Program Information
- ISBN
- 9781623825096
- 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 5
ELAR Grade 5
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 5 | 73.02% | 92.31% |
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 in which each lesson corresponds to one instructional day. The “Pacing Guidance” section recommends one lesson per day within the literacy block, with one day per week 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 concepts in the unit. 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 English and Spanish, ensuring accessibility for families and enabling them to actively support their students’ literacy development.
The Caregiver portal provides families with access to lesson content and student progress, supporting ongoing engagement in 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, the lesson objective is “Comprehension Connection: Text-to-Text Theme + Quotation Objective: Students will explain how characters’ actions, decisions, and motivations influence the plot’s direction.” 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 offers centralized access to instructional and extended practice resources, and the dedicated “Differentiation” tab provides targeted 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 concepts in the unit. 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 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, the lesson objective is “Comprehension Connection: Text-to-Text Theme + Quotation Objective: Students will explain how characters’ actions, decisions, and motivations influence the plot’s direction.” 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. Unit 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 three benchmarks 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, the students’ objective is to identify and use nouns and pronouns correctly, which is part of the weekly grammar 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 course, unit, or lesson objectives.
Evaluation for 2.1e
The “TEKS-ELPS Ascend Assessment Item Alignment” document identifies assessment items aligned to 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” to 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. Unit 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 three benchmarks 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, the students’ objective is to identify and use nouns and pronouns correctly, which is part of the weekly grammar 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 course, unit, or lesson objectives.
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 embedded support routines designed to support students who have not yet reached proficiency. For example, educators are directed to show pictures of animals from a story and use a map to trace where the animals live during different seasons, helping students connect unfamiliar references to concrete visuals and geographic concepts. Throughout the lesson, vocabulary instruction is reinforced through visual, verbal, and kinesthetic supports, providing students with multiple opportunities to build understanding of unfamiliar words and text references in context. 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 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 atmospheric pressure, vacuum, radiation, magnetic field, and perchlorates through visuals, actions, definitions, repeated practice, sentence examples, and oral language activities before students read Why Mars Doesn’t Want Visitors. 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 unifies that week’s lessons and to choose among provided ways to address it. Students also receive a proficient-level 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 that introduces the morpheme cycle and explains its meaning. The lesson also includes prompts such as “Read the words” and “Fade your voice as learners read” to support modeling and gradual release. Additionally, comprehension lessons provide educator questions and sample responses to guide students’ thinking, such as in unit 2, lesson 23, in which students analyze a text’s chronological structure.
The materials also include guidance to support educators in modeling and explaining concepts. The “Lesson Planning: Scripted & Supported Instruction” section explains that lessons provide 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. Purple boxes in lessons contain specific guidance for educators. For example, in lesson 123, the educator explains the meaning of the word empire, and the purple box suggests adding a gesture to help students visualize: “Spread your arms wide to show a vast area, then bring your hands together at the center.” These supports help educators effectively model strategies and reinforce evidence-based discussions.
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 tools for writing practice (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 about personal experiences related to sharing frustrations, encouraging deeper discussion and connection to the text. In the “Background Knowledge and Vocabulary” section, educators receive modeling prompts for introducing vocabulary such as the word acoustics, and students physically engage by cupping their hands behind their ears and observing how sound travels in the environment. 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 includes structured guidance for shared reading, in which the educator gradually fades their voice to allow students to take the lead, followed by partner reading with educator support as needed, and concluding with independent reading. Similar structures appear in unit 5, lesson 61, in which the fluency section begins with an educator read-aloud, transitions into partner reading with multiple opportunities for collaboration, and ends with independent reading and reflection on students’ fluency growth. 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 multilingual learners 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, 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 for developing English proficiency and 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 4, lesson 52, articulation and EB student support are provided in the embedded sidebars for the morpheme scribe/script. Students hear the morpheme in isolation and in words, say the words, and learn the meaning of the root scribe/script. At the end of the component, students respond to questions about the meaning of the morpheme and how it applies to other words.
The materials also support EB students in developing academic vocabulary, increasing comprehension, and building background knowledge through written discourse. In unit 2, lesson 23, EB student support in the Notes panel says, “To support MLLs [Multi-language Learners], explicitly teach comparison signal words and phrases: “but,” “however,” “unlike,” “compared to,” “thinner than,” “colder than.” Create a word bank of these signals for learners to reference.” The materials provide opportunities for students to apply academic vocabulary and content knowledge during written responses while reinforcing comprehension through writing.
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 lesson 4, cognates for the root per are provided in Spanish, French, and Italian, helping students recognize similarities across languages. These supports help students connect vocabulary knowledge across languages while reinforcing academic language development. 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 embedded support routines designed to support students who have not yet reached proficiency. For example, educators are directed to show pictures of animals from a story and use a map to trace where the animals live during different seasons, helping students connect unfamiliar references to concrete visuals and geographic concepts. Throughout the lesson, vocabulary instruction is reinforced through visual, verbal, and kinesthetic supports, providing students with multiple opportunities to build understanding of unfamiliar words and text references in context. 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 atmospheric pressure, vacuum, radiation, magnetic field, and perchlorates through visuals, actions, definitions, repeated practice, sentence examples, and oral language activities before students read Why Mars Doesn’t Want Visitors. 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 unifies that week’s lessons and to choose among provided ways to address it. Students also receive a proficient-level 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 provide 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. Purple boxes in lessons contain specific guidance for educators. For example, in lesson 123, the educator explains the meaning of the word empire, and the purple box suggests adding a gesture to help students visualize: “Spread your arms wide to show a vast area, then bring your hands together at the center.” These supports help educators effectively model strategies and reinforce evidence-based discussions.
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 tools for writing practice (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 about personal experiences related to sharing frustrations, encouraging deeper discussion and connection to the text. In the “Background Knowledge and Vocabulary” section, educators receive modeling prompts for introducing vocabulary such as the word acoustics, and students physically engage by cupping their hands behind their ears and observing how sound travels in the environment. 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 includes structured guidance for shared reading, in which the educator gradually fades their voice to allow students to take the lead, followed by partner reading with educator support as needed, and concluding with independent reading. Similar structures appear in unit 5, lesson 61, in which the fluency section begins with an educator read-aloud, transitions into partner reading with multiple opportunities for collaboration, and ends with independent reading and reflection on students’ fluency growth. 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 for developing English proficiency and 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. In unit 2, lesson 23, EB student support in the Notes panel says, “To support MLLs [Multi-language Learners], explicitly teach comparison signal words and phrases: “but,” “however,” “unlike,” “compared to,” “thinner than,” “colder than.” Create a word bank of these signals for learners to reference.” The materials provide opportunities for students to apply academic vocabulary and content knowledge during written responses while reinforcing comprehension through writing.
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 lesson 4, cognates for the root per are provided in Spanish, French, and Italian, helping students recognize similarities across languages. These supports help students connect vocabulary knowledge across languages while reinforcing academic language development. 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
91% (85 out of 93 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 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. Educator guidance includes targeted troubleshooting prompts designed to steer students away from noncommittal stances (such as calling out a neutral answer as a “dodge”) and push them to defend a singular position using real-world scenarios. This rigorous approach to purpose-driven expression is mirrored in unit 8, lesson 120, in which students analyze an environmental text and form an evidence-backed opinion regarding glacier preservation priorities.
The materials include guidance for tailoring written opinions and oral presentations to specific audiences. In unit 1, lesson 9, the interactive peer-share instructions go beyond simple reading by guiding students to analyze the exact audience effect of their partner’s speech, prompting them to assess whether the delivery “forced” the listener to “nod along” or made them “want to argue back.” This intentional focus on the audience is reinforced by a robust selection of classroom publishing and presentation formats. By equipping educators with structured methods such as author’s chair for whole-class question-and-answer sessions, digital read-alouds for multimedia audiences, and class books for peer-to-peer library sharing, the materials ensure that students learn to adapt their communication styles to engage diverse platforms and listeners
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 found in the unit 3 “Differentiation” tab, which offers clear 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 establish an environment in which students function as receptive listeners to educator-driven instructions, yet they offer no scaffolding to help students rephrase those instructions and confirm 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 include authentic opportunities for students to listen actively, engage in purposeful discussions, and share information, aligning closely with most of the grade-level ELA TEKS. In unit 2, lesson 16, shared reading exercises cultivate active listening, as the educator models fluent, expressive reading aloud and prompts students to lock in their focus with structured pause points. Following these listening exercises, the materials smoothly transition students into collaborative discussions. For example, during the fluency section, partners read text together, cross-examine each other’s execution, and assess whether their voices dropped correctly at periods, which requires them to actively discuss technical skills. The turn-and-talk routines further serve as an effective vehicle for sharing ideas, prompting students to articulate personal experiences such as times they changed their minds, and share initial observations from text cues, such as the Notice/Wonder prompts in Dear Mom: Letters from the Lunar Greenhouse.
The materials do not include guidance or functional instruction for students on how to ask questions to understand information. Although the comprehension block includes an exercise in which the educator introduces a topic such as human survival on Mars and asks students what they would want to investigate, this serves merely as a passive brainstorming prompt rather than an active lesson on question formulation. The materials lack educator-led modeling of questioning strategies, explicit criteria for what makes an effective information-gathering question, or structured peer feedback routines focused on refining inquiries. Because the flow of inquiry remains driven by 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 transitions 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 appears in Phonetic Skill 1, when 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, syllable types, and explicit syllable division, the materials ensure that educators can deliver unambiguous phonics instruction tailored to advanced word analysis.
The materials include guidance and suggestions with the structural frameworks to maintain explicit daily routines. The tool kit’s comprehensive operational guide recommends a 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 an actionable framework to build student orthographic mapping and multisyllabic decoding skills.
Evaluation for 4.B.1c
The materials include activities and instructional resources that enable students to develop and practice grade-level sound–spelling patterns. The Multisyllabic Phonics Toolkit’s direct instruction framework facilitates initial development of these foundational skills via 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 acoustic 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 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. Students engage with a full decodable passage by reading it alongside the educator and subsequently illustrating the text to demonstrate their comprehension, for example. 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, and 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. Furthermore, 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 methodology consisting of six distinct steps: 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 example, in unit 1, lesson 3, educator-facing scripts provide explicit instruction on decoding the prefix per- by defining its Latin origin (meaning “through” or “completely”) and modeling how it transforms base words (such as form to perform). 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 decode and encode words with irregular sound–spelling patterns. The curriculum includes scripts for irregular words such as the, which guide educators to prompt students to isolate the individual phonemes and 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, spelling the word aloud. 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 methodology consisting of six specific 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 identify specific morphemes, discuss their linguistic meanings, and practice tracking them across text lists. Practice immediately follows during Read It and shared reading routines, in which 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 practice decoding these irregular words in context by finding them in short text selections, then practice encoding them during the Write It step, when 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.
Evaluation for 4.B.2d
In the “Differentiation” tab, the materials consistently apply a structured high-frequency word instruction routine consisting of six clear steps: 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. The Write It step provides opportunities to write high-frequency words in isolation, as students isolate, spell, and encode individual words to solidify correct letter–sound correspondences before applying them in broader contexts.
The materials also offer opportunities for students to read and write high-frequency words in 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 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 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 such as /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 4 layout, it functions in grade 5 as a vital diagnostic and corrective tool to support orthographic mapping of complex multisyllabic academic terms.
The materials integrate a systematic sequence for introducing grade-level syllable-division principles directly into the units. For example, in unit 2, lessons 16–19 offer lesson guidance within the tool kit that combines structural syllable-division mechanics with phonetic skills. Educators receive instructional protocols to help students reliably recognize where to split multisyllabic words before applying specific vowel-marking routines. By linking 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 offers educators a four-step, syllable-by-syllable proving/decoding routine. Students 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 process directly supports decoding by helping students determine what sound an unfamiliar vowel combination represents based on its structural environment. Because this system relies on a deep awareness of graphic features, it easily transitions into an encoding routine. Students use the identical phonetic benchmarks to accurately segment, map, and spell complex multisyllabic terms.
The materials provide educator scripts for applying syllable-division principles to decode and encode complex vocabulary. In lesson 142, the script 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 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 various activities and resources for students to develop, practice, and reinforce multisyllabic decoding skills. In the “Differentiation” tab, the Multisyllabic Phonics Toolkit Set uses direct modeling, visual instructional charts, and analytical discussion to help students develop a deep conceptual understanding of complex syllable behaviors. Once foundational skills are modeled, students transition to practice during the critical eight-minute “Transfer” step found in routines such as lesson 142. This framework provides essential tactile and contextual assets such as decodable word cards, decodable sentences, and comprehensive decodable passages, enabling students to apply their syllable-proving strategies directly to text. A tiered sequence of collaborative routines including modeled echo reads, choral reads, partner reads, and tailored independent reading options further reinforce decoding fluency.
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. Interactive practice requires students to segment and write multisyllabic words on personal whiteboards and categorize them via decodable word sorts. The materials also offer advanced extension assignments during which students encode entire sentences. This cumulative writing requirement ensures that students 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. They also complete roll-and-read activities, Beat the Clock, Word Stepping Stones, Word Mystery, and Word Clues in which they 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 by 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 various 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, as demonstrated by a dedicated “Word Study Morphology” section within the yearly scope and sequence. This framework establishes a clear, chronological progression that outlines exactly which morphemes are taught across specific instructional intervals, including time allotments for each element and each lesson. The materials begin by targeting foundational elements, specifically the suffix -cess and the prefix pre-. As the academic year progresses, instruction becomes more rigorous, transitioning to complex roots such as cap, cept, ceive, and tract and the suffix -meter, before concluding the year with advanced structural analysis focused on the prefix intra- and the root vers/vert.
This systematic framework provides a predictable cadence in which each morpheme is studied over the course of two lessons and is directly connected to other instructional components rather than presented in isolation. The multiday routine begins in unit 1, lesson 1 with the direct introduction of a morpheme’s origin and meaning, followed by targeted reading practice and structural word analysis. In lesson 2, the sequence systematically builds on the previous day’s instruction through cumulative review. Students then advance to higher-level structural analysis, using the morphemes to dissect words such as concession before validating their morphological understanding by reading the target words within authentic sentence contexts.
Evaluation for 4.B.4b
Structured morphology routines, specific educator prompts, visuals, EB student supports, and identified misconceptions support instructional delivery. In educator resources such as “My Journey” and the educator software, scripts and systematic routines introduce, show, and say target morphemes. For example, to support morpheme recognition and decoding, educators use structured display prompts such as 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 lesson sidebars and word-building scripts, while decoding prompts teach students to apply prefix meanings to root words. For example, in unit 3, lesson 36, educators model how adding the prefix anti- to freeze forms antifreeze, defining it as “a liquid that works against freezing.” To support reading comprehension and contextual application, the same lesson provides scripting to help students evaluate whether a morpheme makes sense in context. Educators contrast non-examples such as anticup and guide students through semantic constraints using sentence frames, such as choosing between antibacterial and antitree to complete a sentence about curing an infection. This application cycle concludes with students reading the morphemes within sentences to check meaning, followed by a collaborative discussion to reinforce comprehension.
Evaluation for 4.B.4c
While the materials contain various activities and resources for students to develop and practice grade-level morphological skills, they do not provide opportunities to reinforce these skills through cumulative review. Within the educator software and the “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 explicitly develop their skills by reading words containing the root -cess; mapping morphological structures across multiple related words (such as recess, process, success, access, concession, and excess); and using the root to determine the specific meaning of excess. This developmental process is supported by multisensory resources, including visuals and slides that connect morphemes to words, pictures, and written definitions, alongside educator-directed prompts and digital flashcards for morpheme-to-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, as well as 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 3, lesson 36, students decode words in isolation through structured word lists in which they apply the prefix anti- to base words such as antifreeze, antivirus, antigravity, antitoxin, antibacterial, and antisocial, with the educator fading their voice as students read. This practice extends into connected text through activities in which students use digital flashcards, visuals, and sentence-level context clues to read and decode morphemes within complete sentences.
To support the encoding of morphemes in isolation, the materials incorporate explicit word-building, sentence rewrites, and multisensory writing opportunities. In unit 3, lesson 37, students practice isolated encoding by assembling words from their structural parts, with the educator prompting them to write the prefix anti-, the root grav, and the suffix -ity based on their respective meanings before combining them into the word antigravity. 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 identify 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 direct instruction on the purpose and use of print and digital resources, such as dictionaries, glossaries, and thesauruses. Lessons introduce these reference tools to help students understand why and when to access different informational formats. For example, in unit 7, lesson 96, the educator establishes the purpose of digital resources by defining three reference tools, explaining that an online dictionary provides pronunciation and meaning, a thesaurus supplies synonyms and antonyms, and a glossary defines specialized vocabulary within a specific text or subject area. This direct instruction is supported by the grammar and syntax portion of lesson 98, which reinforces the overarching purpose and utility of reference tools across print and digital mediums.
In addition to articulating purpose, the materials provide educator scripts and structural modeling to guide students in using these reference tools to navigate word features. In lesson 96, educators demonstrate how to interpret a dictionary entry for the word excavation (ex·ca·va·tion /ˌekskəˈvāSH(ə)n/), explaining how dots signify syllable breaks and how slash marks contain pronunciation symbols. The guidance directs the educator to explicitly teach advanced structural elements, such as identifying the schwa symbol and using accent marks to determine syllable stress, before prompting students to discuss the utility of these guides with a partner. This instructional routine is replicated in a digital application, in which the educator models how an online entry for the word overwhelming reveals pronunciation symbols and contextual definitions to deepen a reader’s comprehension of the text.
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. However, they do not include resources or guidance to determine word origins. Through reference lessons such as those found in unit 7, the materials integrate a chunked lesson design that teaches the purpose and usage of print and digital tools. Educators are prompted to display digital entries and print resources to highlight specific lexical features. The educator guidance and student prompts walk through how to identify a word’s meaning, syllabication, pronunciation guide, 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 7, lesson 96, students analyze a digital dictionary entry for excavation (ex·ca·va·tion /ˌekskəˈvāSH(ə)n/) in which they observe syllable dots, the accent mark for syllable stress, and phonetic symbols such as the schwa. In lesson 98, students expand this practice to complex words such as autonomous and archaeological, learning to use the entries to navigate complex syllabication and word meanings in context. Additionally, lesson 98 teaches students how reference tools identify a word’s grammatical function, using an entry for tradeoff that categorizes it as a noun and includes its definition and pronunciation guide. While these print and digital exercises systematically address word meanings, syllable division, pronunciation, and grammatical parts of speech, the materials do not provide any guidance, prompts, or informational sections on the derivation or origin of vocabulary words.
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. Explicit educator scripts encourage students to use a multipronged approach to word solving, which includes looking directly at the surrounding text and formatting features for semantic, syntactic, and graphical clues.
For example, in unit 3, lesson 38, during a reading of a science passage, the educator guides students through context-clue strategies using domain-specific terms such as biodiversity, nocturnal, and canopy. The instruction prompts students to look for direct definitions embedded in the text, examine sidebars, or analyze nearby lists of examples to determine a word’s meaning. To facilitate application, the educator displays a passage and asks, “Biodiversity sounds like a really big word. What does it mean, and which strategy did you use?” This routine teaches students to combine contextual data with morphological analysis (looking for a smaller word inside) to determine the meaning of academic vocabulary in alignment with the grade-level TEKS requirements.
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 Hall Pass Number 42, nonfiction texts such as Avoiding Chaos, and various poetry selections.
To foster fluency progression, these varied texts are integrated directly into core daily instruction for whole-group, partner, and independent practice, with each lesson featuring a distinct fluency text. The materials offer educator guidance on adjusting reading techniques and purposes based on the specific genre being explored. For example, in unit 6, lesson 81, the educator guides students on how to read and analyze a free-verse poem, directing them to adjust their reading purpose to listen for sound devices such as alliteration, assonance, and rhyme, and figurative language such as similes and personification. Students then apply these prosody and analysis strategies by chorally reading targeted lines together (for example, “A row of young maples / that swayed in the wind / like children learning to stand”) to internalize the poem’s structural rhythm and meaning.
Evaluation for 4.D.1b
The materials include practice activities and tasks to develop word reading fluency in settings 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 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, specific guidance to support EB students instructs educators to facilitate small-group reading with these students before asking them to practice on their own.
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. Similarly, in unit 8, lesson 106, the educator script maps out the shifting settings. First the class reads together as a whole group while the educator fades their voice to let students take the lead. Students then 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, such as those in unit 5, lesson 61, which allow students to self-monitor their fluency and connect their practice directly to a text about the Grand Canyon.
Evaluation for 4.D.1c
The Comprehension Toolkit in the “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 at varying reading levels. Comprehension questions focus on recall, summarization, character analysis, and the 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 and educator guidance on incorporating independent reading blocks into the schedule.
To effectively launch and sustain these independent reading sessions, the materials equip educators with instructional strategies and modeling scripts during the shared reading component. Educators are guided to use metacognitive think-alouds to demonstrate the active processing and tracking required during self-sustained reading. For example, in a modeling segment, the educator script demonstrates how to organize and analyze details from a text by stating, “Listen to my thinking. Here is the first setting, Earth, the home she remembers,” and “Watch what I do. I fill the Earth column with the specific details: the porch, the dark wet cement, the heavy air, the green-and-alive rain smell.” This explicit educator modeling provides students with clear, repeatable strategies to independently interrogate a text, track structural details, 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 pre-reading complex, multisyllabic words in isolation before seeing them in context. For example, in unit 1, lesson 1, the educator explicitly models how to self-correct and decode a word using morphological analysis, breaking down prefixes, suffixes, and base words by saying, “I see the prefix in-, which means ‘not.’ I see the base word access, which means ‘to enter.’ I see the suffix -ible, which means ‘able to.’ I’ll put it all together... inaccessible.” Following this word-attack instruction, students cross-check their reading to ensure it looks right, sounds right, and makes sense, practicing the skill with a partner and reading the target passage three distinct times to build automaticity and reading fluency.
The program further uses diverse text types to target advanced prosody and deep comprehension. Unit 6, lesson 81 leverages complex poetic structures to instruct students on the components of expressive reading and oral interpretation. The educator guides students to analyze a line from a poem (“where someone sold lemonade / and someone else played a guitar / badly / and beautifully”) and prompts them to consider oral delivery: “What sound devices is the poet using here, and what feeling does the sound create?” Students chorally read the excerpt to practice using tone, pacing, and expression to convey meaning. To ensure decoding automaticity translates into deep meaning, the materials integrate educator-led modeling alongside structured pause points and post-reading questions across units. This is demonstrated by the comprehension checks in unit 1 (“Why do you think it’s important for rules to give everyone equal access to places like schools and parks?”) and the guided pauses within the unit 6 text The Park That Came Back, ensuring that meaning-making remains central to all fluency practice.
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. A comprehensive cursive handwriting packet in the “Differentiation” tab 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 skill practice pages that progress from isolated lowercase and uppercase letter formation to full sentences, supported by 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 expressly 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 that requires students to say letter names aloud while writing their active vocabulary and spelling words, ensuring 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 these multistep composition tasks are completed by hand, students 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
The materials include guidance for tailoring written opinions and oral presentations to specific audiences. In unit 1, lesson 9, the interactive peer-share instructions go beyond simple reading by guiding students to analyze the exact audience effect of their partner’s speech, prompting them to assess whether the delivery “forced” the listener to “nod along” or made them “want to argue back.” This intentional focus on the audience is reinforced by a robust selection of classroom publishing and presentation formats. By equipping educators with structured methods such as author’s chair for whole-class question-and-answer sessions, digital read-alouds for multimedia audiences, and class books for peer-to-peer library sharing, the materials ensure that students learn to adapt their communication styles to engage diverse platforms and listeners
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 establish an environment in which students function as receptive listeners to educator-driven instructions, yet they offer no scaffolding to help students rephrase those instructions and confirm 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 include guidance or functional instruction for students on how to ask questions to understand information. Although the comprehension block includes an exercise in which the educator introduces a topic such as human survival on Mars and asks students what they would want to investigate, this serves merely as a passive brainstorming prompt rather than an active lesson on question formulation. The materials lack educator-led modeling of questioning strategies, explicit criteria for what makes an effective information-gathering question, or structured peer feedback routines focused on refining inquiries. Because the flow of inquiry remains driven by 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’s comprehensive operational guide recommends a 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 an 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 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. Students engage with a full decodable passage by reading it alongside the educator and subsequently illustrating the text to demonstrate their comprehension, for example. 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 decode and encode words with irregular sound–spelling patterns. The curriculum includes scripts for irregular words such as the, which guide educators to prompt students to isolate the individual phonemes and 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, spelling the word aloud. 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 practice decoding these irregular words in context by finding them in short text selections, then practice encoding them during the Write It step, when 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.
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 also offer opportunities for students to read and write high-frequency words in 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 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 integrate a systematic sequence for introducing grade-level syllable-division principles directly into the units. For example, in unit 2, lessons 16–19 offer lesson guidance within the tool kit that combines structural syllable-division mechanics with phonetic skills. Educators receive instructional protocols to help students reliably recognize where to split multisyllabic words before applying specific vowel-marking routines. By linking 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 educator scripts for applying syllable-division principles to decode and encode complex vocabulary. In lesson 142, the script 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 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. Interactive practice requires students to segment and write multisyllabic words on personal whiteboards and categorize them via decodable word sorts. The materials also offer advanced extension assignments during which students encode entire sentences. This cumulative writing requirement ensures that students 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 various 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
This systematic framework provides a predictable cadence in which each morpheme is studied over the course of two lessons and is directly connected to other instructional components rather than presented in isolation. The multiday routine begins in unit 1, lesson 1 with the direct introduction of a morpheme’s origin and meaning, followed by targeted reading practice and structural word analysis. In lesson 2, the sequence systematically builds on the previous day’s instruction through cumulative review. Students then advance to higher-level structural analysis, using the morphemes to dissect words such as concession before validating their morphological understanding by reading the target words within authentic sentence contexts.
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 lesson sidebars and word-building scripts, while decoding prompts teach students to apply prefix meanings to root words. For example, in unit 3, lesson 36, educators model how adding the prefix anti- to freeze forms antifreeze, defining it as “a liquid that works against freezing.” To support reading comprehension and contextual application, the same lesson provides scripting to help students evaluate whether a morpheme makes sense in context. Educators contrast non-examples such as anticup and guide students through semantic constraints using sentence frames, such as choosing between antibacterial and antitree to complete a sentence about curing an infection. This application cycle concludes with students reading the morphemes within 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 explicit word-building, sentence rewrites, and multisensory writing opportunities. In unit 3, lesson 37, students practice isolated encoding by assembling words from their structural parts, with the educator prompting them to write the prefix anti-, the root grav, and the suffix -ity based on their respective meanings before combining them into the word antigravity. 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 identify 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
In addition to articulating purpose, the materials provide educator scripts and structural modeling to guide students in using these reference tools to navigate word features. In lesson 96, educators demonstrate how to interpret a dictionary entry for the word excavation (ex·ca·va·tion /ˌekskəˈvāSH(ə)n/), explaining how dots signify syllable breaks and how slash marks contain pronunciation symbols. The guidance directs the educator to explicitly teach advanced structural elements, such as identifying the schwa symbol and using accent marks to determine syllable stress, before prompting students to discuss the utility of these guides with a partner. This instructional routine is replicated in a digital application, in which the educator models how an online entry for the word overwhelming reveals pronunciation symbols and contextual definitions to deepen a reader’s comprehension of the text.
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 5 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 5 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 7, lesson 96, students analyze a digital dictionary entry for excavation (ex·ca·va·tion /ˌekskəˈvāSH(ə)n/) in which they observe syllable dots, the accent mark for syllable stress, and phonetic symbols such as the schwa. In lesson 98, students expand this practice to complex words such as autonomous and archaeological, learning to use the entries to navigate complex syllabication and word meanings in context. Additionally, lesson 98 teaches students how reference tools identify a word’s grammatical function, using an entry for tradeoff that categorizes it as a noun and includes its definition and pronunciation guide. While these print and digital exercises systematically address word meanings, syllable division, pronunciation, and grammatical parts of speech, the materials do not provide any guidance, prompts, or informational sections on the derivation or origin of vocabulary words.
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 a science passage, the educator guides students through context-clue strategies using domain-specific terms such as biodiversity, nocturnal, and canopy. The instruction prompts students to look for direct definitions embedded in the text, examine sidebars, or analyze nearby lists of examples to determine a word’s meaning. To facilitate application, the educator displays a passage and asks, “Biodiversity sounds like a really big word. What does it mean, and which strategy did you use?” This routine teaches students to combine contextual data with morphological analysis (looking for a smaller word inside) to determine the meaning of academic vocabulary in alignment with the grade-level TEKS requirements.
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, with each lesson featuring a distinct fluency text. The materials offer educator guidance on adjusting reading techniques and purposes based on the specific genre being explored. For example, in unit 6, lesson 81, the educator guides students on how to read and analyze a free-verse poem, directing them to adjust their reading purpose to listen for sound devices such as alliteration, assonance, and rhyme, and figurative language such as similes and personification. Students then apply these prosody and analysis strategies by chorally reading targeted lines together (for example, “A row of young maples / that swayed in the wind / like children learning to stand”) to internalize the poem’s structural rhythm and meaning.
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
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. Similarly, in unit 8, lesson 106, the educator script maps out the shifting settings. First the class reads together as a whole group while the educator fades their voice to let students take the lead. Students then 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, such as those in unit 5, lesson 61, which allow students to self-monitor their fluency and connect their practice directly to a text about the Grand Canyon.
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 instructional strategies and modeling scripts during the shared reading component. Educators are guided to use metacognitive think-alouds to demonstrate the active processing and tracking required during self-sustained reading. For example, in a modeling segment, the educator script demonstrates how to organize and analyze details from a text by stating, “Listen to my thinking. Here is the first setting, Earth, the home she remembers,” and “Watch what I do. I fill the Earth column with the specific details: the porch, the dark wet cement, the heavy air, the green-and-alive rain smell.” This explicit educator modeling provides students with clear, repeatable strategies to independently interrogate a text, track structural details, 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. Unit 6, lesson 81 leverages complex poetic structures to instruct students on the components of expressive reading and oral interpretation. The educator guides students to analyze a line from a poem (“where someone sold lemonade / and someone else played a guitar / badly / and beautifully”) and prompts them to consider oral delivery: “What sound devices is the poet using here, and what feeling does the sound create?” Students chorally read the excerpt to practice using tone, pacing, and expression to convey meaning. To ensure decoding automaticity translates into deep meaning, the materials integrate educator-led modeling alongside structured pause points and post-reading questions across units. This is demonstrated by the comprehension checks in unit 1 (“Why do you think it’s important for rules to give everyone equal access to places like schools and parks?”) and the guided pauses within the unit 6 text The Park That Came Back, ensuring that meaning-making remains central to all fluency practice.
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 expressly 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 that requires students to say letter names aloud while writing their active vocabulary and spelling words, ensuring 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 these multistep composition tasks are completed by hand, students 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”).
In unit 3, which focuses on “Global Biodiversity,” students read a variety of selections that are all tightly aligned to the study of ecosystems and “amazing animals.” 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 criterion for the arts. There are no designated units, text sets, or structural frameworks 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 connect and build upon one another 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 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.
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 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 allocates 15 complete lessons per unit, to be taught at a cadence of one lesson per day. This extended time frame allows students to move from 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 across America, week 2 shifts to biodiversity hotspots, and week 3 covers invasive animals. This systematic approach guarantees that while students encounter a 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. The scope and sequence in the “Comprehension” section outlines the two primary anchoring texts assigned to drive that week’s instruction. By focusing on multiple related texts within a specific 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 Hall Pass Number 42 alongside the passage “Avoiding Chaos.” The pieces are deliberately paired to connect directly back to the unit’s overarching theme, “Our Place in the World.” Similarly, the unit 2 overview demonstrates this intentional design by pairing the book Dear Mom: Letters from the Lunar Greenhouse as comprehension text 1 with the passage “Salad in Space” 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 an 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 is used directly as the basis of grammar instruction, using authentic text examples to teach linguistic keys such as conjunctions and pronouns. Grammar instruction and sentence hierarchies are embedded into composition tasks, while the “Reading-Writing Connection” section aligns reading analysis with writing genres so that 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 instructional focus for the week centers on the specific topic of “Animals Across America.” 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 deepening their content knowledge and building a cohesive academic vocabulary centered 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 a localized structure within unit 3 “Amazing Animals” by grouping three weekly subthemes: “Animals Across America,” “Biodiversity Hotspots,” and “Invasive Animals.” This structure supports continuity between consecutive days of instruction. For example, in unit 3, lesson 44, the comprehension background section prompts the educator to build on the previous day’s work, stating, “In our last lesson, we read ‘A Complaint, Formally Submitted’...” before instructing students to reread the text to analyze it in a new way.
The materials provide vertical alignment across grade levels along with rationales for unit locations. The materials also provide grade-level academic vocabulary for each unit and grade level. Additionally, connections to earlier units reinforce background knowledge.
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 uses 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 usage. 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 “A Complaint, Formally Submitted” to prepare students for the day’s focus objective of answering essential questions and synthesizing information across texts. Similarly, unit 8, lesson 109 prompts educators to connect a previous reading on endangered animals (The Things We’ve Brought Back) to relevant, real-world context regarding conservation and personal agency. The materials include a combination of structured vocabulary routines, visual anchors, and text-specific context.
Evaluation for 5.A.3a
The materials include Essential Questions, weekly topics, and thematic literature to ensure students engage deeply with broad concepts. For instance, unit 4 centers on the core question “How do stories help us understand life, choices, and ourselves?” In lesson 49, after reading the text One Fire, students move beyond surface-level plot questions to prompt reflective peer discourse. Students connect the protagonist’s realizations about his father’s quiet duties to their own families, addressing the prompt “Is there a quiet job that someone in your family does every day that you didn’t fully appreciate before?” Similarly, units link reading selection themes such as “Life in Space” via the text Salad in Space back to the broader unit inquiry regarding how humans understand the universe.
The materials connect writing tasks to weekly thematic topics rather than teaching composition in isolation. In unit 3, lesson 45, students prepare to draft an opinion essay on the week’s study of invasive animals and ecosystem disruption. Before writing, students participate in a partner turn-and-talk activity to evaluate ecological responses: “If an invasive species was damaging a local ecosystem near you, what do you think the most effective response would be — removal programs, education, or something else?” The materials embed complex writing requirements, such as establishing arguable claims, counterarguments, and synthesized conclusions.
Evaluation for 5.A.3b
The materials include opportunities and instructional prompts for students to synthesize knowledge and concepts across texts within lessons. In unit 5, lesson 64, the lesson builds conceptual knowledge by connecting a new discussion to the previously read text The Flying River. The educator script guides students to link the scientific concept of the Amazon’s invisible river of water vapor to broader thematic elements, prompting them to reflect on “how small things, added up, can become enormous.” Students then complete an analytical turn-and-talk activity connecting this scientific phenomenon to their own lives via the prompt “Have you ever noticed something small that turns out to be a huge part of how your home or community works?” This approach ensures that daily lessons push students beyond literal summary to blend text-based concepts with real-world schemas.
The materials require students to synthesize knowledge across multiple texts within an entire unit. In unit 3, lesson 44, the comprehension lesson serves as a culminating experience in which students must gather evidence across various weekly texts to answer the overarching essential question “How are animals, habitats, and people connected across our planet?” The educator states, “Today, we’re putting it all together... Readers think across many texts to answer big questions.” Students systematically evaluate and weave together evidence from multiple unit selections, including “A Complaint, Formally Submitted” and The Long Goodbye to a Frog. The materials provide direct scripting that teaches students how to put separate stories side by side to construct a singular, cohesive argument.
Evaluation for 5.A.3c
In unit 3, lesson 44, the comprehension module serves as a unit-level review based on the Essential Question “How are animals, habitats, and people connected across our planet?” The educator directly states, “Today, we’re putting it all together... Readers think across many texts to answer big questions.” To facilitate this synthesis, the materials guide educators through an interactive review of eight distinct unit texts, including Fourteen Wolves, “A Complaint, Formally Submitted,” and “The Trillium Underneath”. Students evaluate and categorize how each text addresses human interactions with ecosystems, ensuring they look back across the entire corpus of the unit rather than summarizing an isolated passage.
The materials include opportunities requiring students to analyze and categorize evidence from all eight readings before composing their informative paragraphs. Students synthesize their cumulative knowledge of invasive species and ecosystem impacts 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 introductory prompts and discussions that help students make personal connections to complex scientific and environmental topics. In unit 2, lesson 24, the background knowledge routine prompts students to reflect on space exploration by asking, “Have you ever changed your mind about something after you learned more about it? Turn and talk to your partner.” Additionally, the vocabulary and writing routines contextualize academic terms using real-world phenomena, such as explaining how atmospheric pressure affects daily weather patterns and using facts about extreme space hazards—such as freezing temperatures and radiation—to teach students the real-world difference between taking a definitive stance and refusing to commit to a position.
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, lesson 44, students analyze the broader societal implications of human interaction with nature, processing how personal and community decisions, such as introducing invasive species, directly alter global ecosystems. Furthermore, the tasks guide students to evaluate environmental restoration efforts, recognizing how interventions such as invasive plant removal enable native ecosystems to recover. This design ensures that students continuously use their academic learning to interpret, analyze, and apply understanding to authentic environmental and scientific systems in the world around them.
Evaluation for 5.A.4a
While the materials include structural planning documents, such as a general scope and sequence and a Text System Guide, 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. The Text System Guide enumerates the program’s texts with corresponding Lexile levels, word counts, and genres but features only a fragmented list of vocabulary terms that directly stem from the selected readings.
The materials lack a systematic plan for vocabulary acquisition that differentiates between general academic (tier-one) 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 a trajectory from simple to complex. The absence of an explicit vocabulary framework prevents educators from strategically mapping out, revisiting, and reinforcing critical academic language across 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 a clear learning progression (Learn It, Repeat It, Challenge It, and Use It) with multisensory and visual aids, such as providing an image for the word migrations and directing students to “Sweep your arm in a long arc... to show a long journey.” To anchor historical and scientific concepts before students engage with the text, unit 9, lesson 121 displays visual artifacts of Voices that Articulated Freedom to ground a discussion on colonial representation. Furthermore, the materials provide targeted instructional support prompts to help educators guide struggling students through complex concepts such as tracing nutrient cycles for salmon survival, and expressly grant educators autonomy to select the specific vocabulary words that are most applicable to their regional student demographic.
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 (monolingüe, monolingue, monolingue) to facilitate language transfer, while proactively addressing common misconceptions between Greek (mono-) and Latin (uni-) roots. For oral and written application, the materials incorporate clear contextual frameworks such as echo reading or cause-and-effect graphic organizers divided into “Because _____ So _____.” columns to assist EB students. Additionally, structured linguistic sentence frames—such as “The _____ in the multimedia version adds _____ to the story because _____”—are provided to ensure all learners can successfully apply newly acquired academic terminology within complete sentences.
Evaluation for 5.A.4c
The materials include tasks to engage students in the purposeful use of key academic vocabulary across multiple components of literacy instruction. During vocabulary and comprehension routines, students complete Learn It, Repeat It, Challenge It, Use It activities, interacting with key terms before reading. For instance, in unit 5, lesson 62, students engage with the term aurora by waving their hands slowly above their heads like shimmering curtains of light to ground the term before applying it in a creative extension narrative. Similarly, in unit 3, lesson 34, after analyzing the part of speech and meaning of the word migration, students must immediately apply it in a turn-and-talk task, discussing the inherent dangers and obstacles animals face during a long journey. The morphology routine also prioritizes purposeful oral application. Students evaluate word versus nonwords containing the prefix mono-, such as monochrome and monoball, 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 provide vocabulary usage opportunities to support higher-level comprehension and writing tasks. In lesson 62, oral and physical engagement with vocabulary bridges directly to a purposeful writing assignment in which students synthesize their knowledge to describe the impact of witnessing an aurora from the perspective of a narrator returning home. In lesson 34, the daily writing routine similarly leverages strategic vocabulary integration to anchor student output. Students compose an informative paragraph explaining how an animal’s migration demonstrates a remarkable adaptation. The materials guide this composition by providing a list of core academic vocabulary—including navigate, transform, endure, adapt, and survive—ensuring that students intentionally integrate the unit’s key domain-specific terms to construct and demonstrate deep 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. Before 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 (migrations, offspring, transformation, decomposing, and corridors) is paired with an image that illustrates its semantic meaning. To reinforce these complex concepts without relying solely on verbal definitions, the educator scripts embed kinesthetic gestures and visual prompts. For example, when introducing the word migrations, the educator tells students, “Sweep your arm in a long arc from one side of your body to the other to show a long journey,” linking physical visualization directly to linguistic acquisition.
In addition, lesson sidebars contain nonverbal strategies to deepen conceptual comprehension during reading and text analysis. In unit 3, lesson 44, students generate illustrations to clarify ecological relationships. An instructional support sidebar guides educators to implement a quick sketching strategy: “Have learners sketch a quick food chain pyramid on scrap paper. Ask them to draw an arrow showing where Asian carp would compete.” By instructing students to sketch a pyramid and annotate it to show competition, the materials leverage graphic representation to ground abstract terms. These layers of professional imagery, physical modeling, and independent sketching 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 establish an inquiry framework by instructing students to “Think about our topic: westward expansion. 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 define the investigation’s parameters. During advanced lessons on verifying information credibility, students actively evaluate the reliability and origin of their references, determining that From the Diary of Hannah Morse is a credible primary source because it reflects the actual 1848 historical time period, while Moving West: Opportunity and Hardship is a verified secondary source based on well-documented historical research.
To help students gather and synthesize their findings, the lesson uses a specialized note-taking strategy designed to prevent plagiarism and encourage analytical processing. Students fold their paper lengthwise to create a three-column organizer labeled “What I Found,” “Where I Found It,” and “Is This Source Credible?”, requiring them to evaluate credibility while extracting facts and writing text summaries in their own words. The culmination of the inquiry task challenges students to synthesize this information into a cohesive written response. The instructions guide students to outline their main topic, report contextual facts from their notes, articulate connections across three consecutive research lessons, and draw an independent conclusion regarding how westward expansion brought both opportunity and hardship. This systematic structure ensures that students cohesively integrate 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 while assessing their credibility. In unit 9, lesson 130, the educator guide establishes a question-driven evaluation routine to model how to identify primary sources. The educator evaluates an original text, From the Notebooks of Thomas Edison, demonstrating that it qualifies as a credible primary source because it contains the inventor’s own words written during the late 1800s at the exact time of his scientific experiments. This direct instruction models the key markers of a primary source, such as authorship, historical timing, and personal alignment with the events, before transitioning students to an independent evaluation of a secondary source, Ideas That Lit Up the World by Marcus Adeleke, to contrast firsthand historical records with secondhand commentary.
The materials embed active student opportunities to apply these categorization skills within an independent, multisource research task. Students use a specialized three-column graphic organizer labeled “What I Found,” “Where I Found It,” and “Is This Source Credible?” to sort gathered data across distinct text media. Students must extract a minimum of one independent fact from each source type using a “Read, Cover, Think, Write” paraphrasing strategy. Educator circulation prompts require students to verify their source origins and articulate which facts were taken from the primary source and which were gathered from the secondary text. This accounting ensures students consistently evaluate, track, and differentiate source types during independent 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
In unit 3, which focuses on “Global Biodiversity,” students read a variety of selections that are all tightly aligned to the study of ecosystems and “amazing animals.” 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 criterion for the arts. There are no designated units, text sets, or structural frameworks 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
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 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 across America, week 2 shifts to biodiversity hotspots, and week 3 covers invasive animals. This systematic approach guarantees that while students encounter a 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 Hall Pass Number 42 alongside the passage “Avoiding Chaos.” The pieces are deliberately paired to connect directly back to the unit’s overarching theme, “Our Place in the World.” Similarly, the unit 2 overview demonstrates this intentional design by pairing the book Dear Mom: Letters from the Lunar Greenhouse as comprehension text 1 with the passage “Salad in Space” 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 instructional focus for the week centers on the specific topic of “Animals Across America.” 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 deepening their content knowledge and building a cohesive academic vocabulary centered 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 across grade levels along with rationales for unit locations. The materials also provide grade-level academic vocabulary for each unit and grade level. Additionally, connections to earlier units reinforce background knowledge.
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 “A Complaint, Formally Submitted” to prepare students for the day’s focus objective of answering essential questions and synthesizing information across texts. Similarly, unit 8, lesson 109 prompts educators to connect a previous reading on endangered animals (The Things We’ve Brought Back) to relevant, real-world context regarding conservation and personal agency. The materials include a combination of structured 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 connect writing tasks to weekly thematic topics rather than teaching composition in isolation. In unit 3, lesson 45, students prepare to draft an opinion essay on the week’s study of invasive animals and ecosystem disruption. Before writing, students participate in a partner turn-and-talk activity to evaluate ecological responses: “If an invasive species was damaging a local ecosystem near you, what do you think the most effective response would be — removal programs, education, or something else?” The materials embed complex writing requirements, such as establishing arguable claims, counterarguments, and synthesized conclusions.
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 across multiple texts within an entire unit. In unit 3, lesson 44, the comprehension lesson serves as a culminating experience in which students must gather evidence across various weekly texts to answer the overarching essential question “How are animals, habitats, and people connected across our planet?” The educator states, “Today, we’re putting it all together... Readers think across many texts to answer big questions.” Students systematically evaluate and weave together evidence from multiple unit selections, including “A Complaint, Formally Submitted” and The Long Goodbye to a Frog. The materials provide direct scripting that teaches students how to put separate stories side by side to construct a singular, 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 requiring students to analyze and categorize evidence from all eight readings before composing their informative paragraphs. Students synthesize their cumulative knowledge of invasive species and ecosystem impacts 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, lesson 44, students analyze the broader societal implications of human interaction with nature, processing how personal and community decisions, such as introducing invasive species, directly alter global ecosystems. Furthermore, the tasks guide students to evaluate environmental restoration efforts, recognizing how interventions such as invasive plant removal enable native ecosystems to recover. This design ensures that students continuously use their academic learning to interpret, analyze, and apply understanding to authentic environmental and scientific 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 plan for vocabulary acquisition that differentiates between general academic (tier-one) 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 a trajectory from simple to complex. The absence of an explicit vocabulary framework prevents educators from strategically mapping out, revisiting, and reinforcing critical academic language across 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 (monolingüe, monolingue, monolingue) to facilitate language transfer, while proactively addressing common misconceptions between Greek (mono-) and Latin (uni-) roots. For oral and written application, the materials incorporate clear contextual frameworks such as echo reading or cause-and-effect graphic organizers divided into “Because _____ So _____.” columns to assist EB students. Additionally, structured linguistic sentence frames—such as “The _____ in the multimedia version adds _____ to the story because _____”—are provided to ensure all learners can successfully apply newly acquired academic terminology within 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 provide vocabulary usage opportunities to support higher-level comprehension and writing tasks. In lesson 62, oral and physical engagement with vocabulary bridges directly to a purposeful writing assignment in which students synthesize their knowledge to describe the impact of witnessing an aurora from the perspective of a narrator returning home. In lesson 34, the daily writing routine similarly leverages strategic vocabulary integration to anchor student output. Students compose an informative paragraph explaining how an animal’s migration demonstrates a remarkable adaptation. The materials guide this composition by providing a list of core academic vocabulary—including navigate, transform, endure, adapt, and survive—ensuring that students intentionally integrate the unit’s key domain-specific terms to construct and demonstrate deep 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
In addition, lesson sidebars contain nonverbal strategies to deepen conceptual comprehension during reading and text analysis. In unit 3, lesson 44, students generate illustrations to clarify ecological relationships. An instructional support sidebar guides educators to implement a quick sketching strategy: “Have learners sketch a quick food chain pyramid on scrap paper. Ask them to draw an arrow showing where Asian carp would compete.” By instructing students to sketch a pyramid and annotate it to show competition, the materials leverage graphic representation to ground abstract terms. These layers of professional imagery, physical modeling, and independent sketching 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 specialized note-taking strategy designed to prevent plagiarism and encourage analytical processing. Students fold their paper lengthwise to create a three-column organizer labeled “What I Found,” “Where I Found It,” and “Is This Source Credible?”, requiring them to evaluate credibility while extracting facts and writing text summaries in their own words. The culmination of the inquiry task challenges students to synthesize this information into a cohesive written response. The instructions guide students to outline their main topic, report contextual facts from their notes, articulate connections across three consecutive research lessons, and draw an independent conclusion regarding how westward expansion brought both opportunity and hardship. This systematic structure ensures that students cohesively integrate 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 within an independent, multisource research task. Students use a specialized three-column graphic organizer labeled “What I Found,” “Where I Found It,” and “Is This Source Credible?” to sort gathered data across distinct text media. Students must extract a minimum of one independent fact from each source type using a “Read, Cover, Think, Write” paraphrasing strategy. Educator circulation prompts require students to verify their source origins and articulate which facts were taken from the primary source and which were gathered from the secondary text. This accounting ensures students consistently evaluate, track, and differentiate source types during independent 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 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 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 830L–1010L. Across the 58 core comprehension texts included in the program, Lexile measures range from 620L–1100L, establishing a deliberate gradient of difficulty. An analysis of these texts reveals that 72 percent fall precisely within the average grade 5 band, while 19 percent are positioned in the above-average or “stretch” range. This distribution ensures that 91 percent of core texts provide rigorous, grade-level reading opportunities, using advanced complexity to challenge students and build long-term reading proficiency when paired with instructional scaffolds.
Evaluation for 6.1b
The materials feature core instructional texts and supplemental readers that are well crafted, engaging, and of professional quality. Throughout the modules, selections align with rich thematic units to support critical thinking and advanced language development. For example, in unit 7 “Inventors and Innovations,” the contemporary narrative Letters Between a Kid and Her Robot Tutor serves as a high-quality anchor for exploring the unit’s core concepts. The material’s layout reflects high design and production standards, embedding interactive features including distinctive speech bubbles that prompt students to make deep personal connections to the plot, such as “If you were in Suri’s place, what would you tell your best friend? What advice would you give?” Such well-considered elements enhance scannability and boost reader engagement without overwhelming the pages.
Furthermore, the program’s morphology readers have an editorial layout similar to authentic trade publications. Each reader begins with a table of contents that outlines story titles, corresponding page numbers, and vocabulary words. For example, the narrative Beat to Arms features varied sentence structures and age-appropriate themes for a grade 5 audience. The text is paired with colorful illustrations and immediate follow-up of targeted comprehension and discussion questions.
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 program integrates traditional folktales and classical myths to expand historical, cultural, and literary background knowledge. In unit 4, lesson 51, students engage with traditional literature by studying global variations of Cinderella, examining how this oral narrative evolved for hundreds of years across cultures in China, Egypt, France, and Korea before being transcribed. Classical mythology is represented in unit 4, lesson 46, in which students read an ancient Greek myth detailing the journey of Perseus and Medusa. This text introduces students to enduring archetypes and abstract thematic concepts, specifically exploring how myths function as tools to share insights about human bravery, moral choices, and personal growth rather than relating historical facts.
Complementing these foundational literary texts, the morphology reader presents contemporary and culturally diverse selections spanning varied disciplines. These texts are designed to reinforce linguistic structures while expanding interdisciplinary content literacy. 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 oral traditions, classical archetypes, 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 4, lessons 51–54, students explore multicultural perspectives by analyzing global variants of a familiar archetype. After grounding their understanding in Charles Perrault’s classic French version of Cinderella, the curriculum transitions in lessons 53 and 54 to Yeh-Shen, a Chinese version documented more than one thousand years ago. By examining how diverse cultures adapt a shared narrative framework, the materials honor Asian heritage and historical contributions while providing students from various backgrounds an opportunity to see their legacies represented. Additionally, in unit 1, lesson 8, the nonfiction text Together connects directly to students’ contemporary lives by exploring how neighborhoods mobilize during natural crises such as storms and power outages, highlighting how individuals make distinct, valuable contributions to community problem-solving.
The educator guidance embeds scaffolding to help students link these texts directly to their own lives and communities, boosting overall engagement. The lesson plans provide framing around universal themes of resilience, justice, and collaboration. When reading Yeh-Shen, students explore how geographic and cultural details alter the texture of a story without changing its core human truth about persistent unfairness. Similarly, the instructional framework in “Together” explicitly prompts students to reflect on their own communal experiences, teaching them that each person’s role matters when resolving local challenges. This intentional pairing of ancient global folklore and relevant, real-world community dynamics enables educators to foster an inclusive classroom culture that honors diverse backgrounds while building deep cross-cultural empathy.
Evaluation for 6.2a
While the materials include opportunities for students to listen to, think about, and critically respond to grade-level texts with oral justification, they do not include written justification in every lesson. In unit 1, lesson 9, students listen to a fluent read-aloud of the comprehension text “Together” using designated pause points. Students justify their thinking orally through a “Real or Fake?” text-feature exercise and a partner discussion in which they explain which text source answers specific questions fastest. Additionally, lesson 9 includes a written component in which students must take a position on a community crisis scenario and justify their reasoning in writing using a specific text example.
Writing opportunities in the materials are inconsistent and vary 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 lesson 9 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 The Wow! Signal: A Mini Mystery. During this lesson, students analyze and compare the text structures of two nonfiction works, using a Structure Comparison board to evaluate how chronological and cause-and-effect organizational shapes uniquely contribute to and enhance the text’s overall meaning.
The systematic focus on text analysis continues 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, with students analyzing text structure in unit 2 lesson 19, evaluating the author’s use of figurative language in unit 6 lesson 81, and discussing the author’s purpose in lesson 86.
Evaluation for 6.2c
The materials provide opportunities in each lesson for students to engage in a variety of reading skills with grade-level text, including analyzing, tracking responses, and synthesizing information across texts. In unit 2, lesson 17, students interact with the fictional text The Stowaway to build analytical skills. Guided by a Response Tracker, students analyze a major character challenge across multiple text intervals, evaluating specific actions to determine what they reveal about character development. The lesson culminates in an oral language component in which students synthesize their observations, explaining how characters within the historical text demonstrate resilience.
The materials focus on shifting from single-text analysis to high-level thematic synthesis by the end of an instructional cycle. For example, in unit 1, lesson 14, students integrate knowledge across an entire unit of study. After reading six literary and informational texts, students synthesize ideas from all the texts to answer an Essential Question regarding how communities shape and strengthen themselves over time. By mapping out evidence from each text onto a shared Question Board, students practice synthesizing disparate narrative threads to derive an overarching conclusion that no single text could provide on its own.
Evaluation for 6.3a
The materials provide educator guidance during reading instruction to model advanced comprehension strategies and navigate text structure without compromising text complexity. In unit 3, lesson 33, the materials guide educators to model fluent reading through a shared read-aloud of a grade-level text about ecological restoration in a national park, integrating strategically placed pause points to maintain engagement. To assist educators during the lesson, an “Instructional Support” note equips them with targeted questioning strategies (“What do all these sections have in common?”) to guide students who struggle to link section-specific main ideas to the text as a whole. Furthermore, the educator guidance offers multilingual strategies, instructing educators to invite EB students to share personal travel experiences and to construct a graphic organizer that maps how individual sections branch from the overall main idea.
The materials provide embedded student supports within the daily lessons to help diverse learners independently navigate rigorous analytical tasks. In unit 1, lesson 1, the materials establish a consistent routine by providing a five-word pre-reading vocabulary preview and text-embedded predictive pause points during the reading of Hallpass Number Forty-Two. Following the reading, the educator uses a scripted think-aloud to model an advanced text-annotation system, instructing students to differentiate between explicit observations and text-based inferences. To reinforce high grade-level expectations, the lesson requires students to cite direct quotes verbatim on a shared Reader’s Record and simultaneously embeds an oral language instructional support frame (“I marked an _____here. The exact words are _____.”) to ensure all students can articulate precise, evidence-based responses.
Evaluation for 6.3b
The materials provide extension resources within the units to ensure proficient students can engage in text analysis. The “Differentiation” tab includes a “Progressing” section specifically for advanced learners. According to the instructional overview, these resources feature single-level Apply texts and weekly multilevel text sets (including specialized above-level texts) that are aligned to the unit’s core comprehension instruction and genre studies. Rather than assigning passive or surface-level tasks, these materials deliberately challenge proficient students by introducing increasingly sophisticated vocabulary, complex informational 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, informational, and functional genres. To ensure these enrichment opportunities appear consistently alongside daily instruction, the materials include comprehensive week-by-week and unit-by-unit schedules. This clear structural guidance allows educators to seamlessly integrate advanced written-response expectations and deeper textual analysis into their weekly routines, enabling 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 selections. Across this guide, core readings are displayed alongside their titles, lesson alignments, and target vocabulary profiles. The materials embed brief technical explanations for below-level readings; for instance, the entry for Dear Mom: Letters from the Lunar Greenhouse indicates the text has a Lexile level of 840L and is accompanied by an explanation noting the metric is suppressed because the text is written from a student’s perspective with shorter sentences. The Conference of Future Animals has a Lexile marker of 730L, which is attributed to its specific voice and format. 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 analyses 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 explain 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 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 5 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.
However, the materials lack evidence of a qualitative analysis to verify whether 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 such as abstract themes, specialized content-area concepts, or complex structural layouts affect student comprehension or how subsequent learning tasks scaffold these demands. Because the materials do not include 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 modeled scripts to help educators monitor and support students’ real-time comprehension during independent reading tasks. In unit 4, lesson 46, the materials supply a script for an educator-led fluency and self-monitoring lesson that outlines how proficient readers consistently pause and analyze text transitions to verify that the narrative makes sense. The educator models this cognitive strategy through a specific sentence demonstration, explaining how structural punctuation shifts the meaning of a sentence before guiding students to apply this technique during self-directed reading. By embedding these think-aloud examples, the materials equip educators with clear strategies to demonstrate how students can identify meaning breakdowns and repair their understanding during independent reading sessions.
The materials provide structured monitoring activities and targeted sidebar guidance to ensure educators can assess student comprehension and correct conceptual errors. In unit 1, lesson 6, the materials incorporate a semantic mapping framework in which students transition to reading independently while checking that their ongoing interpretation aligns with the text. The educator-facing sidebar provides explicit diagnostic instructions, prompting educators to closely observe students and listen for those who treat unfamiliar words strictly as vocabulary exercises rather than tools for overall meaning-making. To ensure reading remains rigorous, the materials provide follow-up questions for the educator to ask struggling readers, directing them to reread the sentence and explain how the context helps them decode the overarching concept.
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. The “Differentiation” tab in the Comprehension Toolkit supplies weekly multilevel text sets designed specifically for independent student practice. These resources are 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 needs of mixed-ability classrooms.
The materials provide thematic alignment across 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 shares an 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 allows 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 lack 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 a student-facing text selection framework, structured schedules for daily sustained silent reading, or guidelines to give learners autonomy over 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 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 offer 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 830L–1010L. Across the 58 core comprehension texts included in the program, Lexile measures range from 620L–1100L, establishing a deliberate gradient of difficulty. An analysis of these texts reveals that 72 percent fall precisely within the average grade 5 band, while 19 percent are positioned in the above-average or “stretch” range. This distribution ensures that 91 percent of core texts provide rigorous, grade-level reading opportunities, using advanced complexity to challenge students and build long-term reading proficiency when paired with 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
Furthermore, the program’s morphology readers have an editorial layout similar to authentic trade publications. Each reader begins with a table of contents that outlines story titles, corresponding page numbers, and vocabulary words. For example, the narrative Beat to Arms features varied sentence structures and age-appropriate themes for a grade 5 audience. The text is paired with colorful illustrations and immediate follow-up of targeted comprehension and discussion questions.
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 presents contemporary and culturally diverse selections spanning varied disciplines. These texts are designed to reinforce linguistic structures while expanding interdisciplinary content literacy. 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 oral traditions, classical archetypes, 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 scaffolding to help students link these texts directly to their own lives and communities, boosting overall engagement. The lesson plans provide framing around universal themes of resilience, justice, and collaboration. When reading Yeh-Shen, students explore how geographic and cultural details alter the texture of a story without changing its core human truth about persistent unfairness. Similarly, the instructional framework in “Together” explicitly prompts students to reflect on their own communal experiences, teaching them that each person’s role matters when resolving local challenges. This intentional pairing of ancient global folklore and relevant, real-world community dynamics enables educators to foster an inclusive classroom culture that honors diverse backgrounds while building deep cross-cultural empathy.
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 in the materials are inconsistent and vary 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 lesson 9 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
The systematic focus on text analysis continues 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, with students analyzing text structure in unit 2 lesson 19, evaluating the author’s use of figurative language in unit 6 lesson 81, and discussing the author’s purpose in lesson 86.
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 focus on shifting from single-text analysis to high-level thematic synthesis by the end of an instructional cycle. For example, in unit 1, lesson 14, students integrate knowledge across an entire unit of study. After reading six literary and informational texts, students synthesize ideas from all the texts to answer an Essential Question regarding how communities shape and strengthen themselves over time. By mapping out evidence from each text onto a shared Question Board, students practice synthesizing disparate narrative threads to derive an overarching conclusion that no single text could provide on its own.
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 within the daily lessons to help diverse learners independently navigate rigorous analytical tasks. In unit 1, lesson 1, the materials establish a consistent routine by providing a five-word pre-reading vocabulary preview and text-embedded predictive pause points during the reading of Hallpass Number Forty-Two. Following the reading, the educator uses a scripted think-aloud to model an advanced text-annotation system, instructing students to differentiate between explicit observations and text-based inferences. To reinforce high grade-level expectations, the lesson requires students to cite direct quotes verbatim on a shared Reader’s Record and simultaneously embeds an oral language instructional support frame (“I marked an _____here. The exact words are _____.”) to ensure all students can articulate precise, evidence-based responses.
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, informational, and functional genres. To ensure these enrichment opportunities appear consistently alongside daily instruction, the materials include comprehensive week-by-week and unit-by-unit schedules. This clear structural guidance allows educators to seamlessly integrate advanced written-response expectations and deeper textual analysis into their weekly routines, enabling 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 analyses 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 explain 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 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
However, the materials lack evidence of a qualitative analysis to verify whether 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 such as abstract themes, specialized content-area concepts, or complex structural layouts affect student comprehension or how subsequent learning tasks scaffold these demands. Because the materials do not include 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 monitoring activities and targeted sidebar guidance to ensure educators can assess student comprehension and correct conceptual errors. In unit 1, lesson 6, the materials incorporate a semantic mapping framework in which students transition to reading independently while checking that their ongoing interpretation aligns with the text. The educator-facing sidebar provides explicit diagnostic instructions, prompting educators to closely observe students and listen for those who treat unfamiliar words strictly as vocabulary exercises rather than tools for overall meaning-making. To ensure reading remains rigorous, the materials provide follow-up questions for the educator to ask struggling readers, directing them to reread the sentence and explain how the context helps them decode the overarching concept.
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 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 shares an 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 allows 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 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 offer 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
56% (31 out of 55 points)
Evaluation for 7.A.1a
The materials provide educator scripts and comparative text-dependent tasks that require students to track and analyze how authors deploy evidence to construct arguments. In unit 6, lesson 88, students analyze paired health-related texts, including the selection “Invisible Air”, to evaluate and compare how various authors map distinct evidence to their central points. The lesson guides the educator to lead students through a close examination of text segments, asking targeted questions such as “What point is this author making about oxygen, and what evidence is being used to support it?” Students are prompted to explain the mechanics of the author’s logic, requiring them to demonstrate deep comprehension by identifying how the author uses contrasting time frames as numerical proof to justify the urgency of oxygen consumption.
The materials provide text-focused analytical frameworks and direct citation scaffolds across fictional genres to ensure students use verbatim text quotes to justify plot claims. In unit 3, lesson 41, students study the narrative text “The Trillium Underneath” and trace a complex chain of narrative cause and effect rather than guessing. The lesson mandates that students return to the text to locate and map structural plot links using the author’s exact words. To cement this textual accountability during the final synthesis task, the materials supply a sentence frame (“_____ caused _____, and I know because the author wrote ‘_____’”). This structural support requires students to directly integrate word-for-word textual evidence to justify their understanding of the story’s causal progression.
Evaluation for 7.A.1b
The materials provide text-dependent questioning that requires students to evaluate language and craft by examining how structural stylistic choices and figurative elements convey central themes. In unit 6, lesson 86, the materials guide students to analyze a critical excerpt from a text in which the narrator defines themselves as “a kind of medicine.” The lesson prompts students to decode the author’s craft through collaborative partner discussions, evaluating how syntactic techniques (such as short, isolated, and punchy lines at the conclusion of a passage) create a calm, certain tone that emphasizes the overarching message. To answer the diagnostic educator prompt “How did you know?”, students must analyze the exact placement of the central metaphor, and a finger-signaling routine requires students to categorize whether textual examples represent personification, figurative imagery, or theme-supporting details.
Text-focused analytical frameworks in the materials require students to apply textual evidence when evaluating the key ideas, narrative details, and overarching structure of high-quality texts. In unit 3, lesson 41, the lesson instructs students to trace the plot of “The Trillium Underneath” by mapping out a multistep cause-and-effect chain that shapes the text’s macrostructure. The curriculum mandates that students evaluate key ideas and specific events by returning directly to the passage to extract exact quotes for each link in the causal progression, moving systematically from the initial introduction of an invasive species to the final blooming of the native flora. When identifying specific narrative details within this structure, students are explicitly prompted with “How did you know?”, establishing a rigorous accountability standard in which every plot assertion, structural transition, and thematic connection must be justified through direct, text-based proof.
Evaluation for 7.A.1c
The materials provide structured cross-textual activities and comparative strategies that require students to support their claims by evaluating how different authors organize logic and proof on similar topics. In unit 6, lesson 88, the materials require students to read paired health-related passages (including “Invisible Air”) and directly compare how separate authors map evidence to their underlying points. Through guided discussion and text-dependent tracking, the materials prompt students to analyze specific excerpts, asking, “What point is this author making about oxygen, and what evidence is being used to support it?” Students must evaluate the author’s rhetorical strategy, defending their claims by demonstrating how juxtaposed timelines prove the comparative urgency of oxygen consumption over food and water.
The materials provide comprehensive unit-level synthesis frameworks that require students to justify their thinking by comparing multiple sources across literary and informational genres. In unit 10, lesson 149 features a culminating synthesis task centered on the unit’s Essential Question “How do detectives and scientists use evidence to solve mysteries?” Rather than relying on a single text or drawing from generalized personal experiences, the materials direct students to pull evidence from across the entire unit’s fiction and nonfiction selections to form a cohesive argument. This multitextual mapping strategy trains students to synthesize diverse text structures, track recurring concepts across genres, and use interconnected text-based proof to build comprehensive, high-level claims.
Evaluation for 7.A.1d
The materials provide a progression of literal, inferential, and structural questions during reading routines to build a thorough foundation for text analysis. In unit 2, lesson 17, the curriculum uses character-driven inquiries to test comprehension at varying levels of difficulty, moving from concrete textual elements to deep abstract themes. Students isolate specific plot points via questions such as “What important details show us why Tuesday Rain has become so meaningful to the crew?” and move quickly to high-level inferential thinking with prompts such as “Based on Dr. Okorafor’s reaction, what can we infer about how she feels being on the moon?” and “What lesson is Yuna learning about home and belonging?” This structured combination of literal tracking and inferential processing allows educators to gauge base comprehension before prompting students to evaluate the text’s deeper thematic elements.
The materials provide advanced analytical, synthetic, and metacognitive tasks that challenge students to evaluate text structures using diverse physical and written response strategies. In unit 3, lesson 41, the instructional framework requires students to navigate a cognitive hierarchy while tracing a cause-and-effect chain in “The Trillium Underneath.” The lesson guides students from basic recall (“What’s the cause here, and what’s the effect?”) to complex explanation (“What does this quote prove about why the trillium hadn’t bloomed?”), while incorporating a tactile classification routine in which students use their fingers to categorize plot segments into structural stages. This sequence culminates in a rigorous synthesis task requiring direct textual integration via the sentence frame “_____ caused _____, and I know because the author wrote ‘_____’”), followed by a metacognitive reflection prompt (“How did we identify the cause-effect chain and quote evidence for each step?”), ensuring students deeply analyze the text’s structural components and their own reading processes.
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. In unit 7, lesson 94 supports educators through explicit scripting during the reading of “The Night the Robotaxis Got Stuck,” as the educator models how readers “map evidence to reasons by asking: Which reason does this specific piece of evidence prove?” The educator demonstrates how to take a specific statistic (such as data showing an 88 percent reduction in property damage claims across 25.3 million miles) and pair it with the author’s broader claim that robotaxis are safer than human drivers in operating cities. Furthermore, the lesson scripting guides the educator to model analyzing contrasting evidence (such as vehicles driving into wet concrete) to show how readers generate counterclaims regarding technological failures.
The materials also offer educator guidance on modeling how to construct text-based responses. In lesson 94, the educator directs students to write an informative paragraph explaining autonomous vehicle technology using supporting details from a specific passage. The lesson script provides prompts for the educator to remind students to integrate specific textual details and explain why each technology is essential to self-driving capabilities. To guide students in using text evidence within their constructed responses, the materials provide sentence starters, including “In ‘The Road to Driverless Cars,’ I learned that _____”, “According to the passage, autonomous vehicles _____”, and “One important technology is _____, which _____.”
Evaluation for 7.A.2b
Unit 7, lesson 94 provides educator instructions to guide students through vocabulary acquisition and oral application before reading. For instance, after defining the domain-specific term autonomous, educators are directed to facilitate a partner talk in which students analyze and discuss real-world applications (“Talk to your partner about this: What are some advantages and disadvantages of having autonomous machines do tasks that humans used to do?”). Furthermore, following a close reading of “The Road to Driverless Cars,” the materials provide sentence starters that scaffold academic language usage during peer exchanges (“According to the passage, autonomous vehicles ____” and “One important technology is ____, which ____”), ensuring students incorporate precise content vocabulary into their verbal descriptions.
The materials also include educator guidance on structured opportunities to engage students in evidence-based discussions using academic syntax. In unit 7, lesson 94, the educator leads a structured discussion analyzing how specific safety statistics and failure examples map to contrasting author claims, incorporating a turn-and-talk activity in which students justify their evidence–reason pairings. The materials equip educators with engagement strategies such as using hand signals to check for understanding as students categorize claims orally. To support students in articulating these complex connections, the materials provide the sentence frame “The evidence _____ pairs with the reason _____ because _____,” giving students a clear format to express causal relationships and evidence-based arguments using formal academic syntax.
Evaluation for 7.B.1a
The materials provide mentor texts to serve as models for students according to the grade-level TEKS. Throughout the units, high-quality mentor texts across diverse genres are integrated alongside writing tasks to model the author’s craft, structural organization, and stylistic techniques. For example, according to the scope and sequence, in unit 1, lessons 6 and 7 anchor instruction in the fiction text The Town That Lost Its Bridge, which serves as a mentor text for students to compose a narrative writing assignment expanding on the anchor passage. Additionally, in unit 6, lesson 77, the narrative mentor text Tunnel Vision models how to craft personal narrative writing centered on overcoming stress. The educator prompts students to examine how the narrator shifted their mindset during a high-stakes event, guiding students to draft their own narrative paragraphs while using parallel grammatical structures modeled after the text (“not fighting the water but flowing through it, not panicking but preparing”).
Furthermore, the materials provide direct educator modeling to demonstrate how students can analyze a mentor text’s evidence and structure to inform their writing. In lesson 85, the educator breaks down an informational mentor text to model comparative and causal analysis (“I notice the author reports specific facts — that exposure to air pollution damages the respiratory system... and that air pollution also impairs cognitive development... Those facts establish the two dimensions I need to compare”). The educator demonstrates how to synthesize multidimensional facts before students compose informational essays modeled on the same text structure and analysis techniques.
Evaluation for 7.B.1b
The materials provide opportunities for students to compose literary texts for multiple purposes with genre-specific characteristics and craft. Across the school year, the scope and sequence embeds 31 distinct opportunities for students to draft original literary works linked directly to unit anchor texts. The materials integrate at least one literary writing assignment per unit, supporting a reciprocal reading and writing process. For example, unit 1 features literary narrative writing assignments in lessons 5 and 7, while unit 10 provides structured practice with personal narratives in lesson 140 and poetry in lesson 145. These recurring experiences allow students to explore varied intents and structures, such as narrative arcs and poetic forms, across diverse units.
However, the materials do not include opportunities for students to compose literary texts for multiple audiences. Although the scope and sequence establishes routine practice with varied purposes, it omits explicit guidance, mentor-text analysis, and instructional scaffolds such as targeted editing checklists and rubrics that prompt students to tailor their tone, craft choices, or character development to different target audiences.
Evaluation for 7.B.1c
The materials offer opportunities for students to compose informational texts for multiple purposes with genre-specific characteristics and craft throughout the year. The scope and sequence incorporates 27 distinct opportunities for informational writing tied directly to unit anchor texts, ensuring integrated expository practice in every unit. These tasks prompt students to apply distinct structural approaches to organize and synthesize information effectively. For example, unit 2, lesson 19 features an informative writing assignment focused on explaining cause-and-effect relationships, while unit 3, lesson 44 asks students to compose an expository text to answer an Essential Question. By analyzing and producing these varied compositions, students systematically build core skills in central idea development and logical sequencing.
However, the materials do not include opportunities for students to compose informational texts for multiple audiences. While the scope and sequence offers frequent practice with varied expository structures and purposes, it does not include instruction, mentor-text analysis, or scaffolds such as audience-centered anchor charts or editing tools that prompt students to adjust their tone, style, and vocabulary for varied audiences such as peers, family members, or wider 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 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, language, and persuasive strategies for specific target audiences 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 sustained practice throughout the school year. In unit 10, lesson 150 guides students through drafting a formal advocacy letter. The educator scaffolds the structural components of formal correspondence, instructing students on dates, formal salutations, concise purpose statements, counterargument acknowledgments, evidence integration, calls to action, and formal closings. Students select a real school or community issue and address an individual with the power to act on it. This lesson offers strong, step-by-step guidance on aligning formal tone and letter structure with a target audience.
However, the materials do not provide opportunities throughout the year for students to practice composing correspondence. According to the scope and sequence, students write correspondence just once, as part of an end-of-year assessment in unit 10. Without spiraled, recurring opportunities to compose varied forms of correspondence such as thank-you notes, formal emails, or inquiries, students are deprived of the ongoing practice needed to master written communication skills.
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 and drafting 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, lessons 10 and 100; 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 model these frameworks and offer conferring support during drafting, such as guiding students to craft focused thesis statements in lesson 100 and providing individualized target lengths in lesson 95. For revising and publishing, students systematically self-check structural elements against their acronym frameworks; expand vocabulary using reference tools; and publish using options such as class books, writing walls, author’s chair, and digital transfers.
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 “Writers can edit and change their writing when they find things they want to improve,” without offering tools, checklists, or mini-lessons for grammar, mechanics, or spelling. Although lesson 100 encourages the use of reference tools such as dictionaries and glossaries, this guidance focuses on precise word choice for vocabulary refinement rather than structured editing for language conventions.
Evaluation for 7.B.2b
The materials provide strong educator guidance and scripts 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 model how to map out ideas using frameworks such as TREE and think-aloud strategies for crafting analytical thesis statements on megaprojects or writing narrative hooks with dialogue. Additionally, the materials support students through the revision phase by equipping educators with structured student-led check routines and prompts such as verifying evidence–claim alignment.
However, the materials do not include educator guidance and modeling for revising, editing, and sharing/publishing stages. While educators are directed to guide students through revision checklists, the educator does not model how to revise a draft by demonstrating live edits to rearrange sentences, insert precise word choices, or expand on detail, for example. Similarly, editing instruction contains no 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 correcting grammatical, punctuation, or spelling errors. Furthermore, while lessons present a robust menu of publishing options such as author’s chair, class book, and writing wall, they offer no educator guidance to model how students should prepare or present their published compositions.
Evaluation for 7.B.3a
The materials include guidance for educators to provide direct instruction on sentence-level writing, focusing on sentence structure and syntax. For example, in unit 5, lesson 61 guides educators to model how to vary sentence length and combine short sentences using conjunctions to improve writing flow (“Today we’re learning about sentence combination... joining two or more short sentences to make our writing better”). The scripted lesson incorporates non-examples (“I can’t look away”) to demonstrate when keeping short sentences creates dramatic emphasis and rhythm. Furthermore, in unit 4, lesson 56, educators directly instruct students on sentence expansion based on the anchor text “Finn McCool and the Giant’s Causeway.” The script models how to transform a simple core sentence (“Finn built a road”) into a complex, detail-rich sentence (“Over many weeks, Finn built a road out of giant six-sided stones to reach Scotland”) by answering key inquiry questions (When? Why? How?).
In addition to structure and syntax, the materials provide explicit guidance for direct instruction on sentence-level editing, concise word choice, and vocabulary precision. In lesson 66, the educator models sentence reduction to eliminate redundancies. The educator presents contrasting sentence pairs (“The first one has unnecessary words—‘that she made’ doesn’t add new information... The reduced version is clearer and stronger”) before facilitating peer discussion (“Why is the reduced sentence more effective? What makes it stronger?”) and guided practice. By combining direct modeling for expanding and reducing sentences and purposeful sentence combining, the materials support educators in developing students’ syntactic flexibility and sentence fluency.
Evaluation for 7.B.3b
The materials include explicit writing instruction starting at the sentence level and building to compositions according to the grade-level ELA TEKS. In unit 1, lesson 11 provides direct, scripted modeling to locate prepositional phrases and explain how prepositions show time and location relationships. In unit 1, lesson 15, educator guidance supports sentence-level writing by directing educators to monitor independent writing and prompt students to revise bare claims into precise thesis statements using prepositional phrases. Additionally, in unit 1, lesson 1, educators review parts of speech through guided practice, student modeling, and partner discussion on how specific parts of speech function within sentences.
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 lacks a logical sequence, leaving interdependent sentence-level and composition skills widely separated across the school year. For example, the materials teach prepositional phrases in lessons 11–14, but they do not introduce commas with introductory elements until lessons 86–89, despite prepositional phrases being primary introductory elements. Similarly, interjections (lessons 16–19) and introductory elements such as yes and no (lessons 101 and 103) function similarly and rely on identical comma rules, yet they are taught far from the general lessons on introductory elements.
Evaluation for 7.B.3c
The materials include direct opportunities for students to engage in basic sentence-level writing and editing. In unit 3, lesson 36, educator guidance provides direct instruction on serial comma usage, modeling how commas separate items, including single words and short phrases. Students apply this instruction immediately by writing a sentence spoken aloud and placing commas correctly after each item in a series based on the model. Although similar direct opportunities for sentence-level writing and editing appear throughout the unit lessons, 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. Instructional tasks do not follow a logical sequence or increase in complexity. Instead, similar skills recur across units without cumulative progression. For example, prepositional phrases are taught in lessons 11–14, but commas with introductory prepositional phrases are delayed until lessons 86–89. Additionally, interjections (lessons 16–19) and introductory words yes and no (lessons 101 and 103) function as introductory elements but the lessons are far from the main unit on introductory elements.
Evaluation for 7.B.4a
The materials include opportunities for practice and application out of context of the conventions of academic language in sentences and short paragraphs using correct punctuation according to the grade-level TEKS. In unit 3, lesson 36, students engage in out-of-context practice by adding commas to single words and phrases in a series within isolated practice sentences. In lesson 86, students practice correcting comma placement in isolated sentences with introductory elements and then apply the skill out of context by orally generating original sentences containing introductory phrases with a partner. Additionally, the scope and sequence reflects out-of-context practice and application routines across multiple units, such as practicing conjunctions in lessons 6 and 8 before applying them in lesson 9, and studying prepositions in lessons 11 and 13 before out-of-context sentence application in lesson 14.
The materials do not include opportunities for practice or application in context of the conventions of academic language in sentences and short paragraphs using correct capitalization and punctuation according to the grade-level TEKS. While the materials provide exercises for isolated sentences, they do not provide opportunities for students to practice or apply grammar and mechanical conventions within authentic, continuous writing tasks, such as composing paragraphs or extended compositions. Additionally, the materials do not include instructional guidance, practice, or application for capitalization rules in or out of context.
Evaluation for 7.B.4b
The materials do not include systematic opportunities for the practice of and application of grammar, punctuation, and usage in or out of context. 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 3, lessons 31–34 focus on verb tense shifts; lessons 36–39 cover commas in a series; lessons 41–44 focus on correlative conjunctions; and lessons 46–49 teach verb states and conditions. Furthermore, while lesson 21 provides out-of-context grammar practice in which students analyze the timeline of actions using past perfect verbs and construct isolated sentences, this instruction is isolated from a structured continuum.
While the materials include opportunities for practice and application of usage in and out of context, these opportunities are sporadic. In unit 3, lesson 33 offers out-of-context usage practice in which students analyze excerpts from Fourteen Wolves and play a physical gesture game (thumbs up versus hands pulled apart) to distinguish between intentional tense shifts and errors. In lesson 34, students apply this knowledge in context by writing an informative paragraph about animal migration while monitoring their drafts for consistent verb tenses. However, because these usage and language conventions lessons appear in isolated clusters without a systematic scope and sequence across units, the materials do not provide the structured progression necessary for students.
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 analytical frameworks and direct citation scaffolds across fictional genres to ensure students use verbatim text quotes to justify plot claims. In unit 3, lesson 41, students study the narrative text “The Trillium Underneath” and trace a complex chain of narrative cause and effect rather than guessing. The lesson mandates that students return to the text to locate and map structural plot links using the author’s exact words. To cement this textual accountability during the final synthesis task, the materials supply a sentence frame (“_____ caused _____, and I know because the author wrote ‘_____’”). This structural support requires students to directly integrate word-for-word textual evidence to justify their understanding of the story’s causal progression.
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
Text-focused analytical frameworks in the materials require students to apply textual evidence when evaluating the key ideas, narrative details, and overarching structure of high-quality texts. In unit 3, lesson 41, the lesson instructs students to trace the plot of “The Trillium Underneath” by mapping out a multistep cause-and-effect chain that shapes the text’s macrostructure. The curriculum mandates that students evaluate key ideas and specific events by returning directly to the passage to extract exact quotes for each link in the causal progression, moving systematically from the initial introduction of an invasive species to the final blooming of the native flora. When identifying specific narrative details within this structure, students are explicitly prompted with “How did you know?”, establishing a rigorous accountability standard in which every plot assertion, structural transition, and thematic connection must be justified through direct, 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 comprehensive unit-level synthesis frameworks that require students to justify their thinking by comparing multiple sources across literary and informational genres. In unit 10, lesson 149 features a culminating synthesis task centered on the unit’s Essential Question “How do detectives and scientists use evidence to solve mysteries?” Rather than relying on a single text or drawing from generalized personal experiences, the materials direct students to pull evidence from across the entire unit’s fiction and nonfiction selections to form a cohesive argument. This multitextual mapping strategy trains students to synthesize diverse text structures, track recurring concepts across genres, and use interconnected text-based proof to build comprehensive, high-level claims.
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, synthetic, and metacognitive tasks that challenge students to evaluate text structures using diverse physical and written response strategies. In unit 3, lesson 41, the instructional framework requires students to navigate a cognitive hierarchy while tracing a cause-and-effect chain in “The Trillium Underneath.” The lesson guides students from basic recall (“What’s the cause here, and what’s the effect?”) to complex explanation (“What does this quote prove about why the trillium hadn’t bloomed?”), while incorporating a tactile classification routine in which students use their fingers to categorize plot segments into structural stages. This sequence culminates in a rigorous synthesis task requiring direct textual integration via the sentence frame “_____ caused _____, and I know because the author wrote ‘_____’”), followed by a metacognitive reflection prompt (“How did we identify the cause-effect chain and quote evidence for each step?”), ensuring students deeply analyze the text’s structural components and their own reading processes.
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 offer educator guidance on modeling how to construct text-based responses. In lesson 94, the educator directs students to write an informative paragraph explaining autonomous vehicle technology using supporting details from a specific passage. The lesson script provides prompts for the educator to remind students to integrate specific textual details and explain why each technology is essential to self-driving capabilities. To guide students in using text evidence within their constructed responses, the materials provide sentence starters, including “In ‘The Road to Driverless Cars,’ I learned that _____”, “According to the passage, autonomous vehicles _____”, and “One important technology is _____, which _____.”
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 7, lesson 94, the educator leads a structured discussion analyzing how specific safety statistics and failure examples map to contrasting author claims, incorporating a turn-and-talk activity in which students justify their evidence–reason pairings. The materials equip educators with engagement strategies such as using hand signals to check for understanding as students categorize claims orally. To support students in articulating these complex connections, the materials provide the sentence frame “The evidence _____ pairs with the reason _____ because _____,” giving students a clear format to express causal relationships and evidence-based arguments using formal academic syntax.
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 direct educator modeling to demonstrate how students can analyze a mentor text’s evidence and structure to inform their writing. In lesson 85, the educator breaks down an informational mentor text to model comparative and causal analysis (“I notice the author reports specific facts — that exposure to air pollution damages the respiratory system... and that air pollution also impairs cognitive development... Those facts establish the two dimensions I need to compare”). The educator demonstrates how to synthesize multidimensional facts before students compose informational essays modeled on the same text structure and analysis techniques.
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. Although the scope and sequence establishes routine practice with varied purposes, it omits explicit guidance, mentor-text analysis, and instructional scaffolds such as targeted editing checklists and rubrics that prompt students to tailor their tone, craft choices, or character development to different target 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 include opportunities for students to compose informational texts for multiple audiences. While the scope and sequence offers frequent practice with varied expository structures and purposes, it does not include instruction, mentor-text analysis, or scaffolds such as audience-centered anchor charts or editing tools that prompt students to adjust their tone, style, and vocabulary for varied audiences such as peers, family members, or wider 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 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, language, and persuasive strategies for specific target audiences 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, the materials do not provide opportunities throughout the year for students to practice composing correspondence. According to the scope and sequence, students write correspondence just once, as part of an end-of-year assessment in unit 10. Without spiraled, recurring opportunities to compose varied forms of correspondence such as thank-you notes, formal emails, or inquiries, students are deprived of the ongoing practice needed to master written communication skills.
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 “Writers can edit and change their writing when they find things they want to improve,” without offering tools, checklists, or mini-lessons for grammar, mechanics, or spelling. Although lesson 100 encourages the use of reference tools such as dictionaries and glossaries, this guidance focuses on precise word choice for vocabulary refinement rather than structured editing for language conventions.
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 educator guidance and modeling for revising, editing, and sharing/publishing stages. While educators are directed to guide students through revision checklists, the educator does not model how to revise a draft by demonstrating live edits to rearrange sentences, insert precise word choices, or expand on detail, for example. Similarly, editing instruction contains no 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 correcting grammatical, punctuation, or spelling errors. Furthermore, while lessons present a robust menu of publishing options such as author’s chair, class book, and writing wall, they offer no educator guidance to model how students should prepare or present 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 editing, concise word choice, and vocabulary precision. In lesson 66, the educator models sentence reduction to eliminate redundancies. The educator presents contrasting sentence pairs (“The first one has unnecessary words—‘that she made’ doesn’t add new information... The reduced version is clearer and stronger”) before facilitating peer discussion (“Why is the reduced sentence more effective? What makes it stronger?”) and guided practice. By combining direct modeling for expanding and reducing sentences and purposeful sentence combining, the materials support educators in developing students’ syntactic flexibility and sentence fluency.
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 lacks a logical sequence, leaving interdependent sentence-level and composition skills widely separated across the school year. For example, the materials teach prepositional phrases in lessons 11–14, but they do not introduce commas with introductory elements until lessons 86–89, despite prepositional phrases being primary introductory elements. Similarly, interjections (lessons 16–19) and introductory elements such as yes and no (lessons 101 and 103) function similarly and rely on identical comma rules, yet they are taught far from the general lessons on introductory elements.
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. Instructional tasks do not follow a logical sequence or increase in complexity. Instead, similar skills recur across units without cumulative progression. For example, prepositional phrases are taught in lessons 11–14, but commas with introductory prepositional phrases are delayed until lessons 86–89. Additionally, interjections (lessons 16–19) and introductory words yes and no (lessons 101 and 103) function as introductory elements but the lessons are far from the main unit on introductory elements.
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)
2 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)
2 out of 4 points
The materials do not include opportunities for practice or application in context of the conventions of academic language in sentences and short paragraphs using correct capitalization and punctuation according to the grade-level TEKS. While the materials provide exercises for isolated sentences, they do not provide opportunities for students to practice or apply grammar and mechanical conventions within authentic, continuous writing tasks, such as composing paragraphs or extended compositions. Additionally, the materials do not include instructional guidance, practice, or application for capitalization rules in or out of context.
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
While the materials include opportunities for practice and application of usage in and out of context, these opportunities are sporadic. In unit 3, lesson 33 offers out-of-context usage practice in which students analyze excerpts from Fourteen Wolves and play a physical gesture game (thumbs up versus hands pulled apart) to distinguish between intentional tense shifts and errors. In lesson 34, students apply this knowledge in context by writing an informative paragraph about animal migration while monitoring their drafts for consistent verb tenses. However, because these usage and language conventions lessons appear in isolated clusters without a systematic scope and sequence across units, the materials do not provide the structured progression necessary for students.