.1b
The comprehension domain includes a “Background Knowledge and Vocabulary” section, shared reading with pause points, explicit strategy routines, and evidence and reasoning practice that support students in understanding unfamiliar vocabulary, academic language, and text-based references before and during reading. The materials also provide educator guidance for explicit vocabulary instruction, oral language activities, EB student supports, and structured discussions to help students apply newly learned vocabulary in meaningful contexts.
Lesson 23 includes a “Background Knowledge and Vocabulary” section that builds context before reading by connecting students to the idea of finding something just right. The lesson pre-teaches vocabulary such as orbit, micrometer, corrective, optics, and instrument through visuals, actions, definitions, repeated practice, sentence examples, and oral language activities before students read Glasses for Hubble. Additionally, sentence stems embedded within oral language activities and the “Notes” panel support students in using newly learned vocabulary during discussions and written responses.
Evaluation for 3.1c
The “Differentiation” tab directs educators to use weekly checkpoint data and lesson-embedded observations to identify students performing at the proficient level and select resources that increase complexity, promote independence, extend learning, and support transfer of skills. The materials also provide guidance for fluency-building, application, and extension opportunities aligned to current instructional content.
The materials include enrichment and extension activities designed for proficient learners. For example, students who need extension or enrichment are given the chance to consider the Essential Question that ties all the lessons for that week together and to choose the provided ways to address it. Students are also provided with a proficient morphology reader to extend their reading practice and comprehension strategies/activities.
Evaluation for 3.2a
Program Design and Instructional Routines describes a gradual-release model consisting of I Do (modeling), We Do (guided practice), and You Do (independent practice), with embedded instructional routines across literacy domains. Lessons provide direct educator scripting, modeled demonstrations, oral language prompts, questioning routines, corrective feedback prompts, expected student responses, and guided practice opportunities that support clear explanations and explicit instruction. For example, in unit 3, lesson 31, the morphology lesson includes scripted language explaining that morphemes are the smallest parts of words that carry meaning and introduces the suffix -ize. The lesson also includes prompts such as “Read the words” and “Fade your voice as learners read” to support modeling and gradual release.
The materials also include guidance to support educators in modeling and explaining concepts. The “Lesson Planning: Scripted & Supported Instruction” section explains that lessons include point-of-use educator guidance, lesson targets, interactive scripting, educator tips, and instructional supports to guide lesson delivery. Throughout the lessons, oral language discussion prompts, sentence frames, and model responses provide additional support for educators as they facilitate instruction. For example, in unit 9, lesson 121, articulation notes explain correct pronunciation, identify common misconceptions, and provide strategies for helping students produce target sounds accurately. Additional instructional supports guide educators in facilitating discussions, modeling skills, and scaffolding learning for diverse student needs.
Evaluation for 3.2b
In Program Design and Instructional Routines, lesson routines and differentiated instructional routines incorporate direct instruction, guided practice, independent practice, collaborative partner discussions, oral language routines, differentiated small-group instruction, and independent application activities. The materials also provide guidance for flexible grouping and transitions between whole-group, small-group, and independent learning opportunities through recurring instructional routines and differentiated instructional pathways.
For example, in unit 6, lesson 76, the grammar and syntax section includes guidance that allows students to choose from different writing practice tools such as whiteboards, journals, or workbooks, which supports varied ways for students to demonstrate understanding while completing the same task. The materials also include structured educator prompts to support whole-group instruction, partner discussions, and think-aloud modeling. For example, in unit 3, lesson 31, students are prompted to turn and talk with a partner to organize ideas, encouraging oral language development and collaborative thinking. The morphology section of the same lesson provides the educator with a scripted think-aloud that demonstrates fluent reading with appropriate pauses and models self-monitoring strategies for students. Embedded educator notes provide recommendations for monitoring student progress and delivering individualized support throughout the lesson.
Evaluation for 3.2c
In Program Design and Instructional Routines, lesson routines and differentiated instructional routines incorporate guided practice, independent practice, collaborative partner discussions, oral language activities, writing application, fluency practice, and differentiated small-group instruction. The materials also provide recommendations for whole-group instruction, targeted small-group instruction, independent practice, flexible grouping, and differentiated instructional pathways organized by student performance levels.
For example, in unit 3, lesson 31, fluency instruction begins with whole-group reading led by the educator, transitions into partner reading with educator support, and concludes with independent reading. Similar structures appear in unit 5, lesson 61, when students engage in educator read-alouds, partner reading, independent reading, and reflection on their fluency. Embedded educator prompts and instructional support notes provide guidance for modeling, facilitating student practice, and delivering individual support throughout the lesson.
Evaluation for 3.3a
The materials include educator guidance for providing linguistic accommodations that support EB students in developing academic language. The “Integrated Multilingual Learner Supports” section and embedded lesson supports provide accommodations such as visuals and gestures, sentence frames, oral rehearsal opportunities, partner discussions, explicit vocabulary instruction, cognate connections, translanguaging practices, and structured response stems. The materials also include guidance for supporting oral language development through collaborative discussions, questioning routines, and opportunities for students to act out vocabulary and concepts before responding verbally.
The materials contain an ELPS proficiency-level crosswalk and linguistic accommodations guidance. The proficiency-level crosswalk provides the specific ELPS level, Ascend level, support level, and instructional emphasis. Other guidance includes linguistic scaffolds as English proficiency develops and for leveraging home-language and cross-linguistic connections within oral, reading, and writing experiences.
Evaluation for 3.3b
The materials include supports designed to assist EB students during instruction. The “Integrated Multilingual Learner Supports” section provides guidance for implementing language supports within lessons, and the materials include accommodations such as sentence frames, oral language routines, visuals, gestures, cognate connections, translanguaging practices, and embedded scaffolds to support language development. Additionally, the “Evidence of ELPS Alignment” document identifies connections to the ELPS and highlights how language supports are incorporated throughout the program.
The Learner Variability framework contains information on EB students and considerations of language proficiency. The framework emphasizes the use of embedded educator supports, oral language routines, background knowledge and vocabulary, writing and application experiences, translated resources, and differentiated practice opportunities.
Evaluation for 3.3c
The materials include embedded guidance to support EB students in developing academic vocabulary, increasing comprehension, and building background knowledge through oral discourse. EB student supports include visuals and gestures, sentence frames, oral language routines, explicit vocabulary instruction, partner discussions, collaborative questioning, and oral rehearsal opportunities. For example, in unit 3, lesson 31, articulation and multilingual support are provided in the embedded sidebars for the morpheme aud. Students hear the morpheme in isolation and in words, say the words, and learn the meaning of the root aud. At the end of the component, students turn and talk to apply new knowledge of the root word aud by discussing a sound that is audible and one that is not. The materials include opportunities for students to build background knowledge through oral discourse.
The materials also support EB students in developing academic vocabulary, increasing comprehension, and building background knowledge through written discourse. For example, in unit 3, lesson 78, EB student support in the “Notes” panel states, “To support MLLs, create a visual diagram showing the transformation process (carbohydrates → glucose, proteins → amino acids, fats → fatty acids). Use sentence frames: “First, _______.” “The text says _______.” “This means that _______.” Allow learners to point to specific text evidence before explaining in their own words.” The materials include cognates to make cross-linguistic connections.
The materials provide limited support for cross-linguistic connections through oral and written discourse. While EB student supports recommend that students think, write, or discuss their responses in their home language before translating them into English, the materials do not provide consistent guidance on how to implement these supports. For example, in unit 3, lesson 78, educators are guided to use visual diagrams to support understanding of scientific processes and provide sentence frames such as “First, _______,” “The text says _______,” and “This means that _______.” As a result, the materials support academic vocabulary, comprehension, and background knowledge development but do not consistently support cross-linguistic connections in oral and written discourse.
Evaluation for 3.3d
This guidance is not applicable because the program is not designed for dual language immersion (DLI) programs.
3.1 Differentiation and Scaffolds
3.1a
Materials include teacher guidance for differentiated instruction, activities, and paired (scaffolded) lessons for students who have not yet reached proficiency on grade-level content and skills.
Materials include teacher guidance for differentiated instruction, activities, and paired (scaffolded) lessons for students who have not yet reached proficiency on grade-level content and skills.
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 3.1a
Evaluation for 3.1a
Materials include teacher guidance for differentiated instruction, activities, and paired (scaffolded) lessons for students who have not yet reached proficiency on grade-level content and skills.
1 out of 1 points
The materials also include paired instructional routines designed to support students who have not yet reached proficiency. For example, the Decodable Reader Developing routine and Alphabet Book Developing routine provide explicit educator modeling, guided practice, oral language routines, corrective feedback, Elkonin box routines, sound tapping, tracking routines, and guided reading opportunities aligned to targeted phonics skills. The materials further support differentiated instruction through scaffolds provided in the “Notes” panel, including questioning prompts, articulation supports, EB student supports, and instructional guidance that helps students access and engage with grade-level content and skills.
3.1b
Materials include pre-teaching or embedded supports for unfamiliar vocabulary and references in text (e.g., figurative language, idioms, academic language). (T/S)
Materials include pre-teaching or embedded supports for unfamiliar vocabulary and references in text (e.g., figurative language, idioms, academic language). (T/S)
2 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 3.1b
Evaluation for 3.1b
Materials include pre-teaching or embedded supports for unfamiliar vocabulary and references in text (e.g., figurative language, idioms, academic language). (T/S)
2 out of 2 points
Lesson 23 includes a “Background Knowledge and Vocabulary” section that builds context before reading by connecting students to the idea of finding something just right. The lesson pre-teaches vocabulary such as orbit, micrometer, corrective, optics, and instrument through visuals, actions, definitions, repeated practice, sentence examples, and oral language activities before students read Glasses for Hubble. Additionally, sentence stems embedded within oral language activities and the “Notes” panel support students in using newly learned vocabulary during discussions and written responses.
3.1c
Materials include teacher guidance for differentiated instruction, enrichment, and extension activities for students who have demonstrated proficiency in grade-level content and skills.
Materials include teacher guidance for differentiated instruction, enrichment, and extension activities for students who have demonstrated proficiency in grade-level content and skills.
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 3.1c
Evaluation for 3.1c
Materials include teacher guidance for differentiated instruction, enrichment, and extension activities for students who have demonstrated proficiency in grade-level content and skills.
1 out of 1 points
The materials include enrichment and extension activities designed for proficient learners. For example, students who need extension or enrichment are given the chance to consider the Essential Question that ties all the lessons for that week together and to choose the provided ways to address it. Students are also provided with a proficient morphology reader to extend their reading practice and comprehension strategies/activities.
3.2 Instructional Methods
3.2a
Materials include explicit (direct) prompts and guidance to support the teacher in modeling and explaining the concept(s) to be learned.
Materials include explicit (direct) prompts and guidance to support the teacher in modeling and explaining the concept(s) to be learned.
2 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 3.2a
Evaluation for 3.2a
Materials include explicit (direct) prompts and guidance to support the teacher in modeling and explaining the concept(s) to be learned.
2 out of 2 points
The materials also include guidance to support educators in modeling and explaining concepts. The “Lesson Planning: Scripted & Supported Instruction” section explains that lessons include point-of-use educator guidance, lesson targets, interactive scripting, educator tips, and instructional supports to guide lesson delivery. Throughout the lessons, oral language discussion prompts, sentence frames, and model responses provide additional support for educators as they facilitate instruction. For example, in unit 9, lesson 121, articulation notes explain correct pronunciation, identify common misconceptions, and provide strategies for helping students produce target sounds accurately. Additional instructional supports guide educators in facilitating discussions, modeling skills, and scaffolding learning for diverse student needs.
3.2b
Materials include teacher guidance and recommendations for effective lesson delivery and facilitation using a variety of instructional approaches.
Materials include teacher guidance and recommendations for effective lesson delivery and facilitation using a variety of instructional approaches.
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 3.2b
Evaluation for 3.2b
Materials include teacher guidance and recommendations for effective lesson delivery and facilitation using a variety of instructional approaches.
1 out of 1 points
For example, in unit 6, lesson 76, the grammar and syntax section includes guidance that allows students to choose from different writing practice tools such as whiteboards, journals, or workbooks, which supports varied ways for students to demonstrate understanding while completing the same task. The materials also include structured educator prompts to support whole-group instruction, partner discussions, and think-aloud modeling. For example, in unit 3, lesson 31, students are prompted to turn and talk with a partner to organize ideas, encouraging oral language development and collaborative thinking. The morphology section of the same lesson provides the educator with a scripted think-aloud that demonstrates fluent reading with appropriate pauses and models self-monitoring strategies for students. Embedded educator notes provide recommendations for monitoring student progress and delivering individualized support throughout the lesson.
3.2c
Materials support multiple types of practice (e.g., guided, independent, collaborative) and include guidance for teachers and recommended structures (e.g., whole group, small group, individual) to support effective implementation.
Materials support multiple types of practice (e.g., guided, independent, collaborative) and include guidance for teachers and recommended structures (e.g., whole group, small group, individual) to support effective implementation.
2 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 3.2c
Evaluation for 3.2c
Materials support multiple types of practice (e.g., guided, independent, collaborative) and include guidance for teachers and recommended structures (e.g., whole group, small group, individual) to support effective implementation.
2 out of 2 points
For example, in unit 3, lesson 31, fluency instruction begins with whole-group reading led by the educator, transitions into partner reading with educator support, and concludes with independent reading. Similar structures appear in unit 5, lesson 61, when students engage in educator read-alouds, partner reading, independent reading, and reflection on their fluency. Embedded educator prompts and instructional support notes provide guidance for modeling, facilitating student practice, and delivering individual support throughout the lesson.
3.3 Support for Emergent Bilingual Students
3.3a
Materials include teacher 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.
Materials include teacher 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.
2 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 3.3a
Evaluation for 3.3a
Materials include teacher 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.
2 out of 2 points
The materials contain an ELPS proficiency-level crosswalk and linguistic accommodations guidance. The proficiency-level crosswalk provides the specific ELPS level, Ascend level, support level, and instructional emphasis. Other guidance includes linguistic scaffolds as English proficiency develops and for leveraging home-language and cross-linguistic connections within oral, reading, and writing experiences.
3.3b
Materials include implementation guidance to support teachers in effectively using the materials in state-approved bilingual/ESL programs.
Materials include implementation guidance to support teachers in effectively using the materials in state-approved bilingual/ESL programs.
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 3.3b
Evaluation for 3.3b
Materials include implementation guidance to support teachers in effectively using the materials in state-approved bilingual/ESL programs.
1 out of 1 points
The Learner Variability framework contains information on EB students and considerations of language proficiency. The framework emphasizes the use of embedded educator supports, oral language routines, background knowledge and vocabulary, writing and application experiences, translated resources, and differentiated practice opportunities.
3.3c
Materials include embedded guidance for teachers to support emergent bilingual students in developing academic vocabulary, increasing comprehension, building background knowledge, and making cross-linguistic connections through oral and written discourse.
Materials include embedded guidance for teachers to support emergent bilingual students in developing academic vocabulary, increasing comprehension, building background knowledge, and making cross-linguistic connections through oral and written discourse.
6 out of 8 points
Evaluation for 3.3c
Evaluation for 3.3c
Materials include embedded guidance for teachers to support emergent bilingual students in developing academic vocabulary, increasing comprehension, building background knowledge, and making cross-linguistic connections through oral and written discourse.
6 out of 8 points
The materials also support EB students in developing academic vocabulary, increasing comprehension, and building background knowledge through written discourse. For example, in unit 3, lesson 78, EB student support in the “Notes” panel states, “To support MLLs, create a visual diagram showing the transformation process (carbohydrates → glucose, proteins → amino acids, fats → fatty acids). Use sentence frames: “First, _______.” “The text says _______.” “This means that _______.” Allow learners to point to specific text evidence before explaining in their own words.” The materials include cognates to make cross-linguistic connections.
The materials provide limited support for cross-linguistic connections through oral and written discourse. While EB student supports recommend that students think, write, or discuss their responses in their home language before translating them into English, the materials do not provide consistent guidance on how to implement these supports. For example, in unit 3, lesson 78, educators are guided to use visual diagrams to support understanding of scientific processes and provide sentence frames such as “First, _______,” “The text says _______,” and “This means that _______.” As a result, the materials support academic vocabulary, comprehension, and background knowledge development but do not consistently support cross-linguistic connections in oral and written discourse.
3.3d
If designed for dual language immersion (DLI) programs, materials include resources that outline opportunities to address metalinguistic transfer from English to the partner language.
If designed for dual language immersion (DLI) programs, materials include resources that outline opportunities to address metalinguistic transfer from English to the partner language.
Not applicable.
Evaluation for 3.3d
Evaluation for 3.3d
If designed for dual language immersion (DLI) programs, materials include resources that outline opportunities to address metalinguistic transfer from English to the partner language.
Not applicable.
Rubric Section 4
Foundational Skills
Materials include guidance for explicit (direct) and systematic instruction in foundational skills, instructional routines, student practice, and cumulative review.
Total
92% (85 out of 92 points)
Evaluation for 4.A.1a
The materials provide educator guidance to support students in organizing presentations and expressing opinions for specific purposes, fully aligning with the grade-level TEKS. Unit 1, lesson 9 outlines explicit structural targets for student writing to help students logically organize their thoughts, requiring a 4–6 sentence framework in which students choose a side on a complex issue, integrate textual evidence, and directly evaluate an author’s claim regarding technology and human tools. Furthermore, the materials offer scaffolding, such as sentence starters and corrective educator prompts. For example, “Now where’s your proof?” is used to ensure students understand the purpose of backing up their opinions with text-based facts. This design extends to collaborative activities, such as unit 8, lesson 120, in which students form and orally express purpose-driven opinions regarding threatening ocean forces based on their shared reading.
Additionally, the curriculum features guidance that supports students in tailoring their written opinions and oral presentations to specific audiences. During the drafting phase, the interactive partner share prompts students to determine whether their partner’s evidence changed their mind, keeping the immediate audience central to the communication. Beyond peer-to-peer sharing, the materials offer educators a diverse suite of publishing and presentation modalities designed for various student audiences. Methods such as the author’s chair engage the whole class with a follow-up question-and-answer session. Students create a class book for the classroom library and execute a digital transfer for wider presentation, ensuring educators can guide students to effectively adapt their delivery to physical and digital audiences.
Evaluation for 4.A.1b
The materials provide educator guidance and active classroom opportunities for students to follow oral instructions, achieving alignment with these specific components of the grade-level English language arts (ELA) TEKS. Across multiple instructional core routines, such as comprehension, vocabulary acquisition, and fluency practice, students are consistently expected to listen to and execute spoken directives. For example, in unit 1, lesson 1, students immediately follow oral prompts to engage in analytical turn-and-talk discussions with their peers regarding character motivations. This is supported by structural routines such as the Morphology Reader Proficient routine in the unit 3 “Differentiation” tab, which offers explicit educator pathways to guide students from listening to spoken directions to executing independent activities. Furthermore, multistep vocabulary and fluency routines actively condition students to follow diverse spoken commands, such as giving physical signals (thumbs up/down), integrating new words into sentences with a partner, and fluidly shifting from group choral reading to independent practice.
In contrast, the materials do not provide educator guidance or student opportunities for restating or giving oral instructions, leaving these essential TEKS unaddressed. The materials create an environment in which students function as receptive listeners to educator-driven commands but do not offer instructional scaffolding to help students verbally rephrase those directions to verify comprehension or practice listening accuracy. Furthermore, the materials do not contain collaborative activities, peer-led routines, or assignment structures that could allow students to step in and provide oral instruction. Because the lessons remain strictly centered on a one-way flow of directions from the educator to the learner, the materials lack the necessary framework to develop student capacity for articulating, organizing, and delivering oral instructions to their peers.
Evaluation for 4.A.1c
The materials provide structured, authentic opportunities for students to listen actively, engage in purposeful discussions, and share their ideas with peers, aligning closely with most of the grade-level ELA TEKS. In unit 3, lesson 31, active listening is intentionally modeled and practiced. For example, students must listen closely to the educator’s oral reading to analyze mechanical pause points and comma usage before applying those behaviors to text. This active listening is further reinforced during shared reading blocks through the strategic deployment of designated pause points to anchor comprehension. Following these receptive tasks, the materials seamlessly transition students into collaborative peer interactions. Using built-in turn-and-talk routines, students routinely engage in critical-thinking discussions, such as evaluating why park rangers must prioritize animal welfare, allowing them a consistent platform to verbally process, refine, and share their conceptual ideas with a classmate.
The materials do not provide explicit guidance or opportunities for students to ask questions to understand information. For example, while unit 3, lesson 31 prompts educators to ask, “What do you wonder about the plants and animals living in large natural spaces?”, this direction is merely a springboard for students to state their thoughts rather than a structured framework for generating or posing questions. The materials lack educator-led modeling, explicit lesson objectives, or peer routines centered on training students how to ask clarifying or information-seeking questions. Because the flow of inquiry remains driven by the educator prompts rather than student-initiated questioning, this essential TEKS component is unaddressed.
Evaluation for 4.B.1a
The materials include a systematic sequence for introducing grade-level sound–spelling patterns, fully aligning with the requirements outlined in the ELA TEKS. Central to this instructional framework is the Multisyllabic Phonics Toolkit Set, which maps out a clearly defined progression of phonetic concepts designed to build advanced word-analysis skills. As detailed in the tool kit, the master instructional chart maps out specific sections and topics that transition logically from foundational mechanics to complex linguistic structures. The scope and sequence moves deliberately from single vowel sounds, digraphs, and single consonant sounds into blends, double consonants, and complex blends before culminating in final stable-syllable structures, such as final consonant-le combinations.
The materials provide explicit educator-facing decoding guidance to ensure students can successfully apply these sound–spelling patterns to multisyllabic decoding and encoding. The tool kit provides specific protocols for instructors, teaching them how to guide students to split words; isolate and count working vowels; and navigate complex orthographic separators such as blends, digraphs, and final stable syllables. By embedding the five phonetic skills into a scaffolded, step-by-step syllabus, the materials provide educators with the necessary tools to methodically cultivate spelling confidence and advanced decoding fluency. This seamless blend of structural pacing and explicit decoding strategy ensures that students master grade-level word identification standards in a predictable, scientifically grounded manner.
Evaluation for 4.B.1b
The Multisyllabic Phonics Toolkit in the differentiation resources features fully realized instructional scripts and repeatable mini-lesson sequences. Educators are guided to lead students through a direct guided practice routine. A clear example of this direct instruction is in Phonetic Skill 1, as the tool kit provides an educator script to explain the articulatory features of the lip position, chin lowering, and tongue placement and directs educators to model the sound using small mirrors so students can analyze mouth production. By explicitly linking sound mechanics to letter patterns and syllable types, the materials ensure that educators can deliver unambiguous phonics instruction.
The materials include guidance and suggestions with the structural frameworks to maintain explicit daily routines. The tool kit outlines a comprehensive operational guide that includes a recommended daily rhythm divided into a mini-lesson (5–10 minutes), guided practice with dictation (8–15 minutes), transfer and fluency tasks using decodable passages (8–12 minutes), and independent practice games. Additionally, the materials support the instructor with precise implementation tips, such as using a 10–15 minute orientation to establish uniform expectations for word proving and incorporating two days of focused marking-routine review when introducing a new sound pattern. This deep layer of professional support—combining explicit, point-of-use scripts with diagnostic suggestions for formative checks and reteaching—equips educators with a direct, actionable framework to build student orthographic mapping and multisyllabic decoding skills.
Evaluation for 4.B.1c
The materials include activities and instructional resources that allow students to successfully develop and practice grade-level sound–spelling patterns. Students initially develop these skills via the Multisyllabic Phonics Toolkit’s direct instruction framework, which uses a specialized Dictation Bank and an interactive sound–spelling wall to introduce and map phonemes, such as the short vowel sound. Once students develop an aural and visual understanding of a pattern, they transition into a highly adaptive practice loop designed to build multisyllabic decoding confidence. The materials provide diverse tactical assets for this phase, including fluency pyramids to build automaticity, rapid quick-check activities during which students spell words dictated by the educator, interactive word-chaining exercises to manipulate sounds, and an extensive bank of decodable cards.
The materials integrate multilayered opportunities to reinforce these sound–spelling patterns through intentional cumulative review. This reinforcement primarily drives the “Transfer” portion of the tool kit, which bridges isolated-word mechanics to connected text through decodable cards, sentences, and comprehensive stories. A clear example of cumulative integration is when students engage with a full decodable passage by reading it alongside the educator and subsequently illustrating the text to physically demonstrate their comprehension. The materials effectively sustain this reinforcement over time by embedding a variety of collaborative reading formats (such as guided echo reading, partner reading, and independent reading) alongside specialized decoding extensions that prevent skill decay and solidify long-term orthographic mapping.
Evaluation for 4.B.2a
The materials include high-frequency word lists for student practice and provide dedicated instructional resources, such as the “My Journey” educator resource for phonological and phonemic awareness, as well as a word study and morphology component for teaching root words, prefixes, and suffixes. The materials also provide educators with a master inventory of high-frequency words. However, the materials do not include a systematic sequence for introducing regular or irregular high-frequency words. The master list is not organized by lesson, unit, or instructional timeline, nor does it identify when or how words should be introduced. Additionally, the grade 4 and grade 5 high-frequency word lists are identical, indicating that the materials do not provide a scaffolded, grade-specific progression for high-frequency word instruction.
Evaluation for 4.B.2b
The “Differentiation” tab contains a robust, structured six-step methodology consisting of Analyze It, Examine It, Read It, Write It, Extend It, and Review It. For regular words and complex high-frequency structures, this routine systematically guides students through direct modeling to decode words at the morpheme level. For instance, in unit 2, lesson 16, educator-facing scripts provide explicit instruction on decoding the prefix de- by defining its Latin origin (“away” or “opposite”) and directly modeling how it alters base words (e.g., frost to defrost). Guided application is further supported by choral reading protocols in which educators fade their voices to transfer decoding independence to learners as they read words in connected text.
The materials include highly specialized, direct modeling routines to address phonetically irregular high-frequency words. Educators use a dedicated Tap it, Map it, Examine it, Read it, Write it orthographic mapping script that enables students to successfully decode and encode words with irregular sound–spelling patterns. The curriculum includes exact scripts for irregular words such as the, which guide educators to prompt students to isolate the individual phonemes and explicitly trace them to their written representations, pointing out the unexpected letter behaviors. The routine seamlessly transitions from conceptual decoding to physical encoding by requiring students to write the irregular word multiple times, saying the name of each letter aloud as they spell it. This integration of direct auditory mapping, visual analysis, and tactile spelling practice satisfies all criteria for high-frequency word instruction.
Evaluation for 4.B.2c
The “Differentiation” tab contains a robust, structured methodology consisting of six distinct steps (Analyze It, Examine It, Read It, Write It, Extend It, and Review It), paired with a specialized Morphology Reader Developing routine. Students develop decoding skills for regular high-frequency words by exploring core sound–spelling configurations and morphemic word parts. For example, during the morphology routine, students explicitly identify specific morphemes, discuss their linguistic meanings, and practice tracking them across text lists. Practice immediately follows during Read It and shared reading routines, when students read the words in isolation and in connected books. These skills are continually reinforced through the Review It routine, which provides systematic, cumulative review of previously taught high-frequency terms.
The materials provide opportunities to develop, practice, and reinforce encoding and decoding skills for phonetically irregular high-frequency words. During the Analyze It and Examine It steps, students develop crucial word-analysis skills by breaking down irregular spellings, identifying unexpected pronunciation features, and isolating non-decodable parts. Students then practice decoding these irregular words in context by finding them in short text selections, and they practice encoding them during the Write It step, in which they spell the irregular terms in isolation and apply them directly to independent writing tasks. Finally, cumulative review is seamlessly integrated through the Review It step, which spirals previously taught irregular words back into daily practice loops.This highly structured combination of morphemic tracking, contextual reading, and spelling application effectively prevents skill decay and secures long-term orthographic mastery.
Evaluation for 4.B.2d
In the “Differentiation” tab, the materials consistently apply a six-step High-Frequency Word Instruction routine consisting of Analyze It, Examine It, Read It, Write It, Extend It, and Review It. Students have opportunities to read words in isolation during the Read It step, when they review displayed lists of target words chorally and independently. Opportunities to write high-frequency words in isolation are integrated into the Write It step, which requires students to isolate, spell, and physically encode individual words to solidify correct letter–sound correspondences before applying them to broader contexts.
The materials include opportunities for students to read and write these high-frequency words within connected text. During the Read It step, students shift from isolated lists to reading the target high-frequency words embedded within sentences and decodable passages, ensuring they build true tracking fluency and semantic understanding. To demonstrate written mastery in context, the final application instructions in the Write It step require students to actively apply high-frequency words by composing original sentences or responding to continuous-text prompts.
Evaluation for 4.B.3a
The materials include a systematic sequence for introducing grade-level syllable types that fully aligns with the TEKS for word analysis. In the “Differentiation” tab, the Multisyllabic Phonics Toolkit Set provides educators with a structured framework based on the five phonetic skills. The explicit instructional sequence introduces syllable concepts in order of increasing complexity: Phonetic Skill 1 (closed syllable/CVC short vowels); Phonetic Skill 2 (closed syllables with two guardian consonants, blends, or digraphs); Phonetic Skill 3 (open syllables yielding long vowels); Phonetic Skill 4 (VCe silent-e patterns); Phonetic Skill 5 (adjacent vowel teams); Phonetic Skill 6 (r-controlled vowels like /ar/, /or/, and the /er/ family using a dedicated proving routine); and final stable syllables (such as -le). While this underlying sequence is identical to the grade 5 layout, it functions in grade 4 as the primary developmental pipeline to support orthographic mapping of multisyllabic terms.
The materials provide a systematic sequence for introducing grade-level syllable-division principles, integrated directly into the units. For example, in unit 2, lessons 16–19 offer explicit lesson guidance within the tool kit that combines structural syllable-division mechanics with phonetic skills. Educators receive specific instructional protocols to help students reliably recognize where to split multisyllabic words before applying specific vowel-marking routines. By anchoring division principles (such as separating between guardian consonants or isolating final stable patterns) directly to the sequenced introduction of syllable types, the materials provide students with portable, repeatable strategies to decode unfamiliar, multisyllabic vocabulary in grade-level texts.
Evaluation for 4.B.3b
The materials include educator guidance and structured routines for applying knowledge of syllable types to decode and encode multisyllabic words. In the “Differentiation” tab, the Multisyllabic Phonics Toolkit Set anchors instruction in a consistent, four-step proving/decoding routine applied syllable by syllable. Students learn to identify the syllable border, place an x under working vowels, use breves or macrons for short/long vocalizations, and use an arc for r-controlled patterns. This mechanical modeling directly guides decoding by allowing students to recognize the overarching syllable type rule governing each chunk. Because this visual framework demands an identical structural awareness to build words, it functions effectively as an encoding routine. Students reverse engineer the phonetic marking process to map speech sounds into specific graphic syllable structures, reinforcing rule-based spelling patterns.
The materials provide scripted educator instructions for applying syllable-division principles to decode and encode complex vocabulary. In lesson 142, the educator script explicitly models how to determine a syllable boundary using the word typhoon. The educator demonstrates counting the consonant parts between the vowels y and oo, identifying that the digraph ph acts as a single unit that must run to the second syllable, and physically drawing a syllable-division line between the letters y and p. This focus on mechanical steps bridges single-syllable mastery to fluent, multisyllabic processing. For encoding, this division instruction guides students to partition spoken words at structural boundaries, enabling them to isolate and spell each syllable unit sequentially rather than attempting to encode a complex multisyllabic word all at once.
Evaluation for 4.B.3c
The materials include a variety of student-facing activities and resources that systematically develop, practice, and reinforce multisyllabic decoding skills. In the “Differentiation” tab, the Multisyllabic Phonics Toolkit Set uses direct modeling, instructional charts, and group discussions to help students develop a deep conceptual understanding of syllable behaviors. Once foundational skills are modeled, students transition to active practice during the critical eight-minute “Transfer” step found in routines such as lesson 142. This framework provides tactile and contextual assets (such as decodable word cards, decodable sentences, and comprehensive decodable passages), allowing students to apply their syllable-proving strategies directly to text. Decoding fluency is further reinforced through a tiered sequence of collaborative routines, including modeled echo reads, choral reads, partner reads, and independent reading options tailored to individual student needs.
The materials include resources to develop, practice, and reinforce encoding skills for multisyllabic words. Students develop a baseline for structural spelling by interacting with visual aids and participating in educator-led sound–letter mapping discussions. Practice is interactive, requiring students to actively segment and write multisyllabic words on personal whiteboards and categorize them via decodable word sorts. The materials provide advanced extension assignments during which students are tasked with encoding entire sentences. This cumulative writing requirement forces students to continuously retrieve previously learned syllable patterns and apply them accurately within broader syntactic contexts, preventing skill decay.
Evaluation for 4.B.3d
The materials provide a variety of student-facing activities and resources designed to practice decoding and encoding multisyllabic words using syllable types and division principles in isolation. In the “Differentiation” tab, the Multisyllabic Phonics Toolkit Set provides educators with highly structured lessons, such as lessons 140 and 143, to guide isolated practice. For decoding, students interact with stand-alone word cards, decodable cards, and word chains in which they apply proving markings (such as an x under vowels, short vowel breves, or arcs for vowel teams and digraphs), using roll-and-read activities, Beat the Clock, Word Stepping Stones, Word Mystery, and Word Clues to analyze isolated syllable divisions. For encoding, students use a Dictation Bank, a quick-check spelling test, and independent writing activities during which they choose 3–5 words to write and structurally prove in isolation, using visual markings. This isolated encoding practice requires students to apply structural division rules to segment spoken words into independent parts before mapping individual sound–spelling patterns to paper.
The materials include a variety of resources for students to practice these identical syllable concepts within decodable connected text. During the systematic application phases of the tool kit, students practice decoding using fluency pyramids, structured decodable sentences, and continuous decodable passages that build cumulatively on previous instruction. This allows students to apply structural division lines and syllable type identification to read fluently in real time. For contextual encoding practice, the materials include targeted lesson extensions during which the educator dictates complete sentences for students to write. This activity requires students to draw from their knowledge of syllable types and division principles to fluidly write sentences containing complex multisyllabic patterns. Following the writing phase, students are encouraged to read their dictated sentences aloud, looping encoding and decoding practice together in a connected context.
Evaluation for 4.B.4a
The materials include a systematic sequence for introducing grade-level morphemes, using a scaffolded direct-instruction model. Initial instruction establishes a structural foundation by explicitly introducing a morpheme’s origin and meaning, which is immediately reinforced through decodability and structural analysis practices. For example, in unit 1, lesson 1, students are introduced to the root aud, learn its etymology and definition, practice reading words containing the root, and engage in formal word analysis.
The unit 1 instructional sequence begins in lesson 2, as students deepen their understanding through a cumulative review of the root aud and its meaning. The materials then advance to word-building analysis, requiring students to synthesize words using the target morpheme. The sequence concludes with contextual application and peer-to-peer discourse, when students collaborate to define complex words such as inaudible and read authentic sentences to verify the morpheme’s meaning in context.
Evaluation for 4.B.4b
Instructional delivery is supported through structured morphology routines, specific educator prompts, visuals, EB student supports, and identified misconceptions. In resources such as the “My Journey” educator resource and the educator software, explicit scripts and systematic routines introduce, show, and say target morphemes. For example, to support morpheme recognition and decoding, educators use structured display prompts (e.g., act + -or) to break down structural elements, define the meaning of each part (act means “to do/perform”; -or means “a person who does”), and guide students to blend these meaning parts to decode and define the word actor.
The materials provide targeted direct instruction to leverage morphemic meanings for encoding and reading comprehension. Encoding and spelling guidance is systematically integrated into embedded lesson sidebars and word-building scripts. For example, in unit 4, lesson 49, the educator guides students to write a word by assembling its parts sequentially (e.g., writing the prefix in- and the root spect based on their respective meanings). To support reading comprehension, the same lesson provides scripting to help students apply structural analysis to unlock context. Educators review the meaning of the root spect (to look or to see) and prompt students to evaluate multiple-choice options to determine the correct definition of spectator. This application cycle concludes with students reading the morphemes within authentic sentences to check meaning, followed by a collaborative discussion to reinforce comprehension.
Evaluation for 4.B.4c
The materials include a variety of activities and resources for students to develop and practice grade-level morphological skills. However, they do not provide opportunities to reinforce these skills through cumulative review. Within the educator software and “My Journey” educator resource, students develop and practice morphological awareness through a diverse range of instructional modalities. For example, in unit 1, lesson 1, students develop their skills by analyzing words containing the root aud; mapping morphological structures across multiple related words such as audio, audience, auditorium, audible, audition, and inaudible; and using the root to determine the specific meaning of audience. This developmental process is supported by multisensory resources, including slides that connect morphemes to words, pictures, and written definitions, alongside educator-directed prompts and digital flashcards for morpheme–word practice in isolation.
To support student practice, the materials integrate active learning strategies, word-analysis activities, and structured oral language opportunities. Students regularly engage in turn-and-talk routines and partner discussions to explain morphemic meanings, categorize affixes, and evaluate how structural changes alter word definitions. Despite the presence of these tasks to introduce and apply skills within individual lessons, the materials do not include activities or resources designed for cumulative review. Because the curriculum does not systematically loop back to previously taught elements, there are no structural opportunities for students to reinforce all instructed grade-level morphological skills over time.
Evaluation for 4.B.4d
The materials include a variety of activities for students to decode and encode words with morphemes in isolation, and to decode words within connected text. However, they do not provide opportunities for students to encode words with morphemes in decodable connected text. To support decoding in isolation and connected text, the morphology practice and lesson modules offer diverse instructional tasks. For example, in unit 4, lesson 48, students decode words in isolation through structured word lists containing the target root spect (e.g., inspect, spectator, spectacle, respect, prospect, speculate), during which the educator fades their voice as learners read. This practice extends into connected text through activities in which students use digital flashcards, visuals, and sentence-level context clues to successfully read and decode morphemes within complete sentences.
To support the encoding of morphemes in isolation, the materials incorporate word-building, sentence rewrites, and multisensory writing opportunities. In unit 4, lesson 49, students practice isolated encoding by assembling words from their structural parts, with the educator prompting them to write the prefix in- and the root spect before combining them into the word inspect, for example. The materials also feature activities in which students write new words using a given morpheme, replace existing words in a sentence with a morphologically complex alternative, or select the correct morpheme to write into a sentence frame using whiteboards, paper, or journals. Despite these opportunities for isolated word construction and sentence completion, the materials do not provide tasks in which students encode words with morphemes within decodable connected text that builds on previous instruction, leaving this criterion unmet.
Evaluation for 4.C.1a
The materials include educator guidance to provide explicit (direct) instruction on the purpose and use of both print and digital resources, such as dictionaries, glossaries, and eBooks. Lessons are structured to clearly define what these resources are and why they are used in reading and research. For example, in unit 8, lesson 118, the grammar and syntax portion features explicit instruction on the purpose of a glossary, defining it as an “alphabetical list at the back of textbooks and nonfiction books that provides quick definitions to help readers understand key terms.” Similarly, lesson 116 sets the purpose for digital tools, with explicit educator guidance for reminding learners that dictionaries can exist as online tools or print books, both of which provide key information such as pronunciation and definitions, and to note that digital dictionaries offer the distinct benefit of audio pronunciation.
Additionally, the materials provide systematic educator scripts and visual models to guide students in using print and digital reference materials. For print resources, lesson 118 guides educators in walking students through specific glossary entries (e.g., erosion, tsunami, upwelling) and models how to use the glossary definition of erosion to unlock the meaning of a complex sentence in a reading passage. For digital resources, lesson 116 outlines how to navigate an online dictionary entry, using a script in which the educator displays a digital example such as glistened (GLIS-uhnd) to demonstrate how to interpret pronunciation symbols and locate definitions. This comprehensive instruction is reinforced by embedded sidebars that prompt educators to bring in physical books and digital devices, ensuring students receive practical exposure to navigating both formats.
Evaluation for 4.C.1b
The materials include print and digital resources to support students in determining the meaning, syllabication, pronunciation, and part of speech of vocabulary words. Through structured reference lessons, such as those found in unit 8, the materials integrate a chunked lesson design that explicitly teaches the purpose and usage of online and physical tools. Educators are prompted to display digital entries and print resources to highlight specific lexical features when examining reference materials. The educator guidance and step-by-step student prompts help students learn to identify a word’s meaning, syllabication, pronunciation, and part of speech.
To facilitate student application, the materials provide exact visual models of dictionary and glossary entries that emphasize these structural and semantic elements. For example, in unit 8, lesson 116, students are presented with a digital dictionary entry for words such as savored, cooperate, and glistened. Educators guide students to analyze these entries to determine pronunciation and syllabication by noting how the words are broken into syllables and observing how capital letters mark syllable stress. Students then read the accompanying text definitions together to determine the word’s meaning in context. Altogether, these print and digital exercises systematically address word meanings, syllable division, pronunciation, and parts of speech.
Evaluation for 4.C.1c
The materials support students in using context to determine the meanings of unfamiliar words in accordance with the grade-level TEKS. Within the instructional design, students are taught to approach complex academic and nonfiction texts strategically rather than stopping when they encounter unfamiliar vocabulary. Educator scripts encourage students to use a multipronged approach to word solving, which includes looking directly at the surrounding text for semantic and syntactic clues.
For example, in unit 3, lesson 38, during a reading of an interview with a wolf biologist, the educator guides students through context-clue strategies. The instruction prompts students to look at the words surrounding an unfamiliar term for clues and to compare the unknown word with other words in the same sentence. This direct strategy instruction teaches students to cross-reference contextual data with morphological analysis (checking the root) and external reference tools (glossaries or dictionaries) if context alone is insufficient, fully supporting the grade-level TEKS requirements for contextual word determination.
Evaluation for 4.D.1a
The Text System Guide provides educators with an expansive library of approximately 60 reader titles and comprehension texts designed for use throughout the school year. The accompanying comprehension chart outlines key metrics for these texts, including corresponding lesson numbers, word counts, Lexile levels, target vocabulary, and a diverse range of genres. This structural variety spans multiple literary forms to match different instructional and reading purposes, featuring fiction titles such as Nobody Said Forsooth, nonfiction articles such as “The Long Embarrassing History of Trying to Fly,” poetry selections such as “You Are a Photon,” and dramatic works including The Calibration Has Gone Wrong.
To foster fluency progression, these varied texts are integrated directly into core daily instruction for whole-group, partner, and independent practice. Each lesson features a distinct fluency text supported by educator modeling on how to adjust reading rates based on text complexity and purpose. For example, in unit 2, lesson 16, the educator models how to navigate a complex scientific sentence regarding gravity, thinking aloud about slowing one’s pace to process dense information and enhance comprehension. Following this direct instruction, students apply these pacing and prosody strategies to a grade-level nonfiction article using a scaffolded multimodal reading routine that progresses from an educator read to a choral read, a partner read, and ultimately, an independent read.
Evaluation for 4.D.1b
The materials include practice activities and tasks to develop word reading fluency in a variety of settings, ranging from educator-facilitated small groups to collaborative partner work and independent practice. Within the instructional sequence, fluency lessons follow a structured I Do, We Do, You Do gradual-release model designed to scaffold student success across different classroom arrangements. The program incorporates whole-group choral and echo reading, targeted partner routines, and solo readings of sentences and passages to ensure students build pacing, accuracy, and prosody. Additionally, embedded EB student guidance directs educators to facilitate direct small-group reading with EB students before asking them to practice on their own.
For example, in unit 3, lesson 31, students begin with an educator-led modeling session focusing on fluency breaks, followed by a transition to partner practice in which students read a selection straight through and provide collaborative feedback. This routine is further exemplified in unit 8, lesson 106, when the educator script explicitly maps out the shifting settings. First, the class reads together as a whole group while the educator fades their voice to let learners take the lead. Next, students transition into a partner setting to practice collaboratively while the educator provides targeted small-group support. Finally, students complete an independent reading task. These settings are frequently paired with reflection prompts that allow students to evaluate their own fluency and connect their practice directly to the correlating wildlife or informational texts.
Evaluation for 4.D.1c
The dedicated Comprehension Toolkit in the educator software’s “Differentiation” tab facilitates independent reading within a differentiated framework. This tool kit provides concrete tools and instructional scaffolds to help students self-monitor and engage with texts on their own. Structured comprehension questions focus on recall, summarization, character analysis, and identification of central ideas and themes. To promote accountability and deep processing during self-sustained reading, the tool kit also provides written response activities that require students to cite text evidence and integrate target vocabulary, supported by a student-facing written response checklist.
To effectively launch and sustain these independent reading sessions, the materials equip educators with explicit instructional strategies and modeling scripts. The tool kit provides direct guidance on how to structure independent reading time within the daily classroom routine, which is reinforced by educator prompts during shared reading components. Educators are guided to use metacognitive think-alouds to model the active processing required during self-sustained reading. For example, in a modeling segment, the educator script demonstrates how to analyze text deeply by stating, “Watch what I do. I notice the setting, a space station, but I do not stop there. I ask: what did this place make happen?” and “Now notice what I did not write down.” This direct modeling teaches students how to independently interrogate a text and maintain focus during sustained, independent reading blocks.
Evaluation for 4.D.1d
The materials feature an instructional design with a scaffolded approach in which lessons systematically build from isolated word-level skills to text-level synthesis. To establish word reading accuracy and graphophonic monitoring, students practice reading complex, multisyllabic words in isolation before seeing them in context. For example, in unit 1, lesson 1, the educator models how to self-correct pronunciation by breaking down a word into its morphological parts, saying, “I said aud-io, but that does not match the word I see in the sentence. I see the root aud and the ending -ience... The word is audience.” Following this accuracy instruction, students apply their graphophonic monitoring skills with a partner and read the target passage three times to build automaticity and reading fluency.
The program further uses diverse text types to target advanced prosody and deep comprehension. In unit 2, lesson 21, the materials leverage complex poetic structures, such as the poem “You Are a Photon,” to instruct students on the components of expressive reading. The educator guides students to analyze structural elements by stating, “Poets build their work using tools that prose writers don’t use—they break their lines on purpose, they group lines into stanzas, and they create rhythm through repetition and pacing.” Students learn how recognizing verse, rhythm, and meter contributes directly to oral reading prosody and text meaning. To ensure that decoding automaticity translates into meaning, the materials integrate educator-led modeling alongside structured pause points and post-reading questions. This is demonstrated across the units, such as the synthesis questions in unit 1 (“Why do you think stories about courage and kindness were so important for villages to share?”) and the text-dependent discussions in unit 2, ensuring that comprehension is reinforced alongside foundational print concepts.
Evaluation for 4.E.1a
The materials include resources to support the teaching of grade-level handwriting skills in isolation and connected to current student learning. In the “Differentiation” tab, a comprehensive cursive handwriting packet is designed to develop fine-motor efficiency, spelling retention, and writing fluency. The resource equips educators with an instructional routine based on the Cover-Copy-Compare method, in which students analyze a letter model, cover it, write it from memory, and self-assess. To minimize cognitive load and build automaticity, letters are grouped by formation families that use identical kinetic strokes and consistent verbal phrasing (such as beginning with a lead-in and ending with a connect or tail). The packet includes structured skill practice pages that systematically progress from isolated lowercase and uppercase letter formation to full sentences, supported by temporary scaffolds such as directional arrows and an educator reference sheet to ensure instructional consistency.
In addition to isolated practice, the materials provide actionable tools and strategic frameworks to connect handwriting skills directly to current, authentic student learning. The curriculum explicitly counsels against keeping handwriting an isolated subject, noting that fluency develops best through active academic application. Once basic letter formation is secure, the educator resources provide specific integration strategies to embed cursive into the daily ELA blocks. For example, educators are directed to have students copy short passages from their current reading, draft journal responses and text summaries in cursive, or take brief class notes. Furthermore, the materials connect handwriting to foundational language learning by integrating a simultaneous oral spelling routine, which requires students to say letter names aloud while writing their active vocabulary and spelling words, ensuring that handwriting serves as a sustainable tool for daily academic expression.
Evaluation for 4.E.1b
Rather than treating handwriting as an isolated, repetitive drill, the materials provide educators with a variety of integrated application strategies to embed cursive writing directly into daily routines. These activities include copying short passages from current texts, writing journal responses or summaries, taking brief class notes, and conducting a daily alphabet warm-up. Additionally, the materials connect handwriting directly to spelling development through a simultaneous oral spelling routine in which students say the names of letters aloud as they write them by hand, reinforcing motor patterns and orthographic memory.
To ensure these skills are developed consistently over time, the program embeds extensive, authentic writing tasks throughout its structural framework. For example, the scope and sequence features a dedicated writing column that outlines multiple composition opportunities across every instructional unit. Each unit requires students to complete two formal writing pieces, alternating among narrative, opinion, and informative genres. In unit 1, for instance, students draft a narrative piece tied to their first text set and an opinion piece connected to their second text set. Because students complete these multistep composition tasks by hand, they receive frequent, extended opportunities to build stamina, automaticity, and fine-motor control within real-world academic contexts.
4.A.1 Oral Language Development
4.A.1a
Materials include teacher guidance to support students in expressing an opinion and organizing presentations for specific purposes and audiences according to grade level TEKS. (T)
Materials include teacher guidance to support students in expressing an opinion and organizing presentations for specific purposes and audiences according to grade level TEKS. (T)
4 out of 4 points
Evaluation for 4.A.1a
Evaluation for 4.A.1a
Materials include teacher guidance to support students in expressing an opinion and organizing presentations for specific purposes and audiences according to grade level TEKS. (T)
4 out of 4 points
Additionally, the curriculum features guidance that supports students in tailoring their written opinions and oral presentations to specific audiences. During the drafting phase, the interactive partner share prompts students to determine whether their partner’s evidence changed their mind, keeping the immediate audience central to the communication. Beyond peer-to-peer sharing, the materials offer educators a diverse suite of publishing and presentation modalities designed for various student audiences. Methods such as the author’s chair engage the whole class with a follow-up question-and-answer session. Students create a class book for the classroom library and execute a digital transfer for wider presentation, ensuring educators can guide students to effectively adapt their delivery to physical and digital audiences.
4.A.1b
Materials include guidance and opportunities for students to follow, restate, and give oral instructions as directed by the grade-level English language arts TEKS. (S)
Materials include guidance and opportunities for students to follow, restate, and give oral instructions as directed by the grade-level English language arts TEKS. (S)
4 out of 6 points
Evaluation for 4.A.1b
Evaluation for 4.A.1b
Materials include guidance and opportunities for students to follow, restate, and give oral instructions as directed by the grade-level English language arts TEKS. (S)
4 out of 6 points
In contrast, the materials do not provide educator guidance or student opportunities for restating or giving oral instructions, leaving these essential TEKS unaddressed. The materials create an environment in which students function as receptive listeners to educator-driven commands but do not offer instructional scaffolding to help students verbally rephrase those directions to verify comprehension or practice listening accuracy. Furthermore, the materials do not contain collaborative activities, peer-led routines, or assignment structures that could allow students to step in and provide oral instruction. Because the lessons remain strictly centered on a one-way flow of directions from the educator to the learner, the materials lack the necessary framework to develop student capacity for articulating, organizing, and delivering oral instructions to their peers.
4.A.1c
Materials include authentic opportunities for students to listen actively, ask questions, engage in discussion to understand information, and share information and ideas. (S)
Materials include authentic opportunities for students to listen actively, ask questions, engage in discussion to understand information, and share information and ideas. (S)
3 out of 4 points
Evaluation for 4.A.1c
Evaluation for 4.A.1c
Materials include authentic opportunities for students to listen actively, ask questions, engage in discussion to understand information, and share information and ideas. (S)
3 out of 4 points
The materials do not provide explicit guidance or opportunities for students to ask questions to understand information. For example, while unit 3, lesson 31 prompts educators to ask, “What do you wonder about the plants and animals living in large natural spaces?”, this direction is merely a springboard for students to state their thoughts rather than a structured framework for generating or posing questions. The materials lack educator-led modeling, explicit lesson objectives, or peer routines centered on training students how to ask clarifying or information-seeking questions. Because the flow of inquiry remains driven by the educator prompts rather than student-initiated questioning, this essential TEKS component is unaddressed.
4.B.1 Sound-Spelling Patterns (4-5)
4.B.1a
Materials include a systematic sequence for introducing grade-level sound-spelling patterns, as outlined in the TEKS
Materials include a systematic sequence for introducing grade-level sound-spelling patterns, as outlined in the TEKS
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 4.B.1a
Evaluation for 4.B.1a
Materials include a systematic sequence for introducing grade-level sound-spelling patterns, as outlined in the TEKS
1 out of 1 points
The materials provide explicit educator-facing decoding guidance to ensure students can successfully apply these sound–spelling patterns to multisyllabic decoding and encoding. The tool kit provides specific protocols for instructors, teaching them how to guide students to split words; isolate and count working vowels; and navigate complex orthographic separators such as blends, digraphs, and final stable syllables. By embedding the five phonetic skills into a scaffolded, step-by-step syllabus, the materials provide educators with the necessary tools to methodically cultivate spelling confidence and advanced decoding fluency. This seamless blend of structural pacing and explicit decoding strategy ensures that students master grade-level word identification standards in a predictable, scientifically grounded manner.
4.B.1b
Materials include teacher guidance to provide explicit (direct) instruction for grade-level sound-spelling patterns. (T)
Materials include teacher guidance to provide explicit (direct) instruction for grade-level sound-spelling patterns. (T)
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 4.B.1b
Evaluation for 4.B.1b
Materials include teacher guidance to provide explicit (direct) instruction for grade-level sound-spelling patterns. (T)
1 out of 1 points
The materials include guidance and suggestions with the structural frameworks to maintain explicit daily routines. The tool kit outlines a comprehensive operational guide that includes a recommended daily rhythm divided into a mini-lesson (5–10 minutes), guided practice with dictation (8–15 minutes), transfer and fluency tasks using decodable passages (8–12 minutes), and independent practice games. Additionally, the materials support the instructor with precise implementation tips, such as using a 10–15 minute orientation to establish uniform expectations for word proving and incorporating two days of focused marking-routine review when introducing a new sound pattern. This deep layer of professional support—combining explicit, point-of-use scripts with diagnostic suggestions for formative checks and reteaching—equips educators with a direct, actionable framework to build student orthographic mapping and multisyllabic decoding skills.
4.B.1c
Materials include a variety of activities and/or resources for students to develop, practice, and reinforce grade-level sound-spelling patterns (through cumulative review). (S)
Materials include a variety of activities and/or resources for students to develop, practice, and reinforce grade-level sound-spelling patterns (through cumulative review). (S)
3 out of 3 points
Evaluation for 4.B.1c
Evaluation for 4.B.1c
Materials include a variety of activities and/or resources for students to develop, practice, and reinforce grade-level sound-spelling patterns (through cumulative review). (S)
3 out of 3 points
The materials integrate multilayered opportunities to reinforce these sound–spelling patterns through intentional cumulative review. This reinforcement primarily drives the “Transfer” portion of the tool kit, which bridges isolated-word mechanics to connected text through decodable cards, sentences, and comprehensive stories. A clear example of cumulative integration is when students engage with a full decodable passage by reading it alongside the educator and subsequently illustrating the text to physically demonstrate their comprehension. The materials effectively sustain this reinforcement over time by embedding a variety of collaborative reading formats (such as guided echo reading, partner reading, and independent reading) alongside specialized decoding extensions that prevent skill decay and solidify long-term orthographic mapping.
4.B.2 Regular and Irregular High-Frequency Words
4.B.2a
Materials include a systematic sequence for introducing regular and irregular high-frequency words
Materials include a systematic sequence for introducing regular and irregular high-frequency words
0 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 4.B.2a
Evaluation for 4.B.2a
Materials include a systematic sequence for introducing regular and irregular high-frequency words
0 out of 2 points
4.B.2b
Materials include teacher guidance to provide explicit (direct) instruction for decoding and encoding regular and irregular high-frequency words. (T)
Materials include teacher guidance to provide explicit (direct) instruction for decoding and encoding regular and irregular high-frequency words. (T)
4 out of 4 points
Evaluation for 4.B.2b
Evaluation for 4.B.2b
Materials include teacher guidance to provide explicit (direct) instruction for decoding and encoding regular and irregular high-frequency words. (T)
4 out of 4 points
The materials include highly specialized, direct modeling routines to address phonetically irregular high-frequency words. Educators use a dedicated Tap it, Map it, Examine it, Read it, Write it orthographic mapping script that enables students to successfully decode and encode words with irregular sound–spelling patterns. The curriculum includes exact scripts for irregular words such as the, which guide educators to prompt students to isolate the individual phonemes and explicitly trace them to their written representations, pointing out the unexpected letter behaviors. The routine seamlessly transitions from conceptual decoding to physical encoding by requiring students to write the irregular word multiple times, saying the name of each letter aloud as they spell it. This integration of direct auditory mapping, visual analysis, and tactile spelling practice satisfies all criteria for high-frequency word instruction.
4.B.2c
Materials include a variety of activities and/or resources for students to develop, practice, and reinforce skills to decode and encode regular and irregular high-frequency words (through cumulative review). (S)
Materials include a variety of activities and/or resources for students to develop, practice, and reinforce skills to decode and encode regular and irregular high-frequency words (through cumulative review). (S)
12 out of 12 points
Evaluation for 4.B.2c
Evaluation for 4.B.2c
Materials include a variety of activities and/or resources for students to develop, practice, and reinforce skills to decode and encode regular and irregular high-frequency words (through cumulative review). (S)
12 out of 12 points
The materials provide opportunities to develop, practice, and reinforce encoding and decoding skills for phonetically irregular high-frequency words. During the Analyze It and Examine It steps, students develop crucial word-analysis skills by breaking down irregular spellings, identifying unexpected pronunciation features, and isolating non-decodable parts. Students then practice decoding these irregular words in context by finding them in short text selections, and they practice encoding them during the Write It step, in which they spell the irregular terms in isolation and apply them directly to independent writing tasks. Finally, cumulative review is seamlessly integrated through the Review It step, which spirals previously taught irregular words back into daily practice loops.This highly structured combination of morphemic tracking, contextual reading, and spelling application effectively prevents skill decay and secures long-term orthographic mastery.
4.B.2d
Materials include a variety of activities and/or resources (including the use of memory-building strategies) for students to read and write high-frequency words in isolation (e.g., word lists) and in connected text (e.g., within sentences). (S)
Materials include a variety of activities and/or resources (including the use of memory-building strategies) for students to read and write high-frequency words in isolation (e.g., word lists) and in connected text (e.g., within sentences). (S)
4 out of 4 points
Evaluation for 4.B.2d
Evaluation for 4.B.2d
Materials include a variety of activities and/or resources (including the use of memory-building strategies) for students to read and write high-frequency words in isolation (e.g., word lists) and in connected text (e.g., within sentences). (S)
4 out of 4 points
The materials include opportunities for students to read and write these high-frequency words within connected text. During the Read It step, students shift from isolated lists to reading the target high-frequency words embedded within sentences and decodable passages, ensuring they build true tracking fluency and semantic understanding. To demonstrate written mastery in context, the final application instructions in the Write It step require students to actively apply high-frequency words by composing original sentences or responding to continuous-text prompts.
4.B.3 Decoding and Encoding Multisyllabic Words
4.B.3a
Materials include a systematic sequence for introducing grade-level syllable types and syllable division principles, as outlined in the TEKS
Materials include a systematic sequence for introducing grade-level syllable types and syllable division principles, as outlined in the TEKS
2 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 4.B.3a
Evaluation for 4.B.3a
Materials include a systematic sequence for introducing grade-level syllable types and syllable division principles, as outlined in the TEKS
2 out of 2 points
The materials provide a systematic sequence for introducing grade-level syllable-division principles, integrated directly into the units. For example, in unit 2, lessons 16–19 offer explicit lesson guidance within the tool kit that combines structural syllable-division mechanics with phonetic skills. Educators receive specific instructional protocols to help students reliably recognize where to split multisyllabic words before applying specific vowel-marking routines. By anchoring division principles (such as separating between guardian consonants or isolating final stable patterns) directly to the sequenced introduction of syllable types, the materials provide students with portable, repeatable strategies to decode unfamiliar, multisyllabic vocabulary in grade-level texts.
4.B.3b
Materials include teacher guidance to provide explicit (direct) instruction for applying knowledge of syllable types and syllable division principles to decode and encode multisyllabic words. (T)
Materials include teacher guidance to provide explicit (direct) instruction for applying knowledge of syllable types and syllable division principles to decode and encode multisyllabic words. (T)
4 out of 4 points
Evaluation for 4.B.3b
Evaluation for 4.B.3b
Materials include teacher guidance to provide explicit (direct) instruction for applying knowledge of syllable types and syllable division principles to decode and encode multisyllabic words. (T)
4 out of 4 points
The materials provide scripted educator instructions for applying syllable-division principles to decode and encode complex vocabulary. In lesson 142, the educator script explicitly models how to determine a syllable boundary using the word typhoon. The educator demonstrates counting the consonant parts between the vowels y and oo, identifying that the digraph ph acts as a single unit that must run to the second syllable, and physically drawing a syllable-division line between the letters y and p. This focus on mechanical steps bridges single-syllable mastery to fluent, multisyllabic processing. For encoding, this division instruction guides students to partition spoken words at structural boundaries, enabling them to isolate and spell each syllable unit sequentially rather than attempting to encode a complex multisyllabic word all at once.
4.B.3c
Materials include a variety of activities and/or resources for students to develop, practice and reinforce skills to decode and encode multisyllabic words (through cumulative review). (S)
Materials include a variety of activities and/or resources for students to develop, practice and reinforce skills to decode and encode multisyllabic words (through cumulative review). (S)
6 out of 6 points
Evaluation for 4.B.3c
Evaluation for 4.B.3c
Materials include a variety of activities and/or resources for students to develop, practice and reinforce skills to decode and encode multisyllabic words (through cumulative review). (S)
6 out of 6 points
The materials include resources to develop, practice, and reinforce encoding skills for multisyllabic words. Students develop a baseline for structural spelling by interacting with visual aids and participating in educator-led sound–letter mapping discussions. Practice is interactive, requiring students to actively segment and write multisyllabic words on personal whiteboards and categorize them via decodable word sorts. The materials provide advanced extension assignments during which students are tasked with encoding entire sentences. This cumulative writing requirement forces students to continuously retrieve previously learned syllable patterns and apply them accurately within broader syntactic contexts, preventing skill decay.
4.B.3d
Materials include a variety of activities and/or resources for students to practice decoding and encoding multisyllabic words, using knowledge of syllable types and syllable division principles, in isolation (e.g., word lists) and in connected text that builds on previous instruction. (S)
Materials include a variety of activities and/or resources for students to practice decoding and encoding multisyllabic words, using knowledge of syllable types and syllable division principles, in isolation (e.g., word lists) and in connected text that builds on previous instruction. (S)
8 out of 8 points
Evaluation for 4.B.3d
Evaluation for 4.B.3d
Materials include a variety of activities and/or resources for students to practice decoding and encoding multisyllabic words, using knowledge of syllable types and syllable division principles, in isolation (e.g., word lists) and in connected text that builds on previous instruction. (S)
8 out of 8 points
The materials include a variety of resources for students to practice these identical syllable concepts within decodable connected text. During the systematic application phases of the tool kit, students practice decoding using fluency pyramids, structured decodable sentences, and continuous decodable passages that build cumulatively on previous instruction. This allows students to apply structural division lines and syllable type identification to read fluently in real time. For contextual encoding practice, the materials include targeted lesson extensions during which the educator dictates complete sentences for students to write. This activity requires students to draw from their knowledge of syllable types and division principles to fluidly write sentences containing complex multisyllabic patterns. Following the writing phase, students are encouraged to read their dictated sentences aloud, looping encoding and decoding practice together in a connected context.
4.B.4 Morphological Awareness
4.B.4a
Materials include a systematic sequence for introducing grade-level morphemes, as outlined in the TEKS
Materials include a systematic sequence for introducing grade-level morphemes, as outlined in the TEKS
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 4.B.4a
Evaluation for 4.B.4a
Materials include a systematic sequence for introducing grade-level morphemes, as outlined in the TEKS
1 out of 1 points
The unit 1 instructional sequence begins in lesson 2, as students deepen their understanding through a cumulative review of the root aud and its meaning. The materials then advance to word-building analysis, requiring students to synthesize words using the target morpheme. The sequence concludes with contextual application and peer-to-peer discourse, when students collaborate to define complex words such as inaudible and read authentic sentences to verify the morpheme’s meaning in context.
4.B.4b
Materials include teacher guidance to provide explicit (direct) instruction for supporting recognition of common morphemes and using their meanings (e.g., affixes, roots, and base words) to support decoding, encoding, and reading comprehension. (T)
Materials include teacher guidance to provide explicit (direct) instruction for supporting recognition of common morphemes and using their meanings (e.g., affixes, roots, and base words) to support decoding, encoding, and reading comprehension. (T)
4 out of 4 points
Evaluation for 4.B.4b
Evaluation for 4.B.4b
Materials include teacher guidance to provide explicit (direct) instruction for supporting recognition of common morphemes and using their meanings (e.g., affixes, roots, and base words) to support decoding, encoding, and reading comprehension. (T)
4 out of 4 points
The materials provide targeted direct instruction to leverage morphemic meanings for encoding and reading comprehension. Encoding and spelling guidance is systematically integrated into embedded lesson sidebars and word-building scripts. For example, in unit 4, lesson 49, the educator guides students to write a word by assembling its parts sequentially (e.g., writing the prefix in- and the root spect based on their respective meanings). To support reading comprehension, the same lesson provides scripting to help students apply structural analysis to unlock context. Educators review the meaning of the root spect (to look or to see) and prompt students to evaluate multiple-choice options to determine the correct definition of spectator. This application cycle concludes with students reading the morphemes within authentic sentences to check meaning, followed by a collaborative discussion to reinforce comprehension.
4.B.4c
Materials include a variety of activities and/or resources for students to develop, practice, and reinforce grade-level morphological skills (through cumulative review). (S)
Materials include a variety of activities and/or resources for students to develop, practice, and reinforce grade-level morphological skills (through cumulative review). (S)
2 out of 3 points
Evaluation for 4.B.4c
Evaluation for 4.B.4c
Materials include a variety of activities and/or resources for students to develop, practice, and reinforce grade-level morphological skills (through cumulative review). (S)
2 out of 3 points
To support student practice, the materials integrate active learning strategies, word-analysis activities, and structured oral language opportunities. Students regularly engage in turn-and-talk routines and partner discussions to explain morphemic meanings, categorize affixes, and evaluate how structural changes alter word definitions. Despite the presence of these tasks to introduce and apply skills within individual lessons, the materials do not include activities or resources designed for cumulative review. Because the curriculum does not systematically loop back to previously taught elements, there are no structural opportunities for students to reinforce all instructed grade-level morphological skills over time.
4.B.4d
Materials include a variety of activities and/or resources for students to decode and encode words with morphemes in isolation (e.g., word lists) and in connected text that builds on previous instruction (e.g., within sentences). (PR 2.A.1 & 2.A.3) (S)
Materials include a variety of activities and/or resources for students to decode and encode words with morphemes in isolation (e.g., word lists) and in connected text that builds on previous instruction (e.g., within sentences). (PR 2.A.1 & 2.A.3) (S)
3 out of 4 points
Evaluation for 4.B.4d
Evaluation for 4.B.4d
Materials include a variety of activities and/or resources for students to decode and encode words with morphemes in isolation (e.g., word lists) and in connected text that builds on previous instruction (e.g., within sentences). (PR 2.A.1 & 2.A.3) (S)
3 out of 4 points
To support the encoding of morphemes in isolation, the materials incorporate word-building, sentence rewrites, and multisensory writing opportunities. In unit 4, lesson 49, students practice isolated encoding by assembling words from their structural parts, with the educator prompting them to write the prefix in- and the root spect before combining them into the word inspect, for example. The materials also feature activities in which students write new words using a given morpheme, replace existing words in a sentence with a morphologically complex alternative, or select the correct morpheme to write into a sentence frame using whiteboards, paper, or journals. Despite these opportunities for isolated word construction and sentence completion, the materials do not provide tasks in which students encode words with morphemes within decodable connected text that builds on previous instruction, leaving this criterion unmet.
4.C.1 Vocabulary Development
4.C.1a
Materials include teacher guidance to provide explicit (direct) instruction on the purpose and use of both print and digital resources such as dictionaries, glossaries, eBooks, and online dictionaries. (T)
Materials include teacher guidance to provide explicit (direct) instruction on the purpose and use of both print and digital resources such as dictionaries, glossaries, eBooks, and online dictionaries. (T)
4 out of 4 points
Evaluation for 4.C.1a
Evaluation for 4.C.1a
Materials include teacher guidance to provide explicit (direct) instruction on the purpose and use of both print and digital resources such as dictionaries, glossaries, eBooks, and online dictionaries. (T)
4 out of 4 points
Additionally, the materials provide systematic educator scripts and visual models to guide students in using print and digital reference materials. For print resources, lesson 118 guides educators in walking students through specific glossary entries (e.g., erosion, tsunami, upwelling) and models how to use the glossary definition of erosion to unlock the meaning of a complex sentence in a reading passage. For digital resources, lesson 116 outlines how to navigate an online dictionary entry, using a script in which the educator displays a digital example such as glistened (GLIS-uhnd) to demonstrate how to interpret pronunciation symbols and locate definitions. This comprehensive instruction is reinforced by embedded sidebars that prompt educators to bring in physical books and digital devices, ensuring students receive practical exposure to navigating both formats.
4.C.1b
Materials include print and digital resources to support students in determining the meaning, syllabication, pronunciation, word origin and part of speech of vocabulary. (S)
Materials include print and digital resources to support students in determining the meaning, syllabication, pronunciation, word origin and part of speech of vocabulary. (S)
4 out of 4 points
Evaluation for 4.C.1b
Evaluation for 4.C.1b
Materials include print and digital resources to support students in determining the meaning, syllabication, pronunciation, word origin and part of speech of vocabulary. (S)
4 out of 4 points
To facilitate student application, the materials provide exact visual models of dictionary and glossary entries that emphasize these structural and semantic elements. For example, in unit 8, lesson 116, students are presented with a digital dictionary entry for words such as savored, cooperate, and glistened. Educators guide students to analyze these entries to determine pronunciation and syllabication by noting how the words are broken into syllables and observing how capital letters mark syllable stress. Students then read the accompanying text definitions together to determine the word’s meaning in context. Altogether, these print and digital exercises systematically address word meanings, syllable division, pronunciation, and parts of speech.
4.C.1c
Materials support students in using context to determine the meaning of unfamiliar words according to grade-level TEKS. (S)
Materials support students in using context to determine the meaning of unfamiliar words according to grade-level TEKS. (S)
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 4.C.1c
Evaluation for 4.C.1c
Materials support students in using context to determine the meaning of unfamiliar words according to grade-level TEKS. (S)
1 out of 1 points
For example, in unit 3, lesson 38, during a reading of an interview with a wolf biologist, the educator guides students through context-clue strategies. The instruction prompts students to look at the words surrounding an unfamiliar term for clues and to compare the unknown word with other words in the same sentence. This direct strategy instruction teaches students to cross-reference contextual data with morphological analysis (checking the root) and external reference tools (glossaries or dictionaries) if context alone is insufficient, fully supporting the grade-level TEKS requirements for contextual word determination.
4.D.1 Reading Fluency
4.D.1a
Materials include a variety of grade-level texts to support students to read fluently according to the reading purpose. (S)
Materials include a variety of grade-level texts to support students to read fluently according to the reading purpose. (S)
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 4.D.1a
Evaluation for 4.D.1a
Materials include a variety of grade-level texts to support students to read fluently according to the reading purpose. (S)
1 out of 1 points
To foster fluency progression, these varied texts are integrated directly into core daily instruction for whole-group, partner, and independent practice. Each lesson features a distinct fluency text supported by educator modeling on how to adjust reading rates based on text complexity and purpose. For example, in unit 2, lesson 16, the educator models how to navigate a complex scientific sentence regarding gravity, thinking aloud about slowing one’s pace to process dense information and enhance comprehension. Following this direct instruction, students apply these pacing and prosody strategies to a grade-level nonfiction article using a scaffolded multimodal reading routine that progresses from an educator read to a choral read, a partner read, and ultimately, an independent read.
4.D.1b
Materials include practice activities and tasks to develop word reading fluency in a variety of settings (e.g., independently, in partners, in teacher-facilitated small groups, etc.). (S)
Materials include practice activities and tasks to develop word reading fluency in a variety of settings (e.g., independently, in partners, in teacher-facilitated small groups, etc.). (S)
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 4.D.1b
Evaluation for 4.D.1b
Materials include practice activities and tasks to develop word reading fluency in a variety of settings (e.g., independently, in partners, in teacher-facilitated small groups, etc.). (S)
1 out of 1 points
For example, in unit 3, lesson 31, students begin with an educator-led modeling session focusing on fluency breaks, followed by a transition to partner practice in which students read a selection straight through and provide collaborative feedback. This routine is further exemplified in unit 8, lesson 106, when the educator script explicitly maps out the shifting settings. First, the class reads together as a whole group while the educator fades their voice to let learners take the lead. Next, students transition into a partner setting to practice collaboratively while the educator provides targeted small-group support. Finally, students complete an independent reading task. These settings are frequently paired with reflection prompts that allow students to evaluate their own fluency and connect their practice directly to the correlating wildlife or informational texts.
4.D.1c
Materials include materials and tools for teachers, with strategies to support students through self-sustained reading with high-quality grade-level texts. (T)
Materials include materials and tools for teachers, with strategies to support students through self-sustained reading with high-quality grade-level texts. (T)
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 4.D.1c
Evaluation for 4.D.1c
Materials include materials and tools for teachers, with strategies to support students through self-sustained reading with high-quality grade-level texts. (T)
1 out of 1 points
To effectively launch and sustain these independent reading sessions, the materials equip educators with explicit instructional strategies and modeling scripts. The tool kit provides direct guidance on how to structure independent reading time within the daily classroom routine, which is reinforced by educator prompts during shared reading components. Educators are guided to use metacognitive think-alouds to model the active processing required during self-sustained reading. For example, in a modeling segment, the educator script demonstrates how to analyze text deeply by stating, “Watch what I do. I notice the setting, a space station, but I do not stop there. I ask: what did this place make happen?” and “Now notice what I did not write down.” This direct modeling teaches students how to independently interrogate a text and maintain focus during sustained, independent reading blocks.
4.D.1d
Materials include various texts at different levels of complexity for the building of accuracy, fluency, prosody, and comprehension.
Materials include various texts at different levels of complexity for the building of accuracy, fluency, prosody, and comprehension.
4 out of 4 points
Evaluation for 4.D.1d
Evaluation for 4.D.1d
Materials include various texts at different levels of complexity for the building of accuracy, fluency, prosody, and comprehension.
4 out of 4 points
The program further uses diverse text types to target advanced prosody and deep comprehension. In unit 2, lesson 21, the materials leverage complex poetic structures, such as the poem “You Are a Photon,” to instruct students on the components of expressive reading. The educator guides students to analyze structural elements by stating, “Poets build their work using tools that prose writers don’t use—they break their lines on purpose, they group lines into stanzas, and they create rhythm through repetition and pacing.” Students learn how recognizing verse, rhythm, and meter contributes directly to oral reading prosody and text meaning. To ensure that decoding automaticity translates into meaning, the materials integrate educator-led modeling alongside structured pause points and post-reading questions. This is demonstrated across the units, such as the synthesis questions in unit 1 (“Why do you think stories about courage and kindness were so important for villages to share?”) and the text-dependent discussions in unit 2, ensuring that comprehension is reinforced alongside foundational print concepts.
4.E.1 Handwriting Development
4.E.1a
Materials include resources to support the teaching of handwriting skills appropriate for each grade level and, when possible, connected to current student learning. (T)
Materials include resources to support the teaching of handwriting skills appropriate for each grade level and, when possible, connected to current student learning. (T)
2 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 4.E.1a
Evaluation for 4.E.1a
Materials include resources to support the teaching of handwriting skills appropriate for each grade level and, when possible, connected to current student learning. (T)
2 out of 2 points
In addition to isolated practice, the materials provide actionable tools and strategic frameworks to connect handwriting skills directly to current, authentic student learning. The curriculum explicitly counsels against keeping handwriting an isolated subject, noting that fluency develops best through active academic application. Once basic letter formation is secure, the educator resources provide specific integration strategies to embed cursive into the daily ELA blocks. For example, educators are directed to have students copy short passages from their current reading, draft journal responses and text summaries in cursive, or take brief class notes. Furthermore, the materials connect handwriting to foundational language learning by integrating a simultaneous oral spelling routine, which requires students to say letter names aloud while writing their active vocabulary and spelling words, ensuring that handwriting serves as a sustainable tool for daily academic expression.
4.E.1b
Materials include frequent opportunities, resources, and activities and tasks for students to authentically practice and develop handwriting skills appropriate for each grade level. (S)
Materials include frequent opportunities, resources, and activities and tasks for students to authentically practice and develop handwriting skills appropriate for each grade level. (S)
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 4.E.1b
Evaluation for 4.E.1b
Materials include frequent opportunities, resources, and activities and tasks for students to authentically practice and develop handwriting skills appropriate for each grade level. (S)
1 out of 1 points
To ensure these skills are developed consistently over time, the program embeds extensive, authentic writing tasks throughout its structural framework. For example, the scope and sequence features a dedicated writing column that outlines multiple composition opportunities across every instructional unit. Each unit requires students to complete two formal writing pieces, alternating among narrative, opinion, and informative genres. In unit 1, for instance, students draft a narrative piece tied to their first text set and an opinion piece connected to their second text set. Because students complete these multistep composition tasks by hand, they receive frequent, extended opportunities to build stamina, automaticity, and fine-motor control within real-world academic contexts.
Rubric Section 5
Knowledge Coherence
Materials support the development of connected background knowledge and key academic vocabulary within and across grade levels.
Total
90% (26 out of 29 points)
Evaluation for 5.A.1a
The materials are designed to build content knowledge across the fields of science, history, and literature through thematic units that integrate a mix of fiction and nonfiction texts. Text sets within each unit are connected conceptually, allowing students to systematically build background knowledge and academic vocabulary over time. Most of the units are heavily anchored in science concepts, including unit 2 (“Sky and Space” / “The Universe”), unit 3 (“Amazing Animals” / “Global Biodiversity”), unit 5 (“A World of Wonders” / “Marvels of “Science”), unit 6 (“The Human Machine”), unit 7 (“Inventors and Innovations”), and unit 8 (“Earth and Life” / “Nature’s Power”). History and literature are also structurally represented to round out students’ content knowledge. History is developed through unit 1 (“Building Communities”) and unit 9 (“Traveling through Time” / “Building a Changing World”), while literature and narrative analysis are supported by unit 4 (“Once Upon a Story”) and unit 10 (“Mysteries and Detectives” / “The Science of Sleuthing”).
For example, in unit 2, which focuses on “The Sky and Space,” students read a variety of fiction and nonfiction selections that are all tightly aligned to the universe. This deliberate text clustering ensures that decoding and comprehension practice directly reinforce foundational scientific concepts rather than addressing topics in isolation. However, while the scope and sequence effectively establishes interdisciplinary connections across these three domains, the materials do not meet the criteria for the arts. There are no designated units, text sets, or structural frameworks explicitly dedicated to building student knowledge in visual arts, music, theater, or other artistic disciplines.
Evaluation for 5.A.1b
The materials provide resources, including a scope and sequence and a detailed “Program Architecture Overview,” to clearly demonstrate the approach to knowledge building within and across grade levels. Within each individual grade level, the materials use threading to ensure that instructional units scaffold rather than presenting skills or topics as isolated, one-time events. This internal structure allows foundational ideas and thematic language to be systematically reinforced over time, ensuring that students continuously expand their vocabulary from basic recognition to a nuanced usage of sophisticated terms. By grounding new, advanced reading and writing tasks in a familiar textual foundation, the materials provide an anchored learning experience that deepens comprehension as students progress through the units of a single school year.
Across grade levels, the materials establish a cohesive vertical alignment from pre-K–grade 5. The framework is designed to spiral annually, prompting students to dive back into familiar themes each year to tackle increasingly complex concepts and higher-level thinking. This deliberate multiyear progression is detailed in the “Program Architecture Overview.” The “Knowledge Building” section outlines how the spiraled themes foster deepening understanding and continuous growth. By building strategically on the knowledge acquired in earlier grades, the vertical alignment ensures that by the end of grade 5, students possess a vast, interconnected network of academic knowledge and vocabulary necessary for lifelong literacy.
Evaluation for 5.A.1c
As outlined in the “Program Architecture Overview,” the materials organize the 10 thematic units into three-week instructional sequences. This instructional framework uses a high-impact 4+1 instructional cycle. This cycle accommodates 15 complete lessons per unit, designed to be taught at a cadence of one lesson per day. This extended time frame enables students to move intentionally from explicit knowledge acquisition to authentic application, preventing the rapid, disjointed topic switching often found in traditional reading programs.
To maintain high engagement and rigorous focus across the three-week block, each unit centers on a single overarching Big Idea and an Essential Question that remain constant. Rather than repeating the same material, the three-week cadence builds depth by introducing distinct text sets and subtopics each week that roll up into the larger theme. For example, in a unit focused on “Amazing Animals,” week 1 centers on animals in national parks, week 2 shifts to apex predators, and week 3 investigates surviving in extreme environments. This systematic approach guarantees that while students encounter a diverse variety of complex texts, their academic vocabulary and background knowledge are continuously reinforced within a stable, connected topic for an extended period.
Evaluation for 5.A.1d
Rather than using disparate or unrelated readings, each instructional week centers on a dedicated set of core texts that ground the lessons. This structure is visible in the scope and sequence in the “Comprehension” section, which outlines the two primary anchoring texts assigned to drive that week’s instruction. By focusing on multiple related texts within a concise timeframe, the lessons ensure that students encounter shared themes, recurring concepts, and overlapping academic vocabulary to solidify their learning.
For example, in unit 1, week 1, students read the anchoring text Nobody Said Forsooth alongside the passage “The Long Embarrassing History of Trying to Fly.” The pieces are paired to connect directly to the unit’s overarching theme, “Our Place in the World.” Similarly, the unit 2 overview demonstrates this intentional design by pairing the book The Stowaway as comprehension text 1 with the passage “How We Weighed Earth” as comprehension text 2. By navigating these curated text sets, students can synthesize information across different genres and perspectives, successfully building a deep, interconnected bank of background knowledge over the course of each unit.
Evaluation for 5.A.1e
The materials include grammar, vocabulary, discussion, and writing activities that are tightly connected to the knowledge-building topic of the lesson. Rather than presenting these language arts components as isolated skills or stand-alone drills, the program’s architecture guide outlines a deliberate, interconnected framework in which all four domains reinforce the core text. For instance, the “Comprehension Connection” section ensures that content from the weekly reading selection forms the basis for grammar instruction, using authentic text examples to teach linguistic keys such as conjunctions and pronouns. Grammar instruction and sentence hierarchies are explicitly embedded into composition tasks, while the “Reading-Writing Connection” section aligns reading analysis with writing genres so student compositions mirror the texts they read.
This deep integration is demonstrated practically within the classroom materials. For example, in unit 3 “Amazing Animals,” the weekly instructional focus centers on the topic of “Animals in National Parks.” Rather than pulling unrelated sentences for skills practice, the fluency, vocabulary, discussion, and grammar activities all use context, thematic language, and examples derived directly from that week’s lesson topic. This ensures that while students are mastering specific structural or lexical skills, they are simultaneously deepening their content knowledge and building a cohesive academic vocabulary based on the unit’s scientific theme.
Evaluation for 5.A.2a
The materials include 10 interconnected themes from pre-K–grade 5 outlined in the “Program Architecture Overview.” For example, unit 1 moves from “All About Me” (pre-K) to “Our Communities” (grade 2) and “Building Communities” (grades 4 and 5). Unit 3 similarly progresses from “Animals All Around Us” (pre-K) to “Global Biodiversity” (grades 4 and 5).
The materials provide vertical alignment among grade levels, along with a rationale for unit locations. The materials provide grade-level academic vocabulary for each unit. Additionally, background knowledge is reinforced through connections to prior grade levels.
Evaluation for 5.A.2b
The materials include an internal unit structure in the “Program Architecture Overview,” which highlights three weekly themes within a single unit. For example, unit 3 “Amazing Animals” breaks into weekly topics “Animals in National Parks,” “Apex Predators,” and “Surviving the Extremes.” Furthermore, the materials successfully connect sequential lessons within these weekly themes. In unit 3, lesson 44, the comprehension section prompts the educator to reference lesson 43 by stating, “In our last lesson, we read about the Alaskan wood frog...” before guiding students to reread the text The Frog Is Not Dead.
The materials provide vertical alignment among grade levels along with rationale for unit locations. The materials also provide grade-level academic vocabulary for each unit and grade level. Additionally, background knowledge is reinforced through connections to earlier units.
Evaluation for 5.A.2c
The materials provide systematic pre-reading routines designed to build relevant context and enhance student engagement with the text. According to the “Program Architecture Overview,” each comprehension lesson features dedicated “Pre-Reading Engagement” and “Background Knowledge and Vocabulary” sections. This framework employs a structured vocabulary routine (Learn It, Repeat It, Challenge It, and Use It) alongside integrated visual supports to move students from initial exposure to active language use. By anchoring new vocabulary and text topics in oral conversation before reading, the materials ensure students have the necessary linguistic and conceptual foundations to engage meaningfully with the core text.
The materials include routines to supply targeted context and connect daily learning objectives. For example, in unit 3, lesson 44, the background section uses educator prompts to review previous learning about the Alaskan wood frog and explain how scientists research questions to find answers. This targeted review directly prepares students for the day’s focus objective, which requires them to answer Essential Questions while reading. The materials include a combination of structural vocabulary routines, visual anchors, and text-specific context.
Evaluation for 5.A.3a
The materials include Essential Questions, weekly subthemes, and coordinated text selections to ensure students engage with big ideas. For example, unit 4 establishes the central theme around the question “How do stories help us understand life, choices, and ourselves?” In lesson 49, the material leverages this theme by summarizing the story of Mulan and prompting a peer discussion: “What do you think Mulan’s story tells us about courage? Turn and talk to your partner.” Similarly, the unit “Sky and Space: The Universe” coordinates the Essential Question “How do people explore and understand the universe beyond Earth?” with weekly topics such as “Gravity and Orbits” and targeted texts such as How We Weighed Earth. This structure shifts instruction away from isolated skills and focuses it on conceptual understanding.
The materials integrate writing and speaking tasks that directly reinforce these broader unit themes. In unit 3, lesson 45, the writing lesson connects an opinion essay assignment to the weekly theme of “Surviving the Extremes.” Before drafting, students are prompted to collaborate with a partner to discuss the harshest environments on earth and the primary challenges of survival. Rather than using stand-alone skills sheets or disconnected prompts, the materials embed writing instruction, peer discourse, and reading comprehension within the unit’s thematic framework. This design requires students to analyze, discuss, and write about deep, cohesive topics throughout the year.
Evaluation for 5.A.3b
The materials provide opportunities and direct instructional prompts for students to synthesize knowledge and concepts across texts within lessons. In unit 5, lesson 64, the lesson builds a nuanced historical narrative by synthesizing information about the invention of the light bulb across various accounts, prompting students to evaluate the contributions of Thomas Edison alongside those of Humphry Davy, Joseph Swan, and Lewis Latimer. Rather than treating these figures or texts in isolation, the educator encourages analytical interpretation by asking, “Why is it important to learn the full list of people who helped make something possible?” This design ensures that daily lessons push students beyond literal recall to integrating information from multiple sources during a single instructional block.
The materials require students to synthesize knowledge and concepts across multiple texts within an entire unit. This is exemplified in unit 3, lesson 44, when a dedicated comprehension lesson culminates in an exercise requiring students to use evidence from texts read throughout the unit to answer the overarching Essential Question “How are animals, habitats, and people connected across our planet?” The educator explicitly states, “Today we’re not reading one text — we’re thinking across all of them.” Students analyze connections among texts such as Five Seconds of Shade, The Field Notebook of a Junior Ranger, and a previously read text about the Alaskan wood frog. The materials include a culminating task with a structured sentence frame requiring students to weave together evidence from at least three distinct unit texts to formulate a cohesive argument.
Evaluation for 5.A.3c
In unit 3, lesson 44, the comprehension module serves as a unit-level review structured entirely around the overarching Essential Question “How are animals, habitats, and people connected across our planet?” The educator states, “Today we’re not reading one text — we’re thinking across all of them.” To facilitate this synthesis, the materials guide educators through an interactive review of eight distinct unit texts, including Five Seconds of Shade, The Field Notebook of a Junior Ranger, and The Frog Is Not Dead. Students evaluate how each text addresses the intersections of animals, habitats, and people, ensuring they look back across the entire corpus of the unit rather than summarizing an isolated passage.
The materials include opportunities that require students to analyze and categorize evidence from all eight readings before composing their informative paragraphs. Students synthesize their cumulative knowledge of animals, habitats, and human impact to complete the prompt. The materials include opportunities for students to independently write using connections across the unit’s related texts.
Evaluation for 5.A.3d
The materials include prompts and discussions that help students make personal connections to scientific concepts and historical topics. In unit 2, lesson 19, the background knowledge routine prompts students to reflect on Henry Cavendish’s laboratory experiments by asking, “What is something small that you’ve noticed that can tell you something big? Turn and talk to your partner.” Additionally, the vocabulary and writing routines contextualize academic terms using real-world phenomena, such as explaining how gravitational pull relates to ocean tides and the everyday experience of a pencil falling to the floor. In unit 3, lesson 44, partner turns also allow students to verbally reflect on how human actions historically impacted habitats in places such as Yellowstone.
The materials include opportunities for students to apply their conceptual knowledge to real-world dynamics beyond the school environment. By tracing ecological consequences in unit 3, students analyze the broader societal implications of human interaction with nature, explicitly processing how community and human decisions directly alter global ecosystems. Furthermore, in the unit 2 writing application, students transfer the abstract physics principles of gravitational force to concrete, everyday realities and explain how these invisible forces govern both massive planetary movements and common objects in their own daily lives. This design ensures that students continuously use their academic learning to interpret and analyze authentic problems and systems in the world around them.
Evaluation for 5.A.4a
The materials include structural planning documents, such as a general scope and sequence and a Text System Guide, but they do not provide a yearlong scope and sequence dedicated to building tier-two and tier-three academic vocabulary within a knowledge-building framework. The primary scope and sequence outlines the yearlong instructional order for morphology, fluency, comprehension, grammar, syntax, and writing, alongside unit titles, themes, core texts, and lesson counts. While the Text System Guide enumerates the program’s texts with corresponding Lexile levels, word counts, and genres, it features only a fragmented list of vocabulary terms that directly stem from the selected readings.
The materials lack a systematic, progressive plan for vocabulary acquisition that differentiates between general academic (tier two) and domain-specific (tier three) words. Because the vocabulary lists are tied exclusively to individual texts rather than a coordinated linguistic progression, the words do not follow an intentional trajectory from less to more complex. The absence of an explicit vocabulary framework prevents educators from strategically mapping out, revisiting, and reinforcing critical academic language across the units.
Evaluation for 5.A.4b
The materials include opportunities for practice and application with comprehensive content scaffolds to help educators differentiate vocabulary development for all learners. In unit 3, lesson 34, the program integrates instructional steps (Learn It, Repeat It, Challenge It, and Use It) paired with multisensory and visual aids, such as using a specific image for the word diversity and directing students to “Spread your fingers wide on both hands to show many different things.” In unit 9, lesson 121, the materials leverage strategic content scaffolding by displaying historical Silk Road signposts to anchor conceptual understanding before a text discussion. Educators also have autonomy to select the vocabulary words from the text that are most applicable to the region and the background of the specific learners they are working with, ensuring that content readiness can be tailored dynamically.
Embedded language scaffolds support linguistic differentiation. In lesson 34, the morphology section provides multiversal linguistic supports, including cross-linguistic cognates in Spanish, French, and Italian (purificar, purifier, purificare) to facilitate positive language transfer. It also explicitly addresses common language misconceptions, such as clarifying spelling changes when suffixes modify a root word (e.g., beauty to beautify). For oral and written application, the materials incorporate clear contextual frameworks such as echo reading or partner reading to scaffold fluency, alongside structured linguistic sentence frames—such as “In the _____ version, _____. This matches the text where it says _____”—to ensure struggling readers and EB students can successfully use new academic terms in complete sentences.
Evaluation for 5.A.4c
The materials include structured tasks designed to engage students in the purposeful use of key academic vocabulary across multiple components of literacy instruction. During vocabulary and comprehension routines, the materials implement an explicit Learn It, Repeat It, Challenge It, Use It framework in which students interact with and act out key terms before reading. For instance, in unit 3, lesson 34, after discussing the part of speech and meaning of the word diverse, students must immediately apply it in an oral turn-and-talk task, discussing why “having diverse foods at a party might make it more fun for everyone.” The morphology routine similarly targets purposeful application. Students evaluate words versus nonwords containing the suffix -fy (e.g., magnify versus rockify) and explain to a partner why one form makes semantic sense while the other does not, moving beyond passive recognition to authentic linguistic analysis.
The materials include vocabulary usage that is explicitly structured to support higher-level comprehension and writing tasks. In the lesson 34 reading module, students use the analytical terms cause and effect to track ecological relationships in a passage about national parks, using a sidebar sentence frame support (“Because _____ [cause], _____ [effect]”) to articulate how rising temperatures force animals to shift elevations. This oral practice directly bridges to the final independent writing application, where students compose an informative paragraph explaining why national parks are essential for wildlife. The curriculum guides this composition by providing a dedicated list of core academic vocabulary—including protect, habitat, endangered, ecosystem, and conservation—ensuring that students intentionally integrate the unit’s key domain-specific terms to build and demonstrate domain knowledge.
Evaluation for 5.A.4d
The materials include nonverbal teaching techniques to support students in the acquisition and retention of key academic vocabulary. Prior to engaging with daily core texts, students use a multimodal vocabulary routine structured around the Learn It, Repeat It, Challenge It, Use It routine. In unit 3, lesson 34, each of the five target academic words (diverse, habitat, conservation, ecosystem, and biodiversity) is paired directly with a dedicated image that illustrates its semantic meaning. To reinforce these abstract concepts without relying solely on verbal definitions, the educator scripts explicitly embed kinesthetic gestures and visual prompts. For example, when introducing the word diverse, the educator is instructed to tell students, “Spread your fingers wide on both hands to show many different things,” linking physical visualization directly to linguistic acquisition.
Beyond vocabulary card illustrations, these nonverbal strategies are embedded contextually within lesson sidebars to deepen conceptual comprehension during reading. In unit 3, lesson 44, the materials introduce the tier-three word terrain alongside an image of a landscape. To help students process the chronological text events associated with how that terrain changed over time, an instructional support sidebar guides educators to implement a physical timeline strategy: “Have learners use their arms to represent a timeline, with their left hand representing ‘long ago’ and their right hand representing ‘now.’ Ask them to point to where different events would fall.” These dual layers of imagery and kinesthetic modeling provide diverse learners with nonlinguistic entry points to comprehend and apply complex academic vocabulary.
Evaluation for 5.B.1a
The materials provide structured opportunities for students to engage in critical inquiry as part of the research process, guiding them through question generation, source evaluation, and collaborative planning. In unit 9, lesson 135, the materials introduce independent question formulation by instructing students to “Think about our topic—the Columbian Exchange. Write a broad question first, then clarify it into a focused research question on your own.” Following this independent phase, the educator leads a shared planning routine (“Now let’s make our research plan together”) to clearly define the investigation’s scope. The materials also feature lessons on assessing information types by prompting students to analyze their references, identifying From a Letter by Christopher Columbus as a primary source because it contains the real words of someone who directly experienced the events, and When Two Worlds Met as a secondary source.
To help students gather and synthesize their findings, the lesson uses a note-taking strategy designed to prevent plagiarism and encourage independent processing. Students fold their paper lengthwise to create a dual-column organizer labeled “What I Found” and “Where I Found It,” which requires them to record facts from multiple texts entirely in their own words. The culmination of the inquiry task directly challenges students to synthesize this extracted data into a cohesive written response. The instructions guide students to outline their main topic, report contextual facts and details from their notes, make at least one direct connection across the disparate sources, and draw an independent conclusion that answers their overarching research question. This system effectively prompts students to gather and unify cross-textual information during research tasks.
Evaluation for 5.B.1b
The materials provide explicit educator guidance to help students differentiate between primary and secondary sources (referred to instructionally as “firsthand” and “secondhand” accounts). In unit 9, lesson 123, the educator guide outlines a definitions routine, clarifying that a firsthand account is an artifact from someone who was actually there (such as a diary, letter, or journal), whereas a secondhand account is an event summarized later (such as a textbook or modern article). The educator models how to differentiate these sources using text selections from a modern article about Vasco da Gama and an original 1498 journal entry by a sailor named Álvaro Velho. Students learn that secondhand accounts focus on the big picture looking back, while primary sources use I or we and center on personal experience and daily details. To solidify this distinction, educators conduct a practice exercise in which they read specific details and have students use nonverbal physical responses (“touch your chest” for firsthand, “tap your chin” for secondhand) to categorize six historical examples.
The materials embed active student opportunities to apply these categorization skills during independent research and note-taking tasks. In unit 9, lesson 130, before engaging with From the Voyage Records of Zheng He and Connecting the World by Sea, the educator prompts students to analyze and identify the primary source (the original historical voyage records) and the secondary source (a modern text written by an author who studied explorers). Students then transition to an independent research task for which they must manipulate and sort data using a folded-paper graphic organizer divided into “What I Found” and “Where I Found It.” The materials require students to extract a minimum of one fact from each distinct source type and record it in their own words. To enforce compliance, educators circulate and ask students to identify which specific facts originated from the primary source versus the secondary source, ensuring students actively evaluate and track source origins during historical analysis.
Evaluation for 5.B.1c
This guidance is not applicable to grades 4–5 because it only applies to grades 6–8.
5.A.1 Connected Knowledge-Building Units and Lessons
5.A.1a
Units are designed to build knowledge based in the fields of science, history, literature, and the arts.
Units are designed to build knowledge based in the fields of science, history, literature, and the arts.
3 out of 4 points
Evaluation for 5.A.1a
Evaluation for 5.A.1a
Units are designed to build knowledge based in the fields of science, history, literature, and the arts.
3 out of 4 points
For example, in unit 2, which focuses on “The Sky and Space,” students read a variety of fiction and nonfiction selections that are all tightly aligned to the universe. This deliberate text clustering ensures that decoding and comprehension practice directly reinforce foundational scientific concepts rather than addressing topics in isolation. However, while the scope and sequence effectively establishes interdisciplinary connections across these three domains, the materials do not meet the criteria for the arts. There are no designated units, text sets, or structural frameworks explicitly dedicated to building student knowledge in visual arts, music, theater, or other artistic disciplines.
5.A.1b
Materials provide resources, including a scope and sequence, to demonstrate the approach to knowledge-building within and across grade levels.
Materials provide resources, including a scope and sequence, to demonstrate the approach to knowledge-building within and across grade levels.
2 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 5.A.1b
Evaluation for 5.A.1b
Materials provide resources, including a scope and sequence, to demonstrate the approach to knowledge-building within and across grade levels.
2 out of 2 points
Across grade levels, the materials establish a cohesive vertical alignment from pre-K–grade 5. The framework is designed to spiral annually, prompting students to dive back into familiar themes each year to tackle increasingly complex concepts and higher-level thinking. This deliberate multiyear progression is detailed in the “Program Architecture Overview.” The “Knowledge Building” section outlines how the spiraled themes foster deepening understanding and continuous growth. By building strategically on the knowledge acquired in earlier grades, the vertical alignment ensures that by the end of grade 5, students possess a vast, interconnected network of academic knowledge and vocabulary necessary for lifelong literacy.
5.A.1c
Units are designed for students to spend extended time (e.g., 3 weeks or more) on connected knowledge-building topics and texts.
Units are designed for students to spend extended time (e.g., 3 weeks or more) on connected knowledge-building topics and texts.
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 5.A.1c
Evaluation for 5.A.1c
Units are designed for students to spend extended time (e.g., 3 weeks or more) on connected knowledge-building topics and texts.
1 out of 1 points
To maintain high engagement and rigorous focus across the three-week block, each unit centers on a single overarching Big Idea and an Essential Question that remain constant. Rather than repeating the same material, the three-week cadence builds depth by introducing distinct text sets and subtopics each week that roll up into the larger theme. For example, in a unit focused on “Amazing Animals,” week 1 centers on animals in national parks, week 2 shifts to apex predators, and week 3 investigates surviving in extreme environments. This systematic approach guarantees that while students encounter a diverse variety of complex texts, their academic vocabulary and background knowledge are continuously reinforced within a stable, connected topic for an extended period.
5.A.1d
Lessons are connected by anchoring texts or text sets designed to intentionally build connected student background knowledge over time.
Lessons are connected by anchoring texts or text sets designed to intentionally build connected student background knowledge over time.
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 5.A.1d
Evaluation for 5.A.1d
Lessons are connected by anchoring texts or text sets designed to intentionally build connected student background knowledge over time.
1 out of 1 points
For example, in unit 1, week 1, students read the anchoring text Nobody Said Forsooth alongside the passage “The Long Embarrassing History of Trying to Fly.” The pieces are paired to connect directly to the unit’s overarching theme, “Our Place in the World.” Similarly, the unit 2 overview demonstrates this intentional design by pairing the book The Stowaway as comprehension text 1 with the passage “How We Weighed Earth” as comprehension text 2. By navigating these curated text sets, students can synthesize information across different genres and perspectives, successfully building a deep, interconnected bank of background knowledge over the course of each unit.
5.A.1e
Grammar, vocabulary, discussion, and writing activities are connected to the knowledge-building topic of the lesson.
Grammar, vocabulary, discussion, and writing activities are connected to the knowledge-building topic of the lesson.
4 out of 4 points
Evaluation for 5.A.1e
Evaluation for 5.A.1e
Grammar, vocabulary, discussion, and writing activities are connected to the knowledge-building topic of the lesson.
4 out of 4 points
This deep integration is demonstrated practically within the classroom materials. For example, in unit 3 “Amazing Animals,” the weekly instructional focus centers on the topic of “Animals in National Parks.” Rather than pulling unrelated sentences for skills practice, the fluency, vocabulary, discussion, and grammar activities all use context, thematic language, and examples derived directly from that week’s lesson topic. This ensures that while students are mastering specific structural or lexical skills, they are simultaneously deepening their content knowledge and building a cohesive academic vocabulary based on the unit’s scientific theme.
5.A.2 Context and Student Background Knowledge
5.A.2a
Materials activate or supply background knowledge by making connections to previously learned content from prior grade levels.
Materials activate or supply background knowledge by making connections to previously learned content from prior grade levels.
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 5.A.2a
Evaluation for 5.A.2a
Materials activate or supply background knowledge by making connections to previously learned content from prior grade levels.
1 out of 1 points
The materials provide vertical alignment among grade levels, along with a rationale for unit locations. The materials provide grade-level academic vocabulary for each unit. Additionally, background knowledge is reinforced through connections to prior grade levels.
5.A.2b
Materials activate or supply background knowledge by making connections across units within a grade level. (S)
Materials activate or supply background knowledge by making connections across units within a grade level. (S)
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 5.A.2b
Evaluation for 5.A.2b
Materials activate or supply background knowledge by making connections across units within a grade level. (S)
1 out of 1 points
The materials provide vertical alignment among grade levels along with rationale for unit locations. The materials also provide grade-level academic vocabulary for each unit and grade level. Additionally, background knowledge is reinforced through connections to earlier units.
5.A.2c
Materials provide students with relevant and targeted context or background knowledge to enhance the student's engagement with the text. (T/S)
Materials provide students with relevant and targeted context or background knowledge to enhance the student's engagement with the text. (T/S)
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 5.A.2c
Evaluation for 5.A.2c
Materials provide students with relevant and targeted context or background knowledge to enhance the student's engagement with the text. (T/S)
1 out of 1 points
The materials include routines to supply targeted context and connect daily learning objectives. For example, in unit 3, lesson 44, the background section uses educator prompts to review previous learning about the Alaskan wood frog and explain how scientists research questions to find answers. This targeted review directly prepares students for the day’s focus objective, which requires them to answer Essential Questions while reading. The materials include a combination of structural vocabulary routines, visual anchors, and text-specific context.
5.A.3 Developing Student Comprehension with Connected Topics, Questions, and Tasks
5.A.3a
Questions and tasks require students to engage with big ideas, topics, and themes. (S)
Questions and tasks require students to engage with big ideas, topics, and themes. (S)
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 5.A.3a
Evaluation for 5.A.3a
Questions and tasks require students to engage with big ideas, topics, and themes. (S)
1 out of 1 points
The materials integrate writing and speaking tasks that directly reinforce these broader unit themes. In unit 3, lesson 45, the writing lesson connects an opinion essay assignment to the weekly theme of “Surviving the Extremes.” Before drafting, students are prompted to collaborate with a partner to discuss the harshest environments on earth and the primary challenges of survival. Rather than using stand-alone skills sheets or disconnected prompts, the materials embed writing instruction, peer discourse, and reading comprehension within the unit’s thematic framework. This design requires students to analyze, discuss, and write about deep, cohesive topics throughout the year.
5.A.3b
Questions and tasks prompt students to synthesize knowledge and concepts across texts within and across lessons and units. (S)
Questions and tasks prompt students to synthesize knowledge and concepts across texts within and across lessons and units. (S)
2 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 5.A.3b
Evaluation for 5.A.3b
Questions and tasks prompt students to synthesize knowledge and concepts across texts within and across lessons and units. (S)
2 out of 2 points
The materials require students to synthesize knowledge and concepts across multiple texts within an entire unit. This is exemplified in unit 3, lesson 44, when a dedicated comprehension lesson culminates in an exercise requiring students to use evidence from texts read throughout the unit to answer the overarching Essential Question “How are animals, habitats, and people connected across our planet?” The educator explicitly states, “Today we’re not reading one text — we’re thinking across all of them.” Students analyze connections among texts such as Five Seconds of Shade, The Field Notebook of a Junior Ranger, and a previously read text about the Alaskan wood frog. The materials include a culminating task with a structured sentence frame requiring students to weave together evidence from at least three distinct unit texts to formulate a cohesive argument.
5.A.3c
Culminating tasks require students to demonstrate their knowledge of the unit topic by making connections across related texts. (S)
Culminating tasks require students to demonstrate their knowledge of the unit topic by making connections across related texts. (S)
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 5.A.3c
Evaluation for 5.A.3c
Culminating tasks require students to demonstrate their knowledge of the unit topic by making connections across related texts. (S)
1 out of 1 points
The materials include opportunities that require students to analyze and categorize evidence from all eight readings before composing their informative paragraphs. Students synthesize their cumulative knowledge of animals, habitats, and human impact to complete the prompt. The materials include opportunities for students to independently write using connections across the unit’s related texts.
5.A.3d
Materials provide opportunities to apply new understanding based on the topic to contexts beyond the classroom. (S)
Materials provide opportunities to apply new understanding based on the topic to contexts beyond the classroom. (S)
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 5.A.3d
Evaluation for 5.A.3d
Materials provide opportunities to apply new understanding based on the topic to contexts beyond the classroom. (S)
1 out of 1 points
The materials include opportunities for students to apply their conceptual knowledge to real-world dynamics beyond the school environment. By tracing ecological consequences in unit 3, students analyze the broader societal implications of human interaction with nature, explicitly processing how community and human decisions directly alter global ecosystems. Furthermore, in the unit 2 writing application, students transfer the abstract physics principles of gravitational force to concrete, everyday realities and explain how these invisible forces govern both massive planetary movements and common objects in their own daily lives. This design ensures that students continuously use their academic learning to interpret and analyze authentic problems and systems in the world around them.
5.A.4 Key Academic Vocabulary and Grade-Level Concepts
5.A.4a
Materials include a year-long scope and sequence for building tier 2 and 3 academic vocabulary in the context of knowledge-building.
Materials include a year-long scope and sequence for building tier 2 and 3 academic vocabulary in the context of knowledge-building.
0 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 5.A.4a
Evaluation for 5.A.4a
Materials include a year-long scope and sequence for building tier 2 and 3 academic vocabulary in the context of knowledge-building.
0 out of 2 points
The materials lack a systematic, progressive plan for vocabulary acquisition that differentiates between general academic (tier two) and domain-specific (tier three) words. Because the vocabulary lists are tied exclusively to individual texts rather than a coordinated linguistic progression, the words do not follow an intentional trajectory from less to more complex. The absence of an explicit vocabulary framework prevents educators from strategically mapping out, revisiting, and reinforcing critical academic language across the units.
5.A.4b
Materials include practice and application opportunities with appropriate content and language scaffolds and supports for teachers to differentiate vocabulary development for all learners. (S)
Materials include practice and application opportunities with appropriate content and language scaffolds and supports for teachers to differentiate vocabulary development for all learners. (S)
2 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 5.A.4b
Evaluation for 5.A.4b
Materials include practice and application opportunities with appropriate content and language scaffolds and supports for teachers to differentiate vocabulary development for all learners. (S)
2 out of 2 points
Embedded language scaffolds support linguistic differentiation. In lesson 34, the morphology section provides multiversal linguistic supports, including cross-linguistic cognates in Spanish, French, and Italian (purificar, purifier, purificare) to facilitate positive language transfer. It also explicitly addresses common language misconceptions, such as clarifying spelling changes when suffixes modify a root word (e.g., beauty to beautify). For oral and written application, the materials incorporate clear contextual frameworks such as echo reading or partner reading to scaffold fluency, alongside structured linguistic sentence frames—such as “In the _____ version, _____. This matches the text where it says _____”—to ensure struggling readers and EB students can successfully use new academic terms in complete sentences.
5.A.4c
Materials include tasks designed to engage students in purposeful use of key academic vocabulary. (S)
Materials include tasks designed to engage students in purposeful use of key academic vocabulary. (S)
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 5.A.4c
Evaluation for 5.A.4c
Materials include tasks designed to engage students in purposeful use of key academic vocabulary. (S)
1 out of 1 points
The materials include vocabulary usage that is explicitly structured to support higher-level comprehension and writing tasks. In the lesson 34 reading module, students use the analytical terms cause and effect to track ecological relationships in a passage about national parks, using a sidebar sentence frame support (“Because _____ [cause], _____ [effect]”) to articulate how rising temperatures force animals to shift elevations. This oral practice directly bridges to the final independent writing application, where students compose an informative paragraph explaining why national parks are essential for wildlife. The curriculum guides this composition by providing a dedicated list of core academic vocabulary—including protect, habitat, endangered, ecosystem, and conservation—ensuring that students intentionally integrate the unit’s key domain-specific terms to build and demonstrate domain knowledge.
5.A.4d
Materials include nonverbal teaching techniques to support students in the acquisition of key academic vocabulary, such as the use of images and visualization. (T)
Materials include nonverbal teaching techniques to support students in the acquisition of key academic vocabulary, such as the use of images and visualization. (T)
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 5.A.4d
Evaluation for 5.A.4d
Materials include nonverbal teaching techniques to support students in the acquisition of key academic vocabulary, such as the use of images and visualization. (T)
1 out of 1 points
Beyond vocabulary card illustrations, these nonverbal strategies are embedded contextually within lesson sidebars to deepen conceptual comprehension during reading. In unit 3, lesson 44, the materials introduce the tier-three word terrain alongside an image of a landscape. To help students process the chronological text events associated with how that terrain changed over time, an instructional support sidebar guides educators to implement a physical timeline strategy: “Have learners use their arms to represent a timeline, with their left hand representing ‘long ago’ and their right hand representing ‘now.’ Ask them to point to where different events would fall.” These dual layers of imagery and kinesthetic modeling provide diverse learners with nonlinguistic entry points to comprehend and apply complex academic vocabulary.
5.B.1 Recursive Inquiry Process
5.B.1a
Materials include opportunities for students to engage in critical inquiry as part of the research process, such as generating questions, developing a plan, identifying and gathering relevant information from a variety of sources, and synthesizing the information. (S)
Materials include opportunities for students to engage in critical inquiry as part of the research process, such as generating questions, developing a plan, identifying and gathering relevant information from a variety of sources, and synthesizing the information. (S)
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 5.B.1a
Evaluation for 5.B.1a
Materials include opportunities for students to engage in critical inquiry as part of the research process, such as generating questions, developing a plan, identifying and gathering relevant information from a variety of sources, and synthesizing the information. (S)
1 out of 1 points
To help students gather and synthesize their findings, the lesson uses a note-taking strategy designed to prevent plagiarism and encourage independent processing. Students fold their paper lengthwise to create a dual-column organizer labeled “What I Found” and “Where I Found It,” which requires them to record facts from multiple texts entirely in their own words. The culmination of the inquiry task directly challenges students to synthesize this extracted data into a cohesive written response. The instructions guide students to outline their main topic, report contextual facts and details from their notes, make at least one direct connection across the disparate sources, and draw an independent conclusion that answers their overarching research question. This system effectively prompts students to gather and unify cross-textual information during research tasks.
5.B.1b
Materials include guidance and opportunities for students to differentiate between primary and secondary sources. (S)
Materials include guidance and opportunities for students to differentiate between primary and secondary sources. (S)
2 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 5.B.1b
Evaluation for 5.B.1b
Materials include guidance and opportunities for students to differentiate between primary and secondary sources. (S)
2 out of 2 points
The materials embed active student opportunities to apply these categorization skills during independent research and note-taking tasks. In unit 9, lesson 130, before engaging with From the Voyage Records of Zheng He and Connecting the World by Sea, the educator prompts students to analyze and identify the primary source (the original historical voyage records) and the secondary source (a modern text written by an author who studied explorers). Students then transition to an independent research task for which they must manipulate and sort data using a folded-paper graphic organizer divided into “What I Found” and “Where I Found It.” The materials require students to extract a minimum of one fact from each distinct source type and record it in their own words. To enforce compliance, educators circulate and ask students to identify which specific facts originated from the primary source versus the secondary source, ensuring students actively evaluate and track source origins during historical analysis.
5.B.1c
Materials include a progression of focused research tasks to encourage students to develop knowledge in a given area by confronting or analyzing different aspects of a topic using multiple texts and source materials (6-8). (S)
Materials include a progression of focused research tasks to encourage students to develop knowledge in a given area by confronting or analyzing different aspects of a topic using multiple texts and source materials (6-8). (S)
Not applicable.
Evaluation for 5.B.1c
Evaluation for 5.B.1c
Materials include a progression of focused research tasks to encourage students to develop knowledge in a given area by confronting or analyzing different aspects of a topic using multiple texts and source materials (6-8). (S)
Not applicable.
Rubric Section 6
Text Quality and Complexity
Materials ensure students spend a majority of their time interacting with increasingly complex grade-level text.
Total
69% (20 out of 29 points)
Evaluation for 6.1a
As documented in the Text System Guide, the selection framework prioritizes texts that expose students to complex language structures, rich vocabulary, and sophisticated concepts that intentionally push the boundaries of independent decoding. The materials use a curated blend of core comprehension texts, morphology readers, and authentic trade books designed to introduce themes, genres, and academic terms that systematically reappear in subsequent writing and discussion modules. By anchoring units in content-rich literature, the materials ensure that students are consistently exposed to varied perspectives and complex text structures necessary to build deep background knowledge.
The materials evaluate complexity using quantitative metrics aligned with the state’s educational standards. The typical target Lexile band spans 740L–940L. Across the 58 core comprehension texts included in the program, Lexile measures range from 470L–1090L, establishing a deliberate gradient of difficulty. An analysis of these texts reveals that 24 percent fall precisely within the “average” grade 4 band, while 66 percent are positioned in the “above-average” or “stretch” range. This intentional distribution ensures that the vast majority of core texts provide rigorous, grade-level reading opportunities, using advanced complexity to challenge students and build long-term reading proficiency when paired with classroom instructional scaffolds.
Evaluation for 6.1b
The materials feature core instructional texts and supplemental readers that are well crafted, engaging, and of professional, publishable quality. Throughout the modules, selections align with rich thematic units that support interdisciplinary learning and language development. For example, in unit 7 “Inventors and Innovations,” the text The Last Blacksmith serves as a high-quality anchor for developing critical content knowledge. The layout of the materials reflects high production standards, embedding interactive features such as visually distinct speech bubbles that prompt students to make personal text connections (such as asking, “Have you ever learned a skill from someone older? What was that like?”). These design elements enhance scannability and boost reader engagement without overcrowding the pages with text.
The program’s morphology readers demonstrate meticulous editorial design and structure, closely mirroring authentic trade publications. Each reader begins with a comprehensive, professionally formatted table of contents that outlines story titles, corresponding page numbers, and targeted academic vocabulary highlights (such as the story Lin’s Vote). The individual narratives combine clear and varied sentence structures with colorful illustrations. The materials include post-reading discussion questions and comprehension checks.
Evaluation for 6.1c
The materials contain a balanced selection of traditional, contemporary, classical, and diverse texts, providing students with rigorous reading opportunities across multiple content areas. The materials intentionally integrate literary and informational texts to expand historical, cultural, and scientific background knowledge. In unit 4, lesson 48, students engage with traditional literature by studying the story of Mulan, a narrative adapted from an ancient Chinese poem dating back 1,500 years to the Northern Wei dynasty. Classic literature is represented through canonical works such as Margery Williams’ The Velveteen Rabbit in unit 4, lesson 58. This text introduces students to enduring literary themes and abstract concepts, specifically examining how the story redefines the everyday word real to explore personal identity and transformation within a narrative structure.
Complementing these foundational literary texts, the morphology reader systematically embeds contemporary and culturally diverse selections spanning varied disciplines. These texts are designed to reinforce linguistic skills while expanding interdisciplinary knowledge. The materials span multiple content areas, including science (Life in Space, Planet Party), fine arts and drama (Mrs. Ruth, the Scriptwriter), integrated STEM fields (Mr. K’s Pedometer), and world history (Pancakes at the Great Wall). This deliberate combination of historical perspectives, classical story structures, and modern content-area informational texts ensures that students encounter multidimensional representations of human experiences while mastering critical reading and analytical skills.
Evaluation for 6.1d
The materials feature core instructional texts containing content that is relevant, engaging, and authentically reflective of students’ diverse backgrounds, identities, and lived experiences. In unit 1, lesson 6, students engage with a contemporary realistic fiction text titled The New Kid at the 100-Year-Old Diner. The narrative follows a young protagonist named Mae whose family takes over a traditional local establishment, navigating the social dynamics of entering a tight-knit community. By exploring themes of family bonds, cultural adaptation, and community acceptance, the text serves as an accessible anchor that mirrors multigenerational experiences and fosters cross-cultural understanding within an inclusive classroom environment.
The educator guidance embeds clear scaffolding to highlight the narrative’s cultural nuances, establishing deep relevance for all learners. The lesson scripts contextual definitions for regional concepts, detailing the structure of a classic American diner alongside a detailed exploration of pho, a traditional Vietnamese noodle soup crafted from multigenerational family recipes. This intentional pairing allows students from Vietnamese backgrounds to see their heritage honored authentically, while providing an entry point for other students to explore universal themes of family traditions, culinary legacies, and the risks and rewards of introducing new ideas to established communities.
Evaluation for 6.2a
The materials include opportunities for students to listen to, think about, and critically respond to grade-level texts with oral justification, but they do not include written justification in every lesson. In unit 2, lesson 24, students listen to a fluent read-aloud of the comprehension text Glassed for Hubble using designated pause points. Students practice oral justification by generating investigative questions about the text and explaining their reasoning to a partner, such as choosing digital NASA sources over books to find the telescope’s most recent photos since printed materials would be outdated.
Writing opportunities are inconsistent and alternate from lesson to lesson. Although the program architecture outlines a reading–writing connection in which students are expected to build analytical skills by justifying answers with direct text evidence, this does not occur daily. While one lesson may feature a direct text-based writing connection, the subsequent lesson shifts entirely to grammar and syntax instruction, leaving students with no opportunity to justify their thinking about the grade-level text in writing on that day.
Evaluation for 6.2b
The materials provide consistent opportunities in each lesson for students to discuss specific aspects of grade-level text, such as text structure, vocabulary, and author’s purpose. In unit 2, lesson 28, students engage in discussions centered on the background knowledge and vocabulary necessary to access the comprehension text Radio Is Light Too. During this lesson, students explore chronological text structure, analyzing how the author organizes information sequentially across years or decades to illustrate how a scientific field developed, which prompts them to track what occurs first, next, and last.
This systematic focus on text analysis is sustained throughout the year, as evidenced by the program’s scope and sequence. The comprehension section in every daily lesson outlines a distinct textual element for student discussion. For instance, in unit 1, lessons consistently establish foundational understanding by introducing relevant vocabulary discussions before transitioning to targeted text aspects, including setting in lesson 1, character descriptions in lesson 2, main idea and details in lesson 3, and text structure in lesson 4. This scheme continues into later units, such as in unit 6, when lesson 81 prompts students to discuss the author’s use of language and word choice, and lesson 86 focuses on evaluating the author’s purpose.
Evaluation for 6.2c
The materials provide consistent opportunities in each lesson for students to engage in a variety of reading skills with grade-level text, including predicting, generating questions, analyzing, and synthesizing. In unit 2, lesson 23, students prepare to read Glasses for Hubble by activating background knowledge and making structural predictions about why scientists place telescopes in space rather than on earth. Before diving into the text, students practice generating investigative questions. The curriculum guides them to build critical metacognitive skills by analyzing their questions and planning exactly which types of sources (such as books, digital media, or primary resources) are required to locate the answers.
The materials include opportunities for application of reading skills that are sustained across the program. For instance, in unit 2, lesson 17, students engage with the epistolary text Dear Mom: Letters from the Lunar Greenhouse. After a partner discussion connecting the text’s concept of home to personal experiences, the educator explicitly guides students through text analysis using a specialized Theme Builder framework. Students learn to evaluate the text holistically rather than relying on isolated sentences, and the lesson concludes with an oral language component in which students synthesize character actions and reactions to explain how individual subplots directly develop the story’s overarching theme.
Evaluation for 6.3a
The materials provide explicit educator guidance during reading instruction to model critical thinking and proactively address common student misconceptions. In unit 3, lesson 31, the materials include specific scripting for an educator-led think-aloud that models how to identify interior character traits by analyzing a character’s actions and responses to challenges. The text embeds real-time educator guidance within the margins, featuring a “Common Misconceptions” note with precise talking points to help students differentiate between emotions and enduring personality qualities. Additionally, the educator guidance includes targeted EB student recommendations, advising educators to preview contextual vocabulary such as pumped, skittered, skimmed, and glided to eliminate linguistic barriers before students interact with the text.
The materials provide embedded student supports across the lessons to preserve text complexity while assisting diverse learner needs during analytical tasks. In unit 1, lesson 1, the materials outline a five-word pre-reading vocabulary routine and integrate active reading pause points to prompt student predictions during the text Nobody Said Forsooth. Following the text, the educator is instructed to model a complex text-annotation strategy (tracking questions, inferences, and connections) using a think-aloud script that makes analytical thinking visible. To ensure full participation during the subsequent discussion, the materials embed student-facing oral language supports, offering a structured sentence frame (“I marked [a question/an inference/a connection] here because …”) that enables all students to articulate rigorous text justifications.
Evaluation for 6.3b
Extension resources within the units ensure that proficient students can engage in analysis of text. In the “Differentiation” tab of the unit 3 resources, the materials include a dedicated “Progressing” section designed specifically for advanced learners. According to the instructional overview, these resources feature single-level Apply texts and weekly multilevel text sets that are meticulously aligned to the unit’s core comprehension instruction and genre studies. Rather than assigning passive or surface-level tasks, these materials challenge proficient students by introducing increasingly sophisticated vocabulary, complex informational text structures, and rigorous literary analysis tasks that deepen their textual understanding.
The materials provide instructional packages and systematic implementation schedules to support educators in delivering continuous, structured enrichment throughout the school year. The differentiation resources equip advanced readers with specialized reading passages, text-dependent comprehension questions, written-response tasks, and targeted evaluative checklists across a broad range of literary and informational genres. To ensure these enrichment opportunities occur consistently alongside daily instruction, the materials include a comprehensive week-by-week and unit-by-unit schedule. This clear structural guidance allows educators to seamlessly integrate advanced written response expectations and deeper textual analysis into their weekly routines, allowing proficient students to systematically build autonomy and advance their reading skills.
Evaluation for 6.4a
The materials provide minimal data-driven metrics in the Text System Guide, offering basic quantitative details such as Lexile levels and word counts along with minor formatting notes for specific texts. Across this guide, core readings are displayed alongside their titles, alignment to instructional lessons, and target vocabulary lists. The materials embed brief technical explanations for below-level readings; for instance, the text The Walk to School features a Lexile level of 530L alongside a note explaining that the measurement is lower due to its poetry layout. The Old Pine Talks to the New Pine includes a Lexile marker of 470L that is similarly attributed to the specific format of the writing. However, these brief annotations do not constitute a systematic quantitative analysis, and the materials do not provide a formal, data-driven rationale explaining the core texts’ overarching educational purposes or their specific grade-level placements.
The materials provide simple classification markers such as genre categories and vocabulary lists to denote text properties, but they do not include qualitative analysis and corresponding instructional rationales. Although the educator software houses a text inventory that connects designated reading selections to weekly lessons, it provides no structural breakdown regarding levels of meaning, textual architecture, knowledge demands, or language conventionality. The program does not include a narrative or analytical justification outlining why specific texts were chosen to achieve precise curricular objectives or how their qualitative features align with developmental standards. Because the program does not include these comprehensive qualitative evaluations and explicitly stated educational purposes, educators do not have the necessary instructional insights to understand the placement and pedagogical design of the core readings.
Evaluation for 6.4b
The materials provide text placements based on quantitative metrics, ensuring that the vast majority of core readings align with the lexical expectations of the grade level. As documented in the Text System Guide, the program inventories its morphology readers and comprehension readers alongside their exact lesson alignments, word counts, targeted vocabulary lists, and Lexile measurements. An analysis of these Lexile profiles reveals that 90 percent of the selected texts fall within or above the average readability band for a grade 4 student. These metrics demonstrate that the baseline structural complexity of the text inventory is mathematically appropriate for the grade, providing students with sufficient exposure to grade-level vocabulary and sentence structures during daily instructional tasks.
The materials provide documentation regarding quantitative parameters, but they do not include evidence of a qualitative analysis to verify if the text selection is fully appropriate for the grade level. While the educator resources cross-reference reading lengths and vocabulary counts against student lessons, they do not include an evaluation of text architecture, levels of meaning, clarity, or background knowledge demands in relation to student tasks. The program does not analyze how features like nonlinear timelines, abstract themes, or shifting narrator viewpoints affect student comprehension or how subsequent learning tasks scaffold these demands. Because the materials exclude this comprehensive qualitative dimension, the program does not ensure that the texts are qualitatively matched to the developmental needs and task expectations of students.
Evaluation for 6.5a
The materials provide explicit educator guidance and text-specific overview content to monitor students’ comprehension during self-directed reading tasks. In the “Resources” tab for unit 3, week 1, the “Differentiated Comprehension Overview” supplies educators with a complete informational synopsis and analytical outline for the independent reading poster text Meet Jane Goodall. This educator-facing resource outlines the central themes of the passage (such as Goodall’s natural observations, recording methods, and tool-use discoveries) and pairs them directly with four text-dependent response questions targeting text features, main ideas, and structural headings. By giving educators the exact conceptual breakthroughs and structural highlights of the text in advance, the materials ensure educators have a firm framework to track understanding and evaluate student responses during independent work sessions.
The materials provide structured independent student activities and explicit evaluative tools to keep learning rigorous and visible during self-directed reading cycles. Following the reading of the Jane Goodall text, students complete a multilayered written-response task in which they must isolate the main idea, defend it with supporting details, and explain a clear text-based cause-and-effect relationship. To ensure students actively monitor their own comprehension and execution, the curriculum embeds a comprehensive student-facing written response checklist that outlines exact criteria for success, including clear thesis statements, text integration, complete sentence structures, and specific suffix applications (-ize and -fy). This structured arrangement allows educators to use the resulting student writing and checklist data as concrete formative assessments to identify misconceptions, gauge independent text access, and deliver targeted feedback.
Evaluation for 6.5b
The materials provide a clear framework of tiered reading options to ensure independent texts contain a wide range of complexity levels for diverse student needs. In the “Differentiation” tab in the educator software, the Comprehension Toolkit supplies weekly multilevel text sets designed specifically for independent student practice. These multilayered resources are systematically grouped into three distinct bands of text difficulty: below-level text, at-level text, and above-level text. By structuring the supplemental resources into three parallel complexity tiers, the materials give educators the flexibility to distribute appropriate reading challenges that fit the varied learning baselines of mixed-ability classrooms.
The materials provide thematic alignment across these varying complexity levels to support cohesive, text-based skill application during self-directed learning. According to the “Differentiated Comprehension Overview” guidelines, each weekly multilevel set has a shared instructional focus, ensuring that regardless of text difficulty, all students work toward common comprehension goals and collaborative post-reading discussions. Each single-level and multilevel text package includes corresponding text-dependent comprehension questions, written response tasks, structured sentence frames, and student-facing checklists. This programmatic design enables struggling readers to build self-efficacy with accessible phrasing while challenging proficient students with increasingly sophisticated vocabulary and complex sentence patterns.
Evaluation for 6.5c
The materials provide a broad structural description of tiered reading paths in the Text System Guide, but they do not incorporate a concrete plan for students to self-select high-quality texts or read independently for a sustained period. The programmatic documentation notes that as students build proficiency and automaticity, they shift from foundational decodable readers to increasingly authentic reading experiences, trade books, and differentiated comprehension texts across a wide range of genres and topics. However, this text progression remains entirely educator directed. The curriculum does not include student-facing text selection frameworks, structured schedules for daily sustained silent reading, or guidelines to give learners autonomy over their own reading choices.
The materials provide suggestions for using differentiated texts across various settings, but they do not include the tools and structured accountability measures necessary for setting and tracking personal independent reading goals. While the Text System Guide indicates that educators may assign differentiated comprehension texts for small-group instruction, written-response routines, or independent practice based on student readiness, it does not include a formal goal-setting system. The resources do not include student reading logs, digital portfolios, or tracking mechanisms to help learners establish personal milestones, monitor their reading speed, or reflect on their comprehension progress. The program does not include planning frameworks and independent accountability measures.
6.1 High-Quality Grade-Level Texts
6.1a
Core texts used for instruction are written at grade level when evaluated using research-based measures of text complexity.
Core texts used for instruction are written at grade level when evaluated using research-based measures of text complexity.
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 6.1a
Evaluation for 6.1a
Core texts used for instruction are written at grade level when evaluated using research-based measures of text complexity.
1 out of 1 points
The materials evaluate complexity using quantitative metrics aligned with the state’s educational standards. The typical target Lexile band spans 740L–940L. Across the 58 core comprehension texts included in the program, Lexile measures range from 470L–1090L, establishing a deliberate gradient of difficulty. An analysis of these texts reveals that 24 percent fall precisely within the “average” grade 4 band, while 66 percent are positioned in the “above-average” or “stretch” range. This intentional distribution ensures that the vast majority of core texts provide rigorous, grade-level reading opportunities, using advanced complexity to challenge students and build long-term reading proficiency when paired with classroom instructional scaffolds.
6.1b
Texts are well-crafted and are of publishable quality.
Texts are well-crafted and are of publishable quality.
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 6.1b
Evaluation for 6.1b
Texts are well-crafted and are of publishable quality.
1 out of 1 points
The program’s morphology readers demonstrate meticulous editorial design and structure, closely mirroring authentic trade publications. Each reader begins with a comprehensive, professionally formatted table of contents that outlines story titles, corresponding page numbers, and targeted academic vocabulary highlights (such as the story Lin’s Vote). The individual narratives combine clear and varied sentence structures with colorful illustrations. The materials include post-reading discussion questions and comprehension checks.
6.1c
Materials include traditional, contemporary, classical, and diverse texts across multiple content areas.
Materials include traditional, contemporary, classical, and diverse texts across multiple content areas.
4 out of 4 points
Evaluation for 6.1c
Evaluation for 6.1c
Materials include traditional, contemporary, classical, and diverse texts across multiple content areas.
4 out of 4 points
Complementing these foundational literary texts, the morphology reader systematically embeds contemporary and culturally diverse selections spanning varied disciplines. These texts are designed to reinforce linguistic skills while expanding interdisciplinary knowledge. The materials span multiple content areas, including science (Life in Space, Planet Party), fine arts and drama (Mrs. Ruth, the Scriptwriter), integrated STEM fields (Mr. K’s Pedometer), and world history (Pancakes at the Great Wall). This deliberate combination of historical perspectives, classical story structures, and modern content-area informational texts ensures that students encounter multidimensional representations of human experiences while mastering critical reading and analytical skills.
6.1d
Texts include content that is relevant, engaging, and authentically reflects students' diverse backgrounds and experiences. (S)
Texts include content that is relevant, engaging, and authentically reflects students' diverse backgrounds and experiences. (S)
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 6.1d
Evaluation for 6.1d
Texts include content that is relevant, engaging, and authentically reflects students' diverse backgrounds and experiences. (S)
1 out of 1 points
The educator guidance embeds clear scaffolding to highlight the narrative’s cultural nuances, establishing deep relevance for all learners. The lesson scripts contextual definitions for regional concepts, detailing the structure of a classic American diner alongside a detailed exploration of pho, a traditional Vietnamese noodle soup crafted from multigenerational family recipes. This intentional pairing allows students from Vietnamese backgrounds to see their heritage honored authentically, while providing an entry point for other students to explore universal themes of family traditions, culinary legacies, and the risks and rewards of introducing new ideas to established communities.
6.2 Interaction with Grade-Level Text
6.2a
Materials include opportunities in each lesson for students to listen to, think about, and critically respond to grade-level texts and justify their thinking orally and in writing. (S)
Materials include opportunities in each lesson for students to listen to, think about, and critically respond to grade-level texts and justify their thinking orally and in writing. (S)
4 out of 5 points
Evaluation for 6.2a
Evaluation for 6.2a
Materials include opportunities in each lesson for students to listen to, think about, and critically respond to grade-level texts and justify their thinking orally and in writing. (S)
4 out of 5 points
Writing opportunities are inconsistent and alternate from lesson to lesson. Although the program architecture outlines a reading–writing connection in which students are expected to build analytical skills by justifying answers with direct text evidence, this does not occur daily. While one lesson may feature a direct text-based writing connection, the subsequent lesson shifts entirely to grammar and syntax instruction, leaving students with no opportunity to justify their thinking about the grade-level text in writing on that day.
6.2b
Materials include opportunities in each lesson to discuss specific aspects of grade-level text (e.g., authors' purpose, structure, language, vocabulary, etc.). (S)
Materials include opportunities in each lesson to discuss specific aspects of grade-level text (e.g., authors' purpose, structure, language, vocabulary, etc.). (S)
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 6.2b
Evaluation for 6.2b
Materials include opportunities in each lesson to discuss specific aspects of grade-level text (e.g., authors' purpose, structure, language, vocabulary, etc.). (S)
1 out of 1 points
This systematic focus on text analysis is sustained throughout the year, as evidenced by the program’s scope and sequence. The comprehension section in every daily lesson outlines a distinct textual element for student discussion. For instance, in unit 1, lessons consistently establish foundational understanding by introducing relevant vocabulary discussions before transitioning to targeted text aspects, including setting in lesson 1, character descriptions in lesson 2, main idea and details in lesson 3, and text structure in lesson 4. This scheme continues into later units, such as in unit 6, when lesson 81 prompts students to discuss the author’s use of language and word choice, and lesson 86 focuses on evaluating the author’s purpose.
6.2c
Materials include opportunities in each lesson for students to engage in a variety of reading skills with grade-level text (e.g., generating questions at various levels of complexity, making, and confirming predictions, inferencing, analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing). (S)
Materials include opportunities in each lesson for students to engage in a variety of reading skills with grade-level text (e.g., generating questions at various levels of complexity, making, and confirming predictions, inferencing, analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing). (S)
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 6.2c
Evaluation for 6.2c
Materials include opportunities in each lesson for students to engage in a variety of reading skills with grade-level text (e.g., generating questions at various levels of complexity, making, and confirming predictions, inferencing, analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing). (S)
1 out of 1 points
The materials include opportunities for application of reading skills that are sustained across the program. For instance, in unit 2, lesson 17, students engage with the epistolary text Dear Mom: Letters from the Lunar Greenhouse. After a partner discussion connecting the text’s concept of home to personal experiences, the educator explicitly guides students through text analysis using a specialized Theme Builder framework. Students learn to evaluate the text holistically rather than relying on isolated sentences, and the lesson concludes with an oral language component in which students synthesize character actions and reactions to explain how individual subplots directly develop the story’s overarching theme.
6.3 Supporting Access to Grade-Level Text
6.3a
Materials include teacher guidance and supports to ensure all students can access grade-level text while maintaining rigor through the use of embedded scaffolds (e.g., vocabulary support, questioning, think-alouds, sentence frames.). (T/S)
Materials include teacher guidance and supports to ensure all students can access grade-level text while maintaining rigor through the use of embedded scaffolds (e.g., vocabulary support, questioning, think-alouds, sentence frames.). (T/S)
2 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 6.3a
Evaluation for 6.3a
Materials include teacher guidance and supports to ensure all students can access grade-level text while maintaining rigor through the use of embedded scaffolds (e.g., vocabulary support, questioning, think-alouds, sentence frames.). (T/S)
2 out of 2 points
The materials provide embedded student supports across the lessons to preserve text complexity while assisting diverse learner needs during analytical tasks. In unit 1, lesson 1, the materials outline a five-word pre-reading vocabulary routine and integrate active reading pause points to prompt student predictions during the text Nobody Said Forsooth. Following the text, the educator is instructed to model a complex text-annotation strategy (tracking questions, inferences, and connections) using a think-aloud script that makes analytical thinking visible. To ensure full participation during the subsequent discussion, the materials embed student-facing oral language supports, offering a structured sentence frame (“I marked [a question/an inference/a connection] here because …”) that enables all students to articulate rigorous text justifications.
6.3b
Materials provide opportunities for students who demonstrate proficiency to engage in additional analysis of grade-level texts.
Materials provide opportunities for students who demonstrate proficiency to engage in additional analysis of grade-level texts.
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 6.3b
Evaluation for 6.3b
Materials provide opportunities for students who demonstrate proficiency to engage in additional analysis of grade-level texts.
1 out of 1 points
The materials provide instructional packages and systematic implementation schedules to support educators in delivering continuous, structured enrichment throughout the school year. The differentiation resources equip advanced readers with specialized reading passages, text-dependent comprehension questions, written-response tasks, and targeted evaluative checklists across a broad range of literary and informational genres. To ensure these enrichment opportunities occur consistently alongside daily instruction, the materials include a comprehensive week-by-week and unit-by-unit schedule. This clear structural guidance allows educators to seamlessly integrate advanced written response expectations and deeper textual analysis into their weekly routines, allowing proficient students to systematically build autonomy and advance their reading skills.
6.4 Analysis of Text Complexity
6.4a
Materials include quantitative and qualitative analysis of each core text, including a rationale for each text's educational purpose and grade-level placement.
Materials include quantitative and qualitative analysis of each core text, including a rationale for each text's educational purpose and grade-level placement.
1 out of 4 points
Evaluation for 6.4a
Evaluation for 6.4a
Materials include quantitative and qualitative analysis of each core text, including a rationale for each text's educational purpose and grade-level placement.
1 out of 4 points
The materials provide simple classification markers such as genre categories and vocabulary lists to denote text properties, but they do not include qualitative analysis and corresponding instructional rationales. Although the educator software houses a text inventory that connects designated reading selections to weekly lessons, it provides no structural breakdown regarding levels of meaning, textual architecture, knowledge demands, or language conventionality. The program does not include a narrative or analytical justification outlining why specific texts were chosen to achieve precise curricular objectives or how their qualitative features align with developmental standards. Because the program does not include these comprehensive qualitative evaluations and explicitly stated educational purposes, educators do not have the necessary instructional insights to understand the placement and pedagogical design of the core readings.
6.4b
Core texts have the appropriate level of complexity for the grade according to their quantitative and qualitative analysis and relationship to student tasks.
Core texts have the appropriate level of complexity for the grade according to their quantitative and qualitative analysis and relationship to student tasks.
1 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 6.4b
Evaluation for 6.4b
Core texts have the appropriate level of complexity for the grade according to their quantitative and qualitative analysis and relationship to student tasks.
1 out of 2 points
The materials provide documentation regarding quantitative parameters, but they do not include evidence of a qualitative analysis to verify if the text selection is fully appropriate for the grade level. While the educator resources cross-reference reading lengths and vocabulary counts against student lessons, they do not include an evaluation of text architecture, levels of meaning, clarity, or background knowledge demands in relation to student tasks. The program does not analyze how features like nonlinear timelines, abstract themes, or shifting narrator viewpoints affect student comprehension or how subsequent learning tasks scaffold these demands. Because the materials exclude this comprehensive qualitative dimension, the program does not ensure that the texts are qualitatively matched to the developmental needs and task expectations of students.
6.5 Self-Sustained Independent Reading
6.5a
Materials include explicit (direct) teacher guidance on how to monitor students' comprehension through structured activities during independent reading. (T)
Materials include explicit (direct) teacher guidance on how to monitor students' comprehension through structured activities during independent reading. (T)
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 6.5a
Evaluation for 6.5a
Materials include explicit (direct) teacher guidance on how to monitor students' comprehension through structured activities during independent reading. (T)
1 out of 1 points
The materials provide structured independent student activities and explicit evaluative tools to keep learning rigorous and visible during self-directed reading cycles. Following the reading of the Jane Goodall text, students complete a multilayered written-response task in which they must isolate the main idea, defend it with supporting details, and explain a clear text-based cause-and-effect relationship. To ensure students actively monitor their own comprehension and execution, the curriculum embeds a comprehensive student-facing written response checklist that outlines exact criteria for success, including clear thesis statements, text integration, complete sentence structures, and specific suffix applications (-ize and -fy). This structured arrangement allows educators to use the resulting student writing and checklist data as concrete formative assessments to identify misconceptions, gauge independent text access, and deliver targeted feedback.
6.5b
Texts designated for independent reading have a range of complexity levels for students to practice reading independently. (S)
Texts designated for independent reading have a range of complexity levels for students to practice reading independently. (S)
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 6.5b
Evaluation for 6.5b
Texts designated for independent reading have a range of complexity levels for students to practice reading independently. (S)
1 out of 1 points
The materials provide thematic alignment across these varying complexity levels to support cohesive, text-based skill application during self-directed learning. According to the “Differentiated Comprehension Overview” guidelines, each weekly multilevel set has a shared instructional focus, ensuring that regardless of text difficulty, all students work toward common comprehension goals and collaborative post-reading discussions. Each single-level and multilevel text package includes corresponding text-dependent comprehension questions, written response tasks, structured sentence frames, and student-facing checklists. This programmatic design enables struggling readers to build self-efficacy with accessible phrasing while challenging proficient students with increasingly sophisticated vocabulary and complex sentence patterns.
6.5c
Materials include a plan for students to self-select high-quality texts and read independently for a sustained period, including planning and accountability for achieving independent reading goals. (S)
Materials include a plan for students to self-select high-quality texts and read independently for a sustained period, including planning and accountability for achieving independent reading goals. (S)
0 out of 4 points
Evaluation for 6.5c
Evaluation for 6.5c
Materials include a plan for students to self-select high-quality texts and read independently for a sustained period, including planning and accountability for achieving independent reading goals. (S)
0 out of 4 points
The materials provide suggestions for using differentiated texts across various settings, but they do not include the tools and structured accountability measures necessary for setting and tracking personal independent reading goals. While the Text System Guide indicates that educators may assign differentiated comprehension texts for small-group instruction, written-response routines, or independent practice based on student readiness, it does not include a formal goal-setting system. The resources do not include student reading logs, digital portfolios, or tracking mechanisms to help learners establish personal milestones, monitor their reading speed, or reflect on their comprehension progress. The program does not include planning frameworks and independent accountability measures.
Rubric Section 7
Evidence-Based Tasks and Responses
Materials require students to engage in reading, writing, and speaking grounded in evidence using literary and informational text.
Total
60% (33 out of 55 points)
Evaluation for 7.A.1a
The materials provide explicit educator scripting and structured text-dependent questioning that require students to analyze how authors build arguments using specific proof. In unit 6, lesson 83, students engage with the informational text How We Know Sleep Repairs the Brain, in which the educator introduces the relationships among an author’s central claim, supporting reasons, and concrete evidence. The lesson guides students to identify reasons that sleep constitutes active neurological work—such as cellular shrinkage and waste removal—and immediately follows up with text-dependent prompts such as “How did you know?” to push students to locate the exact phrases that support these claims. This instructional scheme ensures that students are not merely summarizing the topic based on prior knowledge but are instead isolating the precise experiments, figures, and facts an author uses to validate their arguments.
The materials provide text-focused tasks and oral language scaffolds across diverse genres to ensure students consistently use textual evidence to justify their narrative assertions. In unit 3, lesson 37, during the analysis of the fictional text The Tide Pool Predator, students pinpoint the exact moment of the story’s climax and falling action and prove their selections using explicit evidence from the text. To support student interaction and maintain high academic expectations during partner discussions, the materials embed a structured oral response framework (“The climax is when _____ and I know it’s the climax because _____”). This targeted tool forces students to directly connect their structural analysis of the plot to verifiable textual moments, training them to routinely back up their literary claims with textual proof.
Evaluation for 7.A.1b
The materials provide explicit educator guidance and text-dependent questioning that require students to evaluate language and craft by analyzing how figurative structures create tone and mood. In unit 7, lesson 102, the materials introduce the definitions of similes and metaphors, instructing students that strong readers do not merely identify these figures of speech but must also explain what the author intends the audience to feel or understand through the comparison. Using an excerpt that compares the sound of water to a heartbeat, the educator guides students to evaluate the author’s craft through targeted questions such as “What does the author want us to understand by comparing the water to a heartbeat?” and follow-up prompts such as “How did you know?” This structural approach forces students to evaluate the language choices of high-quality texts by grounding their analytical reasoning in the steady, constant, and living qualities of the text’s specific imagery.
The materials provide text-focused analytical tasks that require students to use text evidence when evaluating the key ideas, structural patterns, and pivotal plot details of high-quality narratives. In unit 4, lesson 46, the lesson centers on tracking a protagonist’s development through the framework of the hero’s journey, demanding that students isolate key ideas by pinpointing structural phases such as the call to adventure, trials, and ultimate transformation. Students must evaluate plot details by explaining how a catalyst event, such as a character forgetting a sword, alters the narrative trajectory, answering a recurring “How did you know?” prompt to justify their analysis with specific text details. Furthermore, the lesson requires students to evaluate text structure through a continuous kinesthetic response system that classifies live-read textual events into the structural stages of the hero’s journey, ensuring that every thematic or structural claim is directly linked to text-based proof.
Evaluation for 7.A.1c
The materials provide explicit educator scripting and text-dependent questioning that require students to support their claims by evaluating and explaining how authors deploy reasons and evidence to substantiate structural arguments. In unit 6, lesson 83, the curriculum uses the informational text How We Know Sleep Repairs the Brain to guide students through an active analysis of an author’s central claims. Rather than allowing passive comprehension, the educator prompts students to isolate the author’s underlying logic by answering targeted questions such as “What’s one reason the author gives for why sleep does real work, not nothing?” Following student responses, the lesson enforces rigor through the diagnostic prompt “How did you know?”, requiring students to extract specific content details, such as cellular contraction and waste production, to demonstrate exactly how textual evidence justifies the author’s overarching argument.
The materials provide collaborative, discussion-based strategies that require students to justify their narrative thinking by locating and analyzing key structural ideas within high-quality texts. In unit 3, lesson 37, during the study of the fictional text The Tide Pool Predator, the materials instruct students to identify and map essential plot components, specifically focusing on the story’s climax and falling action. The instructional framework requires students to participate in partner discussions in which they evaluate the narrative’s shape and isolate the exact turning point of the text. By explicitly charging students to prove where the story shifts using specific text details, the materials ensure that students are practicing peer-to-peer articulation and text-based debate to validate their literary claims rather than relying on guesswork or formulae.
Evaluation for 7.A.1d
The materials provide a sequenced range of literal and inferential questions during close-reading routines to build text comprehension step-by-step. In unit 3, lesson 37, the materials lay out a structured rereading guide for the narrative text The Tide Pool Predator, using designated pause points to check understanding in real time. The lesson scaffolds the cognitive load by beginning with direct, text-based retrieval questions such as “What important detail did we just learn about what the octopus was watching?” then immediately increases the complexity to inferential thinking by asking, “Based on what just happened, what can we figure out about how octopuses hunt?” By layering literal recall questions over conceptual inferences, the educator can systematically measure student comprehension before pushing into higher-level textual analysis.
The materials provide advanced analytical and evaluative tasks that challenge students to justify structural shifts within high-quality texts. In lesson 37, the cognitive demand is elevated from basic inference to formal structural analysis as students are required to analyze the macro-structure of the narrative by evaluating the turning point of the plot. The lesson features a progression of questioning, prompting students first to identify the turning point (“Is this the climax of the story?”), then to explain their reasoning (“How do you know?”), and finally to evaluate the text’s linear progression (“How does it prove this part comes after the climax?”). This rigorous approach culminates in a formal justification task using an explicit sentence framework (“The climax is when _____, and I know it’s the climax because _____”), ensuring that students are performing deep, evidence-based text evaluations across multiple levels of difficulty.
Evaluation for 7.A.2a
The materials include guidance for educators on the effective modeling of the use of text evidence to generate evidence-based claims and construct text-based responses. In unit 7, lesson 94 directly supports educators in modeling how to generate evidence-based claims by providing scripted think-alouds in which the educator demonstrates how readers “match specific evidence to the specific reason it proves.” For example, the educator models analyzing a text excerpt from Field Notes from a Bridge that Shouldn’t Stand Up about a collapsing wire square, explaining how that specific detail supports the claim that triangles are stronger than squares. Furthermore, the lesson guides the educator to explicitly model this claim–evidence pairing using a concrete analogy (“like pairing socks”) before directing students to practice pairing a new piece of evidence with its corresponding reason.
The materials also include educator guidance on modeling how to construct text-based responses. In lesson 19, the educator models constructing an analytical written explanation about Henry Cavendish weighing the earth. The scripting guides the educator to draft the beginning of an evidence-based response aloud (“You can’t put the Earth on a scale, so Cavendish measures something much smaller...”) and pause mid-sentence to demonstrate the writing process before releasing the task to students. To further assist students in constructing their text-based responses, the materials provide structured sentence starters directly tied to the text details, such as “Cavendish’s clever idea is that even though _____, you can _____” and “His setup uses _____.”
Evaluation for 7.A.2b
The materials include guidance for educators on the use of structured opportunities to engage students in evidence-based discussions using academic vocabulary. Structured protocols such as guided partner discussions and vocabulary preview routines require students to use formal, domain-specific terminology. For example, in unit 7, lesson 94 guides educators to preview vocabulary before reading, requiring students to engage in partner discussions in which they apply domain-specific words such as structural (“Turn and tell your partner: What makes a group or team ‘structural’ and able to stay strong together?”). Additionally, before transitioning to an opinion-writing task on whether engines have done more good or harm, educators are instructed to facilitate a peer discussion in which students state their stance using precise vocabulary and synonyms (beneficial or helpful instead of good, and harmful or damaging instead of bad”). The materials provide additional support for academic vocabulary in lesson 34 during a turn-and-talk about A Park Is Not a Zoo, when educator-facing prompts encourage vocabulary usage through sentence frames such as “National parks are important for wildlife because _____” and “The Everglades protects _____, so _____.”
The materials also include educator guidance on structured opportunities to engage students in evidence-based discussions using academic syntax. In unit 3, lesson 42, the educator facilitates a structured discussion analyzing a character’s traits based on text evidence, prompting students to ground their claims in specific textual details (“What trait does this show about the lizard?” and “How did you know?”). In lesson 34, the materials equip the educator with diagnostic prompts and explicit frames to scaffold complex sentence structures for cause-and-effect discussions about elk populations (“Because ______ [cause], ______ [effect]”). Furthermore, in unit 7, lesson 94, following a close reading on reasons and evidence, the educator guides students through an evidence-based partner talk using an explicit academic sentence frame (“Sentence Frame: ‘The evidence that _____ supports the reason that _____.’”), ensuring students construct their oral responses using formal analytical syntax before writing.
Evaluation for 7.B.1a
The materials include mentor texts that serve as models for students to compose a variety of texts according to the grade-level TEKS. Throughout the units, anchor texts across various genres are systematically paired with writing assignments to model structural features, author’s craft, and central ideas. For instance, according to the scope and sequence, unit 7 (lessons 91 and 92) anchors instruction in the fiction text The Last Blacksmith, which serves as a mentor text for students to extend the narrative in their own creative writing assignment. Similarly, in unit 1, lesson 14, the informative text Search and Rescue serves as a mentor text for text-dependent informational writing, guiding students to analyze leadership qualities demonstrated in the passage and construct an evidence-based response explaining how individual traits support team success.
Furthermore, the materials provide educator modeling strategies that demonstrate how to analyze mentor texts to inform writing composition. In lesson 100, the educator uses an informational mentor text to model the development of a strong thesis statement (“I notice the author’s thesis states that green building designs are transforming cities... That gives me an idea, but I am going to write my own thesis from a different angle...”), guiding students to establish a clear position before they compose their own informational essays modeled after the text structure.
Evaluation for 7.B.1b
The materials include opportunities throughout the year for students to compose literary texts for multiple purposes using genre-specific characteristics and craft. Across the school year, the scope and sequence embeds 30 distinct opportunities for literary writing directly tied to unit anchor texts. Students engage in structured literary composition at least once per unit across a range of genres and intents. For instance, unit 1 features literary narrative assignments in lessons 2 and 5, while unit 10 expands their exposure by engaging students in personal narrative writing in lesson 140 followed by poetry composition in lesson 145. These recurring tasks ensure that reading and expressive writing remain connected throughout the curriculum.
However, the materials do not include opportunities for students to compose literary texts for multiple audiences. While the scope and sequence provides routine practice in crafting narratives and poetry for varied purposes, it does not include explicit guidance, models, or prompts directing students to tailor their literary works to different readers or contexts. Without structured scaffolds such as anchor charts, rubrics, or editing checklists focused on audience awareness, students do not have opportunities to learn how tone, perspective, and craft choices must shift when writing for different audiences.
Evaluation for 7.B.1c
The materials include opportunities throughout the year for students to compose informational texts for multiple purposes with genre-specific characteristics and craft. The scope and sequence embeds 23 distinct informational writing opportunities directly linked to unit anchor texts, ensuring students practice expository writing at least once per unit. These assignments require students to synthesize information and analyze key ideas across various contexts. For instance, in unit 1, lesson 14, students compose an informative narrative essay to address an overarching Essential Question, while unit 4, lesson 54 prompts students to write a comparative informational piece analyzing heroes’ trials across different cultures. These frequent tasks support idea development and structural organization aligned with varied instructional goals.
However, the materials do not provide opportunities or guidance for students to compose informational texts for multiple audiences. Although the scope and sequence establishes routine practice across different purposes, it does not include explicit instructional support, models, or scaffolds (such as targeted rubrics, anchor charts, or audience-focused editing tools) to help students learn how to adapt their tone, language, and content delivery for distinct readerships such as peers, guardians, or community members.
Evaluation for 7.B.1d
The materials include opportunities throughout the year for students to compose argumentative texts for multiple purposes with genre-specific characteristics and craft. Across the program, the scope and sequence outlines 27 distinct opportunities for students to draft opinion/argumentative compositions tied directly to unit anchor texts. Students complete at least one argumentative writing assignment per unit across various instructional contexts, such as in unit 1 lessons 4, 9, and 15; unit 2 lessons 24, 27, and 30; and unit 3 lessons 39 and 45. These frequent, integrated writing tasks provide routine practice in developing claims, organizing reasons, and channeling student voice in response to text-based prompts. However, the materials primarily refer to these tasks as “opinion writing,” whereas grade-level standards emphasize transitioning to formal “argumentative” terminology to better reflect the genre’s focus on evidence-based claims.
The materials do not provide opportunities or instructional support for students to compose argumentative texts for multiple audiences. Although the scope and sequence establishes regular practice across diverse purposes, it does not include explicit guidance, mentor text analysis, or scaffolds (such as audience-tailored rubrics, graphic organizers, or revising checklists) that instruct students on how to adapt their tone, nor does it address persuasive strategies for specific target readers such as peers, school leaders, or community members.
Evaluation for 7.B.1e
The materials include an isolated opportunity for students to compose correspondence with genre-specific characteristics and craft but do not provide regular practice throughout the school year. In unit 10, lesson 150 incorporates a modeled and guided lesson in which students draft a formal opinion letter to the principal. The educator models the structural components of formal correspondence (including a clear thesis statement, respectful tone, and logical support) before guiding students through the drafting process using the appropriate letter format. This assessment introduces essential genre-specific elements such as a formal greeting, structured body paragraphs, and appropriate closure for a specific, authentic audience.
However, materials do not include opportunities throughout the year for students to build and refine these written communication skills. According to the scope and sequence, writing correspondence appears only once across the entire academic year, at the very end of unit 10. Without spiraled, recurring opportunities to practice varied forms of correspondence such as thank-you notes, formal emails, or inquiries, and absent ongoing scaffolds across multiple units, students cannot fully internalize and master audience-focused communication.
Evaluation for 7.B.2a
The materials partially support students’ coherent use of the elements of the writing process, embedding structured frameworks across multiple genres. Throughout the materials, lessons systematically guide students through planning, drafting, revising, and publishing using genre-specific acronyms. For example, students use TREE (tell your topic, report facts or reasons, explain your examples, end your writing) for informative writing in unit 1, lesson 10; STAND (state your opinion, tell your reasons, add evidence or examples, note the opposing view, deliver your final conclusion) for opinion writing in unit 12, lesson 120; and SPARK (say who and where, problem or big event, actions, result, keep a clear ending) for narrative writing in unit 7, lesson 95. Educators explicitly model these frameworks before students draft their own texts. Lessons then lead students through self-revision using targeted checklists to enhance details and word choice, culminating in diverse publishing opportunities such as class books, writing walls, author’s chair, and digital read-alouds. Educator conferencing guidance is also included in unit 7 to support vocabulary precision during drafting.
However, the materials do not provide explicit, age-appropriate instruction or scaffolds for the editing stage of the writing process. Across the units, editing guidance relies heavily on general statements (such as telling students that “Writers can edit and change their writing when they find things they want to improve”) without offering actionable tools, checklists, or mini-lessons for grammar, mechanics, or spelling. Although unit 12, lesson 120 prompts students to use reference materials such as dictionaries and thesauruses, this guidance focuses on word selection and revision rather than systematic convention editing.
Evaluation for 7.B.2b
The materials provide strong educator guidance and direct scripting for modeling the planning and drafting stages, and for supporting students through guided revision routines. For instance, in unit 1 lesson 10, unit 10 lesson 100, and unit 9 lesson 140, educators explicitly model how to map out ideas using frameworks such as TREE and think-aloud strategies for forming thesis statements or narrative hooks. Furthermore, educator-led guidance consistently supports students through the revision phase using finger-check routines, targeted prompts, and self-checks for structural components and vocabulary precision.
However, the materials do not include explicit educator guidance and direct modeling for the revising, editing, and sharing/publishing stages. While educators are directed to guide students through revision checklists, the educator does not demonstrate live edits to rearrange sentences, insert precise word choices, expand on detail, or use other means to model editing. Similarly, editing instruction is absent of educator modeling, relying on passive statements such as “Writers can edit and change their writing when they find things to improve” without providing direct instruction or modeled demonstrations on fixing grammatical, punctuation, or spelling errors. Finally, while lessons present a robust menu of publishing options such as author’s chair, class book, writing wall, there is no educator guidance to model how students should prepare, present, or share their published compositions.
Evaluation for 7.B.3a
The materials include guidance for educators to provide explicit (direct) instruction on sentence-level writing, focusing on sentence structure and syntax. For example, in unit 7, lesson 96 features scripted educator modeling on combining complete sentences using coordinating conjunctions and proper comma placement (“When we join two complete sentences, we put a comma before the conjunction”). The lesson uses anchor text examples (“Zara had visited the tower many times before, but the view never stopped amazing her”) and provides non-examples to teach when a comma is not required (“Zara pressed her nose against the cool window glass and looked at the city below”), helping students analyze complete clauses versus compound predicates. Furthermore, in unit 4, lesson 56, educators directly instruct students on ordering adjectives within sentences using a structured framework (opinion, size, color). The script guides educators to model sorting jumbled adjectives (red, beautiful, huge) into “beautiful huge red roses” to help students manipulate word order and write syntactically fluent compound noun phrases.
In addition to structure and syntax, the materials provide explicit guidance for direct instruction on sentence-level vocabulary and word choice. In lesson 83, scripts offer guidance on commonly confused homophones (their/there/they’re, affect/effect, then/than, to/two/too, and its/it’s). The educator models how semantic meaning directly influences correct spelling and word selection within the context of a sentence (“When we write, we need to think about the meaning of our sentence to choose the correct spelling”). By integrating modeling of mechanics, word order, and vocabulary choice, the materials support educators in building foundational sentence-level writing skills.
Evaluation for 7.B.3b
The materials include direct instruction in writing starting at the sentence level and building to compositions according to the grade-level ELA TEKS. In unit 5, lesson 61 provides scripted instruction on prepositional phrases, defining prepositions, providing examples, and guiding educators to model their identification within text excerpts. Furthermore, lesson 65 supports sentence-level writing application by guiding educators to monitor independent writing and prompt students to revise bare action sentences by adding prepositional phrases. In unit 1, lesson 1, the educator directly models identifying subjects and predicates using mentor sentences, leads interactive practice, and directs students to divide subjects and predicates in their own writing.
The materials do not include systematic instruction in writing starting at the sentence level, nor do they include systematic instruction building to compositions according to the grade-level TEKS. Writing instruction is sporadic and lacks a progression of complexity throughout the year. For example, the scope and sequence places simple concepts such as capitalization, synonyms/antonyms, and frequently confused words after complex skills such as modal auxiliaries and complex verb tenses. Additionally, dependent concepts are separated. For example, lessons 31–34 teach run-on sentence correction using commas and conjunctions, even though comma and conjunction rules are not introduced until lessons 96–99.
Evaluation for 7.B.3c
The materials include opportunities for students to directly engage in basic sentence-level writing and editing. In unit 5, lesson 71, the educator guides students through rules for capitalizing proper nouns using mentor sentences. Following the educator-led discussion, students apply these concepts by writing sentences spoken aloud by the educator and immediately checking their capitalization against models. Although sentence-level writing, editing, and revising tasks appear regularly throughout the materials, they do not increase in complexity.
The materials do not include systematic opportunities for students to engage in increasingly complex sentence-level writing, revising, and editing. Rather than building sequentially from foundational mechanics to sophisticated sentence construction, skills recur without a logical progression in difficulty. Low-complexity editing skills, such as capitalization in lessons 72–75, are introduced long after students are expected to perform more complex sentence-level revisions, such as correcting run-on sentences and applying modal auxiliaries.
Evaluation for 7.B.4a
The materials include practice and application opportunities within and outside the context of the conventions of academic language in sentences and short paragraphs using correct capitalization and punctuation according to the grade-level TEKS. In unit 7, lesson 96, students engage in out-of-context practice by joining independent clauses with commas and coordinating conjunctions based on educator modeling. Out-of-context practice and application also occur in unit 5, lesson 71, as students review capitalization rules and apply them by writing educator-dictated sentences containing proper nouns and the pronoun I. Additionally, in unit 2, lesson 31, students practice correcting isolated run-on sentences by splitting complete thoughts or adding connecting words and commas.
The materials also include opportunities for in-context practice and application of academic language conventions within authentic writing tasks according to the grade-level TEKS. In unit 5, lesson 72, students apply grammar and mechanics in context by composing an original opinion paragraph responding to a text about nature’s warning signs. During this drafting task, students integrate topic-specific vocabulary while practicing proper capitalization of proper nouns such as Grandma, Grand Canyon, and Flagstaff directly within their continuous text.
Evaluation for 7.B.4b
While the materials provide instruction on various conventions throughout the year, the sequencing lacks a systematic design or logical, cumulative progression. For example, in unit 1, lessons 1–4 cover subjects and predicates, followed abruptly by eight lessons on relative adverbs, four lessons on relative pronouns, four lessons on expanding relative pronouns, and four lessons on fragments. Additionally, punctuation practice occurs sporadically rather than systematically. For example, lesson 86 provides out-of-context practice with dialogue quotations, and lesson 87 asks students to apply introductory commas within an opinion paragraph, but these skills are not built sequentially into a coherent learning path.
The materials include opportunities for practice and application of usage in and out of context, but these opportunities are irregular across the school year. For example, in unit 3, lesson 38 provides out-of-context practice with past progressive verb tenses through a kinesthetic listening game (“Roll your hands” for continuous actions and “clap” for quick interruptions). Students then apply this usage skill in context during lesson 39 by drafting an opinion paragraph about apex predators while incorporating past progressive verbs to describe predator actions. However, because these usage and grammar experiences appear as isolated activities without structured review, the materials do not include a systematic framework for language conventions.
7.A.1 Use of Text Evidence
7.A.1a
Materials include text-dependent questions and tasks which require students to use evidence from the text to demonstrate comprehension, justify their thinking, and support claims. (S)
Materials include text-dependent questions and tasks which require students to use evidence from the text to demonstrate comprehension, justify their thinking, and support claims. (S)
2 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 7.A.1a
Evaluation for 7.A.1a
Materials include text-dependent questions and tasks which require students to use evidence from the text to demonstrate comprehension, justify their thinking, and support claims. (S)
2 out of 2 points
The materials provide text-focused tasks and oral language scaffolds across diverse genres to ensure students consistently use textual evidence to justify their narrative assertions. In unit 3, lesson 37, during the analysis of the fictional text The Tide Pool Predator, students pinpoint the exact moment of the story’s climax and falling action and prove their selections using explicit evidence from the text. To support student interaction and maintain high academic expectations during partner discussions, the materials embed a structured oral response framework (“The climax is when _____ and I know it’s the climax because _____”). This targeted tool forces students to directly connect their structural analysis of the plot to verifiable textual moments, training them to routinely back up their literary claims with textual proof.
7.A.1b
Questions and tasks require students to use text evidence when evaluating the language, key ideas, details, craft, and structure of high-quality texts. (S)
Questions and tasks require students to use text evidence when evaluating the language, key ideas, details, craft, and structure of high-quality texts. (S)
5 out of 5 points
Evaluation for 7.A.1b
Evaluation for 7.A.1b
Questions and tasks require students to use text evidence when evaluating the language, key ideas, details, craft, and structure of high-quality texts. (S)
5 out of 5 points
The materials provide text-focused analytical tasks that require students to use text evidence when evaluating the key ideas, structural patterns, and pivotal plot details of high-quality narratives. In unit 4, lesson 46, the lesson centers on tracking a protagonist’s development through the framework of the hero’s journey, demanding that students isolate key ideas by pinpointing structural phases such as the call to adventure, trials, and ultimate transformation. Students must evaluate plot details by explaining how a catalyst event, such as a character forgetting a sword, alters the narrative trajectory, answering a recurring “How did you know?” prompt to justify their analysis with specific text details. Furthermore, the lesson requires students to evaluate text structure through a continuous kinesthetic response system that classifies live-read textual events into the structural stages of the hero’s journey, ensuring that every thematic or structural claim is directly linked to text-based proof.
7.A.1c
Questions and tasks require students to support their claims and justify their thinking through a variety of strategies, such as comparing sources, paraphrasing, summarizing, and discussing key ideas in evidence from the text. (S)
Questions and tasks require students to support their claims and justify their thinking through a variety of strategies, such as comparing sources, paraphrasing, summarizing, and discussing key ideas in evidence from the text. (S)
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 7.A.1c
Evaluation for 7.A.1c
Questions and tasks require students to support their claims and justify their thinking through a variety of strategies, such as comparing sources, paraphrasing, summarizing, and discussing key ideas in evidence from the text. (S)
1 out of 1 points
The materials provide collaborative, discussion-based strategies that require students to justify their narrative thinking by locating and analyzing key structural ideas within high-quality texts. In unit 3, lesson 37, during the study of the fictional text The Tide Pool Predator, the materials instruct students to identify and map essential plot components, specifically focusing on the story’s climax and falling action. The instructional framework requires students to participate in partner discussions in which they evaluate the narrative’s shape and isolate the exact turning point of the text. By explicitly charging students to prove where the story shifts using specific text details, the materials ensure that students are practicing peer-to-peer articulation and text-based debate to validate their literary claims rather than relying on guesswork or formulae.
7.A.1d
Questions and tasks are designed at different levels of cognitive complexity to provide ample opportunities for students to engage in the analysis of text. (S)
Questions and tasks are designed at different levels of cognitive complexity to provide ample opportunities for students to engage in the analysis of text. (S)
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 7.A.1d
Evaluation for 7.A.1d
Questions and tasks are designed at different levels of cognitive complexity to provide ample opportunities for students to engage in the analysis of text. (S)
1 out of 1 points
The materials provide advanced analytical and evaluative tasks that challenge students to justify structural shifts within high-quality texts. In lesson 37, the cognitive demand is elevated from basic inference to formal structural analysis as students are required to analyze the macro-structure of the narrative by evaluating the turning point of the plot. The lesson features a progression of questioning, prompting students first to identify the turning point (“Is this the climax of the story?”), then to explain their reasoning (“How do you know?”), and finally to evaluate the text’s linear progression (“How does it prove this part comes after the climax?”). This rigorous approach culminates in a formal justification task using an explicit sentence framework (“The climax is when _____, and I know it’s the climax because _____”), ensuring that students are performing deep, evidence-based text evaluations across multiple levels of difficulty.
7.A.2 Teacher Guidance for the Use of Text Evidence
7.A.2a
Materials include guidance for teachers on the effective modeling of the use of text evidence to generate evidence-based claims and construct text-based responses. (T)
Materials include guidance for teachers on the effective modeling of the use of text evidence to generate evidence-based claims and construct text-based responses. (T)
2 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 7.A.2a
Evaluation for 7.A.2a
Materials include guidance for teachers on the effective modeling of the use of text evidence to generate evidence-based claims and construct text-based responses. (T)
2 out of 2 points
The materials also include educator guidance on modeling how to construct text-based responses. In lesson 19, the educator models constructing an analytical written explanation about Henry Cavendish weighing the earth. The scripting guides the educator to draft the beginning of an evidence-based response aloud (“You can’t put the Earth on a scale, so Cavendish measures something much smaller...”) and pause mid-sentence to demonstrate the writing process before releasing the task to students. To further assist students in constructing their text-based responses, the materials provide structured sentence starters directly tied to the text details, such as “Cavendish’s clever idea is that even though _____, you can _____” and “His setup uses _____.”
7.A.2b
Materials include guidance for teachers on the use of structured opportunities to engage students in evidence-based discussions using academic vocabulary and syntax. (T)
Materials include guidance for teachers on the use of structured opportunities to engage students in evidence-based discussions using academic vocabulary and syntax. (T)
2 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 7.A.2b
Evaluation for 7.A.2b
Materials include guidance for teachers on the use of structured opportunities to engage students in evidence-based discussions using academic vocabulary and syntax. (T)
2 out of 2 points
The materials also include educator guidance on structured opportunities to engage students in evidence-based discussions using academic syntax. In unit 3, lesson 42, the educator facilitates a structured discussion analyzing a character’s traits based on text evidence, prompting students to ground their claims in specific textual details (“What trait does this show about the lizard?” and “How did you know?”). In lesson 34, the materials equip the educator with diagnostic prompts and explicit frames to scaffold complex sentence structures for cause-and-effect discussions about elk populations (“Because ______ [cause], ______ [effect]”). Furthermore, in unit 7, lesson 94, following a close reading on reasons and evidence, the educator guides students through an evidence-based partner talk using an explicit academic sentence frame (“Sentence Frame: ‘The evidence that _____ supports the reason that _____.’”), ensuring students construct their oral responses using formal analytical syntax before writing.
7.B.1 Genre Characteristics and Craft to Compose Multiple Texts
7.B.1a
Materials include mentor texts that serve as models for students to compose a variety of texts according to grade-level TEKS.
Materials include mentor texts that serve as models for students to compose a variety of texts according to grade-level TEKS.
1 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 7.B.1a
Evaluation for 7.B.1a
Materials include mentor texts that serve as models for students to compose a variety of texts according to grade-level TEKS.
1 out of 1 points
Furthermore, the materials provide educator modeling strategies that demonstrate how to analyze mentor texts to inform writing composition. In lesson 100, the educator uses an informational mentor text to model the development of a strong thesis statement (“I notice the author’s thesis states that green building designs are transforming cities... That gives me an idea, but I am going to write my own thesis from a different angle...”), guiding students to establish a clear position before they compose their own informational essays modeled after the text structure.
7.B.1b
Materials include opportunities throughout the year for students to compose literary texts for multiple purposes and audiences with genre-specific characteristics and craft. (S)
Materials include opportunities throughout the year for students to compose literary texts for multiple purposes and audiences with genre-specific characteristics and craft. (S)
1 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 7.B.1b
Evaluation for 7.B.1b
Materials include opportunities throughout the year for students to compose literary texts for multiple purposes and audiences with genre-specific characteristics and craft. (S)
1 out of 2 points
However, the materials do not include opportunities for students to compose literary texts for multiple audiences. While the scope and sequence provides routine practice in crafting narratives and poetry for varied purposes, it does not include explicit guidance, models, or prompts directing students to tailor their literary works to different readers or contexts. Without structured scaffolds such as anchor charts, rubrics, or editing checklists focused on audience awareness, students do not have opportunities to learn how tone, perspective, and craft choices must shift when writing for different audiences.
7.B.1c
Materials include opportunities throughout the year for students to compose informational texts for multiple purposes and audiences with genre-specific characteristics and craft. (S)
Materials include opportunities throughout the year for students to compose informational texts for multiple purposes and audiences with genre-specific characteristics and craft. (S)
1 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 7.B.1c
Evaluation for 7.B.1c
Materials include opportunities throughout the year for students to compose informational texts for multiple purposes and audiences with genre-specific characteristics and craft. (S)
1 out of 2 points
However, the materials do not provide opportunities or guidance for students to compose informational texts for multiple audiences. Although the scope and sequence establishes routine practice across different purposes, it does not include explicit instructional support, models, or scaffolds (such as targeted rubrics, anchor charts, or audience-focused editing tools) to help students learn how to adapt their tone, language, and content delivery for distinct readerships such as peers, guardians, or community members.
7.B.1d
Materials include opportunities throughout the year for students to compose argumentative texts for multiple purposes and audiences with genre-specific characteristics and craft. (S)
Materials include opportunities throughout the year for students to compose argumentative texts for multiple purposes and audiences with genre-specific characteristics and craft. (S)
1 out of 2 points
Evaluation for 7.B.1d
Evaluation for 7.B.1d
Materials include opportunities throughout the year for students to compose argumentative texts for multiple purposes and audiences with genre-specific characteristics and craft. (S)
1 out of 2 points
The materials do not provide opportunities or instructional support for students to compose argumentative texts for multiple audiences. Although the scope and sequence establishes regular practice across diverse purposes, it does not include explicit guidance, mentor text analysis, or scaffolds (such as audience-tailored rubrics, graphic organizers, or revising checklists) that instruct students on how to adapt their tone, nor does it address persuasive strategies for specific target readers such as peers, school leaders, or community members.
7.B.1e
Materials include opportunities throughout the year for students to compose correspondence with genre-specific characteristics and craft. (S)
Materials include opportunities throughout the year for students to compose correspondence with genre-specific characteristics and craft. (S)
0 out of 1 points
Evaluation for 7.B.1e
Evaluation for 7.B.1e
Materials include opportunities throughout the year for students to compose correspondence with genre-specific characteristics and craft. (S)
0 out of 1 points
However, materials do not include opportunities throughout the year for students to build and refine these written communication skills. According to the scope and sequence, writing correspondence appears only once across the entire academic year, at the very end of unit 10. Without spiraled, recurring opportunities to practice varied forms of correspondence such as thank-you notes, formal emails, or inquiries, and absent ongoing scaffolds across multiple units, students cannot fully internalize and master audience-focused communication.
7.B.2 Writing Process
7.B.2a
Materials support students' use of the elements of the writing process (planning, drafting, revising, conferring, editing, and sharing/publishing) to compose text, which includes an age-appropriate progression in the conventions authentic to English writing. (S)
Materials support students' use of the elements of the writing process (planning, drafting, revising, conferring, editing, and sharing/publishing) to compose text, which includes an age-appropriate progression in the conventions authentic to English writing. (S)
4 out of 5 points
Evaluation for 7.B.2a
Evaluation for 7.B.2a
Materials support students' use of the elements of the writing process (planning, drafting, revising, conferring, editing, and sharing/publishing) to compose text, which includes an age-appropriate progression in the conventions authentic to English writing. (S)
4 out of 5 points
However, the materials do not provide explicit, age-appropriate instruction or scaffolds for the editing stage of the writing process. Across the units, editing guidance relies heavily on general statements (such as telling students that “Writers can edit and change their writing when they find things they want to improve”) without offering actionable tools, checklists, or mini-lessons for grammar, mechanics, or spelling. Although unit 12, lesson 120 prompts students to use reference materials such as dictionaries and thesauruses, this guidance focuses on word selection and revision rather than systematic convention editing.
7.B.2b
Materials include teacher guidance to provide explicit (direct) instruction to model each element of the writing process (planning, drafting, revising, editing, and sharing/publishing) and to support students during the writing process through conferencing and revising. (T)
Materials include teacher guidance to provide explicit (direct) instruction to model each element of the writing process (planning, drafting, revising, editing, and sharing/publishing) and to support students during the writing process through conferencing and revising. (T)
3 out of 6 points
Evaluation for 7.B.2b
Evaluation for 7.B.2b
Materials include teacher guidance to provide explicit (direct) instruction to model each element of the writing process (planning, drafting, revising, editing, and sharing/publishing) and to support students during the writing process through conferencing and revising. (T)
3 out of 6 points
However, the materials do not include explicit educator guidance and direct modeling for the revising, editing, and sharing/publishing stages. While educators are directed to guide students through revision checklists, the educator does not demonstrate live edits to rearrange sentences, insert precise word choices, expand on detail, or use other means to model editing. Similarly, editing instruction is absent of educator modeling, relying on passive statements such as “Writers can edit and change their writing when they find things to improve” without providing direct instruction or modeled demonstrations on fixing grammatical, punctuation, or spelling errors. Finally, while lessons present a robust menu of publishing options such as author’s chair, class book, writing wall, there is no educator guidance to model how students should prepare, present, or share their published compositions.
7.B.3 Explicit (Direct) and Systematic Writing Instruction
7.B.3a
Materials include guidance for teachers to provide explicit (direct) instruction on sentence-level writing, focusing on structure, syntax, and vocabulary. (T)
Materials include guidance for teachers to provide explicit (direct) instruction on sentence-level writing, focusing on structure, syntax, and vocabulary. (T)
3 out of 3 points
Evaluation for 7.B.3a
Evaluation for 7.B.3a
Materials include guidance for teachers to provide explicit (direct) instruction on sentence-level writing, focusing on structure, syntax, and vocabulary. (T)
3 out of 3 points
In addition to structure and syntax, the materials provide explicit guidance for direct instruction on sentence-level vocabulary and word choice. In lesson 83, scripts offer guidance on commonly confused homophones (their/there/they’re, affect/effect, then/than, to/two/too, and its/it’s). The educator models how semantic meaning directly influences correct spelling and word selection within the context of a sentence (“When we write, we need to think about the meaning of our sentence to choose the correct spelling”). By integrating modeling of mechanics, word order, and vocabulary choice, the materials support educators in building foundational sentence-level writing skills.
7.B.3b
Materials include guidance for teachers to provide systematic and explicit (direct) instruction in writing starting at the sentence-level and building to compositions according to grade-level TEKS. (T)
Materials include guidance for teachers to provide systematic and explicit (direct) instruction in writing starting at the sentence-level and building to compositions according to grade-level TEKS. (T)
2 out of 4 points
Evaluation for 7.B.3b
Evaluation for 7.B.3b
Materials include guidance for teachers to provide systematic and explicit (direct) instruction in writing starting at the sentence-level and building to compositions according to grade-level TEKS. (T)
2 out of 4 points
The materials do not include systematic instruction in writing starting at the sentence level, nor do they include systematic instruction building to compositions according to the grade-level TEKS. Writing instruction is sporadic and lacks a progression of complexity throughout the year. For example, the scope and sequence places simple concepts such as capitalization, synonyms/antonyms, and frequently confused words after complex skills such as modal auxiliaries and complex verb tenses. Additionally, dependent concepts are separated. For example, lessons 31–34 teach run-on sentence correction using commas and conjunctions, even though comma and conjunction rules are not introduced until lessons 96–99.
7.B.3c
Materials include systematic and explicit (direct) opportunities for students to engage in increasingly complex sentence-level writing, revising, and editing. (S)
Materials include systematic and explicit (direct) opportunities for students to engage in increasingly complex sentence-level writing, revising, and editing. (S)
0 out of 6 points
Evaluation for 7.B.3c
Evaluation for 7.B.3c
Materials include systematic and explicit (direct) opportunities for students to engage in increasingly complex sentence-level writing, revising, and editing. (S)
0 out of 6 points
The materials do not include systematic opportunities for students to engage in increasingly complex sentence-level writing, revising, and editing. Rather than building sequentially from foundational mechanics to sophisticated sentence construction, skills recur without a logical progression in difficulty. Low-complexity editing skills, such as capitalization in lessons 72–75, are introduced long after students are expected to perform more complex sentence-level revisions, such as correcting run-on sentences and applying modal auxiliaries.
7.B.4 Grade-Level Standard English Conventions
7.B.4a
Materials include opportunities for practice and application both in and out of context of the conventions of academic language (e.g., the use of simple and compound sentences with subject-verb agreement, the appropriate use of different verb tenses, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, pronouns, and coordinating conjunctions) in sentences and short paragraphs using correct capitalization and punctuation according to the grade-level TEKS. (S)
Materials include opportunities for practice and application both in and out of context of the conventions of academic language (e.g., the use of simple and compound sentences with subject-verb agreement, the appropriate use of different verb tenses, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, pronouns, and coordinating conjunctions) in sentences and short paragraphs using correct capitalization and punctuation according to the grade-level TEKS. (S)
4 out of 4 points
Evaluation for 7.B.4a
Evaluation for 7.B.4a
Materials include opportunities for practice and application both in and out of context of the conventions of academic language (e.g., the use of simple and compound sentences with subject-verb agreement, the appropriate use of different verb tenses, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, pronouns, and coordinating conjunctions) in sentences and short paragraphs using correct capitalization and punctuation according to the grade-level TEKS. (S)
4 out of 4 points
The materials also include opportunities for in-context practice and application of academic language conventions within authentic writing tasks according to the grade-level TEKS. In unit 5, lesson 72, students apply grammar and mechanics in context by composing an original opinion paragraph responding to a text about nature’s warning signs. During this drafting task, students integrate topic-specific vocabulary while practicing proper capitalization of proper nouns such as Grandma, Grand Canyon, and Flagstaff directly within their continuous text.
7.B.4b
Materials include systematic opportunities for practice of and application of grammar, punctuation, and usage, both in and out of context. (S)
Materials include systematic opportunities for practice of and application of grammar, punctuation, and usage, both in and out of context. (S)
0 out of 6 points
Evaluation for 7.B.4b
Evaluation for 7.B.4b
Materials include systematic opportunities for practice of and application of grammar, punctuation, and usage, both in and out of context. (S)
0 out of 6 points
The materials include opportunities for practice and application of usage in and out of context, but these opportunities are irregular across the school year. For example, in unit 3, lesson 38 provides out-of-context practice with past progressive verb tenses through a kinesthetic listening game (“Roll your hands” for continuous actions and “clap” for quick interruptions). Students then apply this usage skill in context during lesson 39 by drafting an opinion paragraph about apex predators while incorporating past progressive verbs to describe predator actions. However, because these usage and grammar experiences appear as isolated activities without structured review, the materials do not include a systematic framework for language conventions.