Literacy Path – 5th Grade

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

The materials explain the stated purpose of the supplemental program. Section 1 of the Implementation Guide identifies the materials as providing “additional instruction and practice.” For example, the materials state that the program offers “focused practice on grade‑level standards,” as well as “targeted remediation or acceleration.” The materials demonstrate this stated purpose through adaptive activities that reinforce the same standards addressed during core instruction. These activities adjust in difficulty based on individual student performance, supporting the program’s stated purpose of providing additional instruction and practice and offering targeted remediation or acceleration.

The materials include evidence of targeted remediation or acceleration tailored to individual student performance. For example, section 1 of the Implementation Guide explains that “Literacy Path’s adaptive engine adjusts content in real time based on each student’s performance. Every student, whether at, above, or below grade level, receives practice at the right level of difficulty on the standards where they need it most.” The materials indicate that students who require additional support receive scaffolded instruction and practice at their instructional level, while students demonstrating proficiency advance into higher‑level content and skill bands to extend learning opportunities.

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

The materials include guidance on how to use the supplemental program to support an existing core reading and language arts program. Section 1 of the Implementation Guide explains that Literacy Path supports core ELAR instruction through TEKS‑aligned adaptive practice, intervention support, progress monitoring, and educator‑guided instructional planning. For example, section 1 states that adaptive activities “reinforce the same standards taught in core instruction” and provide students with “practice at the right level of difficulty” based on individual performance. The materials also note that the program supports ELAR and Spanish Language Arts and Reading (SLAR) instruction by aligning practice activities to grade‑level TEKS expectations.

Section 2 of the Implementation Guide explains that the adaptive engine “adjusts content in real time based on each student’s performance,” which allows educators to use student performance data to guide intervention and instructional support decisions within the core program. For example, this section describes how adaptive adjustments help educators identify areas where students need additional support or extension, demonstrating how the supplemental program supports and extends the existing core reading and language arts program.

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

The materials include the skills taught, a scope and sequence outlining student expectations,and a rationale for the design of the scope and sequence. Section 7 of the Implementation Guide, “TEKS Alignment and Scope and Sequence,” provides TEKS‑aligned tables that identify vocabulary and literacy standards addressed across grades 2 to 5, showing grade‑level expectations and how skills progress across grade levels. The materials outline the skills taught in the supplemental program and organize instruction through adaptive pathways that adjust based on student data and demonstrated mastery. Section 7 further explains the rationale for the scope and sequence, detailing how the program supports ELAR and SLAR instruction through TEKS‑aligned adaptive practice.

The materials include a rationale for the design of the scope and sequence. For example, section 2, “Research Foundation,” explains that the program design is grounded in literacy development research supporting a structured progression of skills and adaptive instruction. The materials also describe how Literacy Path’s BRAVE Framework, a research-based model designed to build reading success, is intended to “support student motivation and sustained engagement in literacy learning.”

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

The materials give guidance on time requirements and suggested pacing. For example, section 3 of the Implementation Guide, under “Routine Student Experience at a Glance,” describes a “Typical 15‑Minute Session” and provides specific durations for instructional components, such as “Read the Passage ~3–4 Min,” and “Answer Questions ~8–10 Min,” establishing expected lesson duration. Additionally, “Integration Opportunities” in section 3 recommend using Literacy Path as a 15- to 20-minute technology station within a small‑group rotation.

The materials include guidance on suggested pacing for effective implementation. For example, section 2 of the Implementation Guide, “Adaptive Engine Overview” explains that in Literacy Path, “fifteen working instructional level (WIL) bands span from grade 2 BOY (beginning of year) to grade 5 EOY (end of year),” showing how instructional content sequences across time. The materials further state that “readability escalation” occurs as text difficulty increases based on student proficiency, indicating a structured pacing progression. In addition, the “Platform Assignments” section provides educators with data on student progress toward pacing goals and identifies students who are behind, allowing educators to adjust pacing to meet instructional needs.

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

The materials include resources and guidance that support educators in implementing the materials. For example, section 3 of the Implementation Guide provides guidance for launching the program, understanding TEKS alignment, defining educator roles, and engaging families. This section also includes a dashboard overview with a table of assessment types, helping educators effectively use program components as designed. In addition, the “Getting Started–Student and Teacher Onboarding” section outlines two onboarding paths, including “Path A: NWEA MAP Import” and “Path B: Manual Entry,” and explains that the system will “create student accounts automatically from the roster data” and “set each student’s initial working instructional level (WIL) band from lexile scores,” offering resources and guidance for implementing the program as designed.

The materials include defined implementation expectations and technical support to guide educators in implementing the materials. Section 8 of the Implementation Guide, “Roles and Responsibilities,” outlines expectations for educators, instructional coaches, literacy specialists, and campus administrators. The materials also provide implementation supports such as references to “see the placement score to working instructional level (WIL) band table in Appendix E: ‘Technical Specifications for More Information,’” as well as guidance in “A Note on Dosage and Reading Growth,” which helps educators understand recommended usage and program expectations.

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

Supports for families in Spanish, such as suggestions for supporting their students’ progress, are included in the materials. For example, section 9, “Family Engagement and Resources,” includes the “Power of Your First Language” resource, which states, “The most important reading support you can give your child does not require English,” and explains that a child’s home language “is the foundation for your child’s English literacy,” providing guidance for families on how to support reading development using their primary language. This section also includes Spanish‑language support materials, such as a sample family welcome letter in Spanish, demonstrating how families are supported in understanding and supporting student learning in their home language.

Supports for families in English include suggestions for supporting their students’ progress. For example, section 9, “Family Engagement and Resources” includes the parent letter for grades 2 to 5, which explains that Literacy Path provides focused practice on skills being taught in class, reinforcing instruction rather than replacing it. The section notes that educators receive real‑time data on each student’s progress to help families understand how the program supports ongoing learning and progress monitoring. The Literacy Path platform also includes English‑language resources for families in the Resource Library, such as the “Parent Resource & Vocabulary Support Guide Grade 5,” which offers guidance on building a love of reading at home, helping students understand why they read, building vocabulary at home, and engaging in reading and vocabulary activities. Section 9 further outlines how educators can access and share these English resources with families to support student progress.

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

The materials include diagnostic assessments appropriate for the program’s stated purpose of targeted remediation and acceleration. Section 2 of the Implementation Guide, under “Diagnostic, Formative, and Summative Assessments,” explains that the program provides a diagnostic assessment that identifies each student’s starting point in the supplemental program, supporting targeted remediation or acceleration. The same section describes formative assessments that “monitor trends over time” and “evaluate growth,” demonstrating how the program gathers ongoing performance data to inform instruction. The materials also include summative assessments, such as the Snapshot Assessments, which measure student growth over time. The materials use an adaptive engine that administers two types of 15‑question assessments to evaluate cumulative growth across TEKS standards: Snapshot Assessments serve as periodic mastery checks that can trigger WIL band movement, and Placement Assessment functions as an initial diagnostic that determines each student’s starting WIL band and baseline mastery across grade‑level TEKS for students who do not have NWEA Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) data.

A comprehensive set of instructional assessments is included that aligns to the stated purpose of the supplemental program. Section 4 of the Implementation Guide, under “Assessment Design Overview,” identifies the assessment item types used across diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments, including multiple-choice, multi-select, hot text, drop-down, and short constructed-response items, demonstrating that the assessments offer appropriately structured tasks that support skill development. Section 4, in “Understanding Your Dashboard and Using Data,” further explains that Literacy Path uses these item types to assess comprehension across Depth of Knowledge levels, consistent with the types of questions students encounter on STAAR. Across sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Implementation Guide, the materials describe how the program systematically uses diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments to gather ongoing performance data, measure growth aligned to the TEKS standards, and inform daily instruction.

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

The materials explain the intended purposes and definitions of the instructional assessments provided. The Literacy Path materials define the role of each assessment type within the Assessment Types and Activity Types tables, which describe diagnostic assessments as tools that establish each student’s baseline mastery and formative assessments as progress‑monitoring measures that track standard‑level mastery to inform next instructional steps. Section 2 of the Implementation Guide, under “Assessment Overview,” reinforces these definitions by outlining how diagnostic assessments identify initial instructional levels and how formative assessments provide ongoing data to guide instruction. Section 4 of the “Assessment Design Overview” identifies the item types used in these assessments.


The materials define the purpose and use of the instructional assessments included in the program. For example, section 2 of the Implementation Guide, under “Snapshot Cadence and Instructional Grouping,” describes how assessment data support monitoring student progress, determining mastery status, guiding instructional grouping, and supporting next instructional steps through adaptive instruction. The materials further explain these definitions in “Snapshot Cadence” and “Forming Small Groups Using Dashboard Data,” which outline how diagnostic assessments establish baseline mastery and how formative assessments track standard‑level mastery to inform instruction. The technical specifications, in the Mastery Status Decision Matrix, reinforce these purposes by showing how assessment results determine mastery status and guide instructional decisions.

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

This guidance is not applicable to the program because the program is student driven. Assessments are administered by the program, not an educator.

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

The materials include items at varying levels of complexity. For example, section 2 of the Implementation Guide, under “Question Types and Comprehension Levels,” explains that assessment items span multiple Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (DOK) levels, including DOK 1 (literal comprehension), DOK 2 (inferential comprehension), and DOK 3 (evaluative and analytical comprehension). The materials also describe how multi‑genre passages such as fiction, nonfiction, poetry, drama, and persuasive texts are incorporated to increase cognitive demand and broaden the range of reading tasks as students progress through adaptive levels. These descriptions show that the program includes assessment items intentionally designed to reflect varying levels of complexity.

The materials include instructional assessments with a variety of item types. For example, section 4 of the Implementation Guide, under “Understanding Your Dashboard and Using Data,” identifies the assessment formats used across practice activities, Snapshot Assessments, and Placement Assessments. The “Question Types” table in this section explains that the program includes multiple-choice single (MC1), multiple-choice multi-select (MCM), drop-down, short constructed-response (SCR), and hot text items. The materials describe how these item types appear across assessment opportunities to support varied student responses and measure different levels of comprehension, indicating that the program includes a range of item types within its instructional assessments.

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

The materials include instructional assessments that provide guidance in interpreting student data. For example, section 4 of the Implementation Guide, under “Understanding Your Dashboard and Using Data,” includes “Forming Small Groups Using Dashboard Data,” which explains how educators can interpret student performance on instructional assessments through a five‑step process that identifies clusters of students with similar skill gaps and groups them for targeted small‑group instruction. The materials specify that mastery data from Literacy Path should be used to identify students who are struggling and that instructional groups should be reviewed and adjusted monthly following each round of Snapshot Assessments.

The scoring information criterion is not applicable because the program uses a student-driven digital assessment system with automatic scoring. In the Implementation Guide, section 2, “Routine Student Experience at a Glance,” explains that “Literacy Path automatically scores activities, updates mastery data, and assigns subsequent activities based on student performance.” Because assessment items are scored digitally within the platform, educator scoring guides or manual scoring rubrics are not required for implementation

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

Guidance is included on using the supplemental program to address performance trends on assessments. The Implementation Guide explains how educators can use the Classroom Dashboard to interpret assessment results and identify grade-level standards requiring additional support. The dashboard organizes students by mastery status, such as needs support, developing, and on track/mastered, based on completed practice activities and assessments. It also provides reports on grade-level standards needing hands-on support, standards mastery, question-type performance, class assignment goals, and instructional-level distribution. The materials include a Mastery Status Decision Matrix and guidance for forming small groups using dashboard data, connecting mastery levels to recommended instructional actions and supporting educators in identifying shared skill gaps and targeting specific grade-level TEKS.

The materials further guide educators in using assessment data to adjust instruction. The Implementation Guide states that per-standard mastery data, WIL band progression, intervention alerts, and Snapshot Assessment results provide information for lesson planning, intervention decisions, and small-group instruction. Educators are directed to identify students needing support, group students by skill gaps, and adjust instruction based on mastery trends. The materials also describe a three-stage intervention system that addresses persistent low mastery through targeted practice, standard-specific instructional videos, and educator-directed small-group instruction with ready-to-use resources. In addition, adaptive differentiation features, including scaffolded hints, readability matching, and dashboard-based activity assignments, adjust instruction in response to student performance.

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

The materials include tracking tools for both educators and students to monitor progress and growth, as described in the Implementation Guide under “Dashboard Overview” and through the platform’s Dashboard and Assignments tabs. The program provides student-level mastery data, WIL progression history, and weekly pacing indicators, enabling educators and students to monitor progress toward instructional goals and mastery of standards. The dashboard views display mastery of standards, activity completion, and WIL band movement, providing educators with clear tools for tracking growth over time.

Tools are included that support ongoing progress monitoring, as explained in section 5, “The BRAVE Motivation and Engagement Framework,” and section 7, “Adaptive Scope and Sequence Rationale.” These sections describe student‑level mastery displays, BRAVE motivation reports, engagement trend indicators, and WIL band progression data that help students and educators observe growth patterns. The materials provide immediate feedback on student responses, opportunities for second attempts with hints, and standards‑based support videos after repeated errors, which help students track their own learning and monitor improvement. Students can also view their progress through the Dashboard tab, where they can see their scores, activity history, and growth within the program.

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

The materials include guidance for entry criteria on targeted remediation and acceleration. In section 3, “Getting Started: Two Onboarding Paths,” the Implementation Guide explains that educators can place students in the program by importing NWEA MAP data or administering a 15-question Placement Assessment. The technical specifications document includes the Placement Score-to-WIL Band and Percentile-to-WIL Band Placement tables, which connect assessment results to each student’s WIL. The materials explain that these measures establish baseline mastery of TEKS standards, determine instructional placement, and identify students who may require additional support.

The materials also include guidance for exit criteria based on student mastery and progress. In section 2, “The Adaptive Engine,” and section 7, which describes promotion within the adaptive scope and sequence, the materials explain that students progress through WIL bands as they demonstrate mastery of literacy standards and perform successfully on Snapshot Assessments. Progress monitoring, mastery data, and assessment performance determine readiness for advancement. Section 10 further explains that students who master most standards within their current WIL band and score strongly on Snapshot Assessments are promoted to the next WIL band. The intervention system also uses a three-stage process consisting of “Monitor, Video, and Hands-On Support.” The materials state that when student performance improves, the system returns students to monitoring status, indicating that they have exited targeted intervention support.

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

The materials for grade 5 include educator guidance and differentiated activities for students who have not yet reached proficiency in certain skills. This guidance appears in “Supporting All Learners” and “Built‑In Differentiation,” where a differentiation table outlines supports for students performing below, at, and above grade level. For example, the table explains that below‑grade‑level students are placed at an appropriate instructional level based on their WIL band. Additionally, the materials note that “standards are scaffolded from lower‑grade equivalents,” giving students access to prerequisite skills needed for success.

The materials include educator guidance and differentiated supports for students who have not yet reached grade‑level proficiency in certain skills, which is described in the Implementation Guide under “What Is the Intervention System?” and “Supports Aligned to IEP Goals and Specially Designed Instruction (SDI).” For example, the materials outline a three‑stage intervention system that increases targeted practice, provides standard‑specific instructional videos, and alerts educators when students need direct instructional support. Additionally, guidance in section 10, “FAQ,” explains how the intervention system monitors performance for each TEKS standard, supplies a skill‑building video when students continue to struggle, and notifies the educator when hands‑on support is required.

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

The materials include educator guidance and differentiated activities for students who have demonstrated proficiency in grade-level skills. Guidance in “Built-In Adaptive Differentiation,” “Adaptive Scope and Sequence Rationale,” and “Supporting All Learners” documents explain how the program advances proficient learners through higher WIL bands, providing access to more complex passages, challenging questions, and advanced content. The adaptive system skips standards already mastered (90 percent or greater) and focuses instruction on areas that still require support. Students who consistently demonstrate mastery may move into higher-grade-level content, with cross-grade advancement requiring a 90 percent mastery threshold.

The materials also describe a continued-promotion protocol for students who master content at their current level. According to “FAQ #5,” students who master most standards within a WIL band and perform strongly on Snapshot Assessments are promoted to the next WIL band, with mastery transferring at 75 percent to reflect increased rigor. Educators can further extend learning through higher-grade-level Deep Dive and Quick Boost activities. Students who reach the highest supported band (grade 5 EOY) continue to receive reinforcement and enrichment on remaining standards.

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

The materials include educator guidance on providing specially designed instruction (SDI) to students receiving supports and services through special education, as described in the Implementation Guide under “Supports Aligned to IEP Goals and Specially Designed Instruction (SDI).” The materials explain that individualized pacing, adaptive difficulty, and accessible content features help students make progress toward their IEP goals, and that read‑aloud and text‑to‑speech supports reduce barriers to accessing grade‑level content while maintaining appropriate challenge. The adaptive engine positions learners at their actual skill level and allows them to move through content at a self‑determined pace, supporting SDI requirements. Guidance in “Supporting All Learners” includes a “Supports Aligned to IEP Goals and Specially Designed Instruction (SDI) table,” which identifies SDI‑aligned needs such as individualized pacing, adaptive difficulty, accessible content, visual accessibility, and progress monitoring aligned to IEP goals. The table also outlines the corresponding Literacy Path features and instructional impacts, providing educators with clear guidance on how to meet the needs of students receiving special education services.

The materials include educator guidance for providing SDI for students receiving supports and services through special education, which is described in the Implementation Guide under “Supports Aligned to IEP Goals and Specially Designed Instruction (SDI)” and “Collaboration Between General and Special Education.” For example, the materials explain that individualized pacing, adaptive difficulty, accessible content, and read‑aloud and text‑to‑speech supports help students work toward their IEP goals while accessing instruction at an appropriate level of challenge. The unified data system supports SDI by giving general and special education educators a shared view of per‑standard mastery, enabling them to monitor progress toward targeted goals and identify areas requiring additional support. Guidance in section 6, “Supporting All Learners,” further outlines role‑specific responsibilities: General education educators manage students’ Literacy Path progression and use real‑time dashboard data to inform instruction, while special education educators track mastery toward IEP‑aligned goals and plan targeted interventions.

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

This guidance is not applicable to the program because the program is student driven. Modeling and explanation of skills is done by the program, not an educator.

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

This guidance is not applicable to the program because the program is student driven. Instructional delivery and facilitation is done by the program, not an educator.

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

The materials for grade 5 include guidance for educators on recommended instructional structures to support effective implementation, which is described in the Implementation Guide under “Roles and Responsibilities” and “Forming Small Groups Using Dashboard Data.” For example, the materials describe a five‑step process for forming and adjusting small groups based on student performance data, allowing educators to provide targeted instruction aligned to identified skill needs. Additionally, guidance in section 6, “Understanding Your Dashboard and Using Student Data,” explains how educators can use dashboard data to identify clusters of students who share similar skill gaps by sorting the class‑level standards mastery view by “needs support” and grouping students in sets of three to five based on need.

The materials include guidance for educators on recommended instructional structures to support effective implementation, with direction provided in the Implementation Guide under “Literacy Path in Your MTSS Framework,” “Integration Opportunities,” “Alignment to Core Instruction,” and “Integration Models.” For example, the materials outline how Literacy Path can be implemented within tier 1 and tier 2 instructional settings and describe multiple integration models aligned to the program’s intended use. Additionally, the materials position Literacy Path alongside core instruction and explain how adaptive differentiation, emergent bilingual (EB) supports, and special education accommodations can be incorporated to meet the needs of diverse learners.

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

The materials include educator guidance on providing linguistic accommodations for various levels of language proficiency, as defined by the ELPS, which are designed to engage students in using increasingly more academic language. For example, guidance in section 6, “Supporting All Learners,” under “Supporting Emergent Bilingual Students,” provides resource documents aligned with the TEKS and the ELPS that outline linguistic accommodations for beginning, intermediate, advanced, and advanced high proficiency levels.

Additionally, the Platform Features by ELPS Levels table describes how educators can scaffold instruction at each proficiency level, such as pre‑teaching vocabulary for beginning learners, providing cognates and sentence frames for intermediate learners, and creating structured opportunities for extended academic discussion for advanced and advanced high learners.

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

The materials include implementation guidance to support educators in effectively using them in state‑approved bilingual and ESL programs, provided in section 6, “Using Literacy Path Across Bilingual Education and ESL Program Models.” For example, the materials offer specific implementation recommendations for dual language immersion (DLI), transitional bilingual education, and ESL program models.

The guidance describes how educators can use Literacy Path within each model, including language‑allocation considerations, use of Spanish and English literacy pathways, and alignment to the TEKS for ELAR and SLAR to support bilingual and ESL instruction. The materials also include scaffolded hints that provide EB students with context‑specific support after an incorrect response, reducing language demand while maintaining the learning opportunity.

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

This guidance is not applicable because the program is not designed for dual language immersion (DLI) programs.

Evaluation for 5.1a
Materials include explicit (direct) instruction on specific vocabulary using multiple strategies for teaching word meaning (e.g., student-friendly definitions, synonyms and antonyms, examples and non-examples, categorization and classification, images).

In grade 5, the Literacy Path materials provide structured opportunities for students to learn specific vocabulary through multiple strategies that support word meaning development. Student‑facing Word Maps introduce target vocabulary using a picture, a student‑friendly description, examples, and nonexamples. As students progress, the Word Maps expand to include formal definitions and student‑generated definitions in a space called “In My Own Words,” providing multiple representations of vocabulary. These supports align to strategies such as student‑friendly definitions, examples and nonexamples, and visual representations. For example, the Resource Library includes the “Word Maps: Getting Started” routine, which teaches vocabulary by having students work with one word, one picture, and two examples. This routine provides explicit instruction using at least two strategies for teaching word meaning.

The materials build in explicit, direct instruction on vocabulary using three or more strategies for teaching word meaning. The “Learning and Practicing Vocabulary” guide introduces vocabulary through student‑friendly definitions, synonyms and antonyms, examples and non-examples, categorization and classification activities, and visual representations. This is illustrated through the guide’s outline of five vocabulary strategies that include the strategy name, research rationale, step‑by‑step implementation notes, grade‑band guidance, and a classroom example. The “TEKS & ELPS Alignment” section further identifies the vocabulary strategies included in the guide and shows how they align to state standards.

Evaluation for 5.1b
Specific vocabulary selected for explicit (direct) instruction includes high-utility tier 2 and tier 3 academic vocabulary.

In grade 5, the Literacy Path materials provide structured opportunities for students to learn high‑utility tier 2 academic vocabulary through explicit routines and multiple strategies that support word‑meaning development. The “Fun, Cross-Content Vocabulary Strategies” guide identifies tier 2 words that appear frequently in grade-level texts and classroom tasks. For example, the guide includes instruction with academic terms such as equivalent, compare, describe, explain, analyze, and evidence. These words represent broad academic concepts that strengthen students’ ability to interpret texts, participate in discussions, and express ideas with clarity. The guide also provides educator-facing routines that model how to introduce tier 2 vocabulary through student-friendly definitions, examples and non-examples, guided practice, and opportunities for students to apply the terms during reading, writing, and collaborative learning.

The Literacy Path materials embed focused instruction on discipline‑specific vocabulary that supports students in learning key science and social studies concepts. The “Fun, Cross Content Vocabulary Strategies” guide identifies tier 3 words that carry precise, content-based meaning essential for understanding academic concepts. For instance, the materials demonstrate this by including instruction with technical terms such as organism, community, habitat, erosion, evaporation, and environment. These words represent specialized vocabulary that helps students build accurate scientific and environmental understanding. The guide further demonstrates how educators introduce tier 3 vocabulary through concrete examples, visual supports, real-world connections, and structured opportunities for students to use the terms during content-based investigations, hands-on activities, and academic discussions.

Evaluation for 5.1c
Materials include repeated opportunities for students to practice using specific vocabulary in multiple contexts.

Within the grade 5 Literacy Path program, students engage in consistent vocabulary practice across multiple routines that reinforce word meaning in varied contexts. The “Read Around It” routine appears consistently in the Literacy Path Resource Library under “Learning Activities” and is used across multiple practice passages. The routine typically begins in the warmup, where students preview tier 2 academic vocabulary they will encounter in the passage. During guided practice, students apply the strategy while reading short informational or literary texts that embed tier 3 content‑specific terms. In independent practice, students revisit the same vocabulary through comprehension questions that require them to use within‑sentence and beyond‑sentence clues to determine meaning. Lessons at this grade level commonly include tier 2 words such as observe, compare, describe, explain, and identify, alongside tier 3 science and social studies terms such as habitat, organism, erosion, evaporation, and landform. Because the routine appears across multiple passages throughout the year, students receive repeated opportunities to practice using specific vocabulary in varied contexts.

The materials embed structured practice that allows students to apply targeted vocabulary across varied reading and writing experiences. The “Deep Dive: Use New Words” routine provides students with chances to apply vocabulary in authentic writing by selecting a word from a shared word bank and incorporating it into a brief personal narrative. For instance, partners analyze each other’s writing to determine the meaning of the selected word using contextual evidence, giving students practice with vocabulary in a new communicative setting. Students also encounter targeted vocabulary across multiple genres, such as drama, informational text, folktales, and persuasive text. Through repeated exposure in varied reading and writing experiences, students deepen their understanding of how academic vocabulary functions across contexts and strengthen their ability to interpret and apply academic language during reading.

Evaluation for 5.2a
Materials include explicit (direct) instruction on using morphemic analysis to determine word meaning in alignment with grade-level TEKS as appropriate for the program's stated purpose.

The grade 5 Literacy Path materials incorporate systematic instruction on affixes and roots through Deep Dive lessons designed to strengthen students’ ability to determine word meaning using morphemic reasoning. Specifically, “Crack the Code: Affixes” introduces grade‑level affixes trans‑, super‑, ‑ive, and ‑logy through a gradual‑release model that includes explicit teaching, educator modeling, guided practice, and independent application. For example, students learn a four‑step analysis process: Identify the affix, determine its meaning, identify the base word, and combine the meanings to interpret unfamiliar vocabulary. Furthermore, explicit think‑alouds using words such as transparent, meteorology, and supersede demonstrate how affix knowledge supports word analysis. As instruction progresses, “Crack the Code: Roots” extends this work by teaching Greek roots such as geo (earth) and photo (light). Educators model root analysis using words like geothermal and telephoto, showing students how root meanings combine with additional word parts to determine definitions.

The materials integrate direct instruction on structural word analysis through resources housed within the Teacher Dashboard. Specifically, the “Teaching Morphemic Analysis” guide sequences instruction through a structured four‑part instructional routine that moves from explicit explanation of affix meaning into educator modeling, guided practice, and independent application. For instance, students learn how high‑frequency prefixes such as un‑, re‑, and pre‑, and suffixes like ‑ful, ‑less, and ‑ness modify familiar base words to create new meanings. Additionally, the resource provides actionable lesson plans and reference charts outlining affix meanings, examples, and language origins, supporting educators in demonstrating how morphemes contribute to word meaning.

Evaluation for 5.2b
Materials include opportunities for students to practice using morphemic analysis to determine word meaning in alignment with grade-level TEKS as appropriate for the program's stated purpose.

The grade 5 Literacy Path materials integrate repeated opportunities for students to apply morphemic analysis through structured practice in the Deep Dive lesson “Crack the Code: Affixes.” Specifically, students use a four‑step analysis routine: identify the affix, determine its meaning, identify the base word, and combine the meanings to infer unfamiliar vocabulary. For example, guided practice activities require students to analyze words such as superior, psychology, descriptive, and constructive, demonstrating how affixes like super‑, ‑logy, ‑ive, and trans‑ contribute to meaning. Additionally, the lesson includes reference charts that list affix meanings, examples, and language origins, supporting students as they verify their predictions using structural clues rather than memorized definitions.

The materials incorporate structured practice with Greek roots through the Deep Dive lesson “Crack the Code: Roots,” providing students with repeated opportunities to determine the meanings of unfamiliar words using root knowledge. For instance, students analyze the roots geo (earth) and photo (light) and apply them during guided practice to interpret words such as geology, photosynthesis, geode, photogenic, geopolitics, and photoelectric. Furthermore, the lesson requires students to identify the root, recognize additional meaningful word parts, and combine those elements to construct accurate definitions. As students move through the routine, they use root meanings to generate and verify word meanings independently, demonstrating how morphological reasoning supports vocabulary acquisition across science, social studies, and literacy contexts.

Evaluation for 5.2c
Materials include explicit (direct) instruction on using contextual analysis to determine word meaning in alignment with grade-level TEKS as appropriate for the program's stated purpose.

The grade 5 materials provide explicit instruction and repeated opportunities for students to use context clues within and beyond a sentence to determine the relevant meaning of unfamiliar and multiple‑meaning words. Specifically, the Deep Dive lesson “Context Detective” teaches a structured two‑move framework in which students first analyze clues within the sentence and then use information from the surrounding passage to confirm, refine, or narrow the meaning. For example, students examine grade‑level passages and evaluate multiple possible meanings for words such as charge, current, or volume, using textual evidence to determine which meaning fits the context. Additionally, educators model how to eliminate alternative meanings by demonstrating why certain definitions do not align with the surrounding text.

The Literacy Path materials provide additional opportunities for students to use context clues and surrounding text to determine the meanings of unfamiliar words through the “Context Clue Detectives” routine. For instance, educators model how to use clues within a sentence and clues across surrounding sentences to infer meaning, demonstrating how multiple hints work together to support an interpretation. Examples from guided practice include identifying clue words, explaining inferred meanings, and discussing evidence that supports the conclusion for terms such as reluctant, structure, or precaution. Furthermore, students use a structured recording sheet to isolate the target word, document contextual hints, and generate a meaning prediction before verifying it with a dictionary entry.

Evaluation for 5.2d
Materials include opportunities for students to practice using contextual analysis to determine word meaning in alignment with grade-level TEKS as appropriate for the program's stated purpose.

The grade 5 materials provide opportunities for students to practice using contextual analysis to determine word meaning in alignment with the grade-level TEKS as appropriate for the program’s stated purpose. For example, in the paired passages “The Class Election” and “Should Voting Be Required?,” students encounter unfamiliar vocabulary embedded in authentic literary and informational texts and use surrounding sentences, paragraph details, and text evidence to determine word meanings. For instance, students analyze the word forced in the informational passage and use contextual clues from the surrounding text to infer its intended meaning.

The Literacy Path materials provide additional opportunities for students to practice contextual analysis through the “Context Detective” lesson. Students determine the meanings of unfamiliar and multiple-meaning words by analyzing clues within a sentence and confirming or refining meaning using evidence from the surrounding passage. Students evaluate possible definitions, select the meaning that best fits the context, cite textual evidence to support their reasoning, and explain why alternative meanings do not fit, reinforcing contextual analysis across a variety of reading selections.

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

The grade 5 materials provide opportunities for students to read grade-level, complex texts throughout the Literacy Path program. The Resource Library includes texts identified by beginning-, middle-, and end-of-year difficulty levels, word count, and aligned TEKS, allowing students to engage with increasingly complex reading as they progress through the program. Students read texts with sophisticated vocabulary, varied sentence structures, and increasingly complex ideas while applying grade-level comprehension skills across authentic reading experiences.

The materials provide opportunities for students to engage with high-quality texts through explicit instructional lessons that require close reading and text analysis. In the Deep Dive lesson “Explain the Argument,” students read a grade-level argumentative text while analyzing claims, evidence, counterarguments, rebuttals, and conclusions. Students evaluate how evidence supports the author’s claim, analyze the organization of the argument, and justify their thinking using textual evidence. In the Deep Dive lesson “It’s a Play,” students read a dramatic text and analyze acts, scenes, dialogue, character tags, and stage directions to explain how dramatic structure contributes to meaning.

The materials include a variety of literary and informational text types that support the program’s stated purpose. The Literacy Path Resource Library contains 13 short stories, six poems, and nine dramas, as well as 12 expository texts, eight argumentative texts, and three narrative nonfiction selections. These texts provide opportunities for students to engage with multiple genres while applying comprehension skills across literary and informational reading, exposing students to a range of text structures, purposes, and content areas aligned with grade 5 TEKS.

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

The grade 5 Literacy Path materials feature a progression of texts that increase in linguistic, structural, and cognitive demand across the instructional year. The digital program organizes texts by grade level, word count, and difficulty level, allowing students to engage with increasingly complex passages over time. Early selections provide more accessible vocabulary and literal comprehension demands, while later texts introduce more abstract concepts, academic vocabulary, and higher knowledge demands. For example, early paired texts such as “Lily’s Secret Door” and “Sea Turtle Journey” use concrete language and straightforward informational structures, while later informational texts such as “Goods and Services in Our Town” require students to interpret discipline-specific vocabulary and synthesize ideas across informational features. This progression supports students in moving from foundational comprehension to more complex analytical reading.

Materials include a variety of high-quality texts at different levels of complexity across literary, informational, and argumentative genres. The adaptive framework increases complexity as students demonstrate proficiency, with texts labeled by difficulty level and instructional timing. For example, “The Lemonade Stand on Maple Street” reflects an early-level text with beginning-of-year expectations, while grade 5 selections such as “Why Every American Should Know the Founding Documents” and “Fighting for Texas” require students to engage with more complex civic and historical content, varied sentence structures, and academic vocabulary. Additionally, Deep Dive lessons such as “Explain the Argument” and “It’s a Play” provide exposure to increasingly complex argumentative and literary texts, where students analyze claims, evidence, dramatic structure, and author’s craft. Across these experiences, students interact with texts that vary in complexity, structure, and purpose, supporting the development of grade-level comprehension skills.

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

The grade 5 materials feature texts that thoughtfully represent diverse experiences and perspectives in ways that are relevant and engaging for students. The drama “The New Student” presents a realistic classroom situation focused on welcoming a new classmate and navigating relationships, collaboration, and belonging. Through authentic dialogue and character interactions, the text explores themes of empathy, inclusion, and community while respectfully representing disability as one aspect of a student’s identity rather than the defining characteristic. Additionally, students analyze how characters respond to one another, examine how empathy influences relationships, and evaluate how inclusive actions contribute to a positive classroom community. TEKS‑aligned questions require students to identify themes of inclusion and respect, analyze character relationships, and support their interpretations with textual evidence.

The materials also provide texts that authentically reflect students’ diverse backgrounds and experiences by addressing issues connected to school life and classroom communities. For instance, the argumentative text “Should Schools Allow Pets in the Classroom?” invites students to consider multiple perspectives related to responsibility, teamwork, classroom culture, and student well‑being. Rather than presenting a single viewpoint, the text includes claims, counterclaims, and supporting evidence that require students to evaluate differing positions before forming their own conclusions. Furthermore, students analyze how authors use evidence to support arguments, compare competing viewpoints, and determine which position is most effectively supported. TEKS‑aligned questions ask students to evaluate the author’s purpose, analyze evidence, and justify their responses using textual support.

Evaluation for 8.2a
Materials activate or supply background knowledge.

The grade 5 Literacy Path materials provide explicit instruction that activates, applies, and revises background knowledge as part of comprehension. To begin, the Deep Dive lesson “Predict and Check” activates prior knowledge by prompting discussion about volcanoes before reading. Students identify what they already know, record shared ideas, and use that knowledge to make predictions based on text features, genre characteristics, and text structure. As students read, they compare predictions with information from the text and determine whether each prediction was confirmed, corrected, or adjusted. The lesson emphasizes that revising one’s thinking is an essential part of comprehension. Students support each decision with textual evidence and reflect on how new information changes their understanding. Through educator modeling, guided practice, collaborative discussion, and independent application, students learn to integrate prior knowledge with textual evidence while refining their mental model of the text.

The materials also build and apply background knowledge through authentic informational texts focused on significant historical and civic concepts. For instance, “Why Every American Should Know the Founding Documents” develops foundational knowledge of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the functions of government before requiring deeper comprehension. As students progress, they expand understanding of civic principles while connecting new historical information to prior knowledge about citizenship, government, and democratic ideals. TEKS‑aligned questions require students to integrate previously learned concepts with new information, analyze the author’s message, and support responses with textual evidence.

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

The Literacy Path materials provide explicit guidance for pre-teaching unfamiliar vocabulary prior to students engaging with texts to support comprehension and language development. The “Vocabulary Instruction: Do’s and Don’ts” guide emphasizes selecting high-utility tier 2 vocabulary and introducing it before reading through student-friendly explanations, real-world connections, and interactive experiences. Educators are guided to ensure students have prior exposure to key words before encountering them in texts, with additional support through oral language practice, discussion, sentence frames, and home-language connections for EB students

The materials also include structured routines in the “Learning and Practicing Vocabulary” guide that support intentional pre-teaching of unfamiliar words before reading. These routines include student-friendly definitions, synonyms and antonyms, examples and nonexamples, categorization and classification, and visual representations. Each routine includes educator modeling, step-by-step implementation, and classroom examples aligned to the TEKS and ELPS. These strategies are used to introduce and clarify vocabulary prior to text exposure, ensuring students encounter unfamiliar words with foundational understanding that supports comprehension during reading.

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

The grade 5 materials provide explicit instruction that equips students with a transferable strategy for determining the meaning of unfamiliar and multiple‑meaning words while reading increasingly complex literary and informational texts. Specifically, the Deep Dive lesson “Context Detective” teaches a two‑move contextual analysis routine in which students first examine clues within the sentence and then verify or refine meaning using evidence from surrounding sentences and the broader passage. Educators model metacognitive reasoning through scripted think‑alouds that demonstrate how to eliminate inaccurate meanings, justify vocabulary decisions using sentence‑level evidence, and explain why alternate meanings do not fit the context. During guided practice, students analyze multiple‑meaning words, cite the sentence numbers that support their interpretations, and reflect on how contextual analysis strengthened their understanding

The Literacy Path materials provide explicit instruction in contextual analysis through the structured routine “Context Clue Detectives.” In this lesson, educators model how to determine the meaning of unfamiliar vocabulary by analyzing clues within the sentence and surrounding sentences before confirming an inferred meaning. Scripted think‑alouds demonstrate how textual evidence supports vocabulary decisions and reinforce that students should rely on context rather than prior knowledge or isolated definitions. Students then apply the strategy using authentic sample texts, identifying contextual clues, recording evidence on a “Context Clue” strategy worksheet, and explaining inferred meanings using surrounding textual evidence. Sample passages featuring words such as trek, monotone, and impassable provide repeated opportunities for students to independently apply contextual analysis while strengthening vocabulary acquisition and comprehension. The implementation guidance encourages students to identify multiple clues, reread surrounding sentences when needed, and justify their reasoning during partner discussions.

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

The grade 5 Literacy Path materials integrate contextual analysis into students’ work with grade‑level literary texts. To begin, in “The Stage for Earth Day–Part A,” students determine the meaning of unfamiliar words and phrases by analyzing surrounding sentence clues and contextual evidence within the passage. As students read, they use contextual reasoning as part of developing a deeper understanding of the text and its literary elements rather than completing isolated vocabulary tasks. Vocabulary application is integrated directly into comprehension activities that require students to interpret meaning, analyze poetic structure, and support their thinking with textual evidence. Students examine surrounding details, infer the meaning of unfamiliar language, and explain how contextual clues contribute to their understanding of the poem.

The materials further extend opportunities for students to practice contextual analysis while reading complex informational and argumentative texts. For example, in “Should Recess Be Longer in Schools?,” students determine the meanings of unfamiliar words and academic language by analyzing surrounding sentences, text features, and supporting details within the passage. As students evaluate the author’s claim, supporting evidence, and differing viewpoints, they apply contextual reasoning to interpret academic vocabulary in meaningful contexts rather than through isolated word study. Vocabulary practice is embedded within comprehension tasks that require students to infer meanings using textual evidence, connect vocabulary to the author’s message, and integrate word understanding into broader comprehension of the informational text.

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

The grade 5 Literacy Path materials include systematic and explicit instruction in reading comprehension through recurring Deep Dive lessons that follow consistent instructional routines and gradual release. In the Deep Dive lesson “It’s a Play,” educators explicitly model how readers analyze dramatic structure, including acts, scenes, character tags, dialogue, and stage directions, to understand how meaning is constructed in drama. Students are taught to explain the purpose of each structural element and how it contributes to comprehension of the text. Through educator think-alouds and guided questioning, students move from identifying structural features to analyzing how drama differs from prose, including how stage directions replace narration. Students then independently cite textual evidence to explain how structural elements support meaning, compare dramatic and prose structures, and evaluate how each feature shapes understanding of the scene.

The materials provide explicit instruction in strategic comprehension through modeled thinking, guided practice, and independent application in additional Deep Dive lessons. In “Predict and Check,” educators explicitly model how proficient readers generate predictions using text features, genre, and structure, then revise those predictions as new evidence emerges during reading. Students apply a structured process to create predictions, confirm or revise them, and justify their thinking using textual evidence. In “Language That Paints Pictures,” educators explicitly model how authors use imagery, literal language, similes, and onomatopoeia to create meaning, and students explain the purpose of each language choice using evidence from the text. Across these lessons, students engage in literal comprehension through identifying text details, inferential comprehension through analyzing meaning and revising predictions, and evaluative comprehension through defending interpretations and evaluating structural and authorial choices. These systematic routines support students in applying comprehension skills across grade-level texts with increasing independence.

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

The grade 5 Literacy Path materials provide students with opportunities to demonstrate comprehension across literal, inferential, and evaluative levels through metacognitive reading routines embedded in Deep Dive lessons. In the “Question Quest” lesson, students generate understanding questions and information questions before, during, and after reading an informational passage, then determine whether the text answers those questions using explicit textual evidence. Students engage in literal comprehension when identifying directly stated information, inferential comprehension when revising or refining questions based on new understanding, and evaluative thinking when determining which questions remain unanswered and require further investigation. Through educator modeling, guided practice, collaborative discussion, and independent application, students monitor their comprehension, analyze how their thinking evolves during reading, and justify responses using evidence from the text.

The materials also provide opportunities for students to practice reading comprehension skills across a variety of grade-level texts through structured comprehension monitoring and reflection tasks. In the “Check Yourself” Deep Dive lesson, students read a complex informational text and apply fix-up strategies when comprehension breaks down. Students identify confusion points, select appropriate strategies such as rereading, asking questions, or using background knowledge, and evaluate how those strategies improve understanding. As students apply these strategies, they move from literal understanding of text details to inferential reasoning and evaluative reflection on the effectiveness of their comprehension processes. Across both lessons, students engage with informational texts such as “Water Under Pressure” and “The Pressure of Deep Water,” requiring them to analyze scientific content, monitor understanding, and explain their thinking using textual evidence. These experiences provide repeated, structured opportunities for students to apply comprehension skills at multiple levels across grade-level texts.