of this pageof this pageOPEN COURT READING (SRA/McGraw, 2000) |
McGRAW-HILL READING (McGraw, 2001) |
COLLECTIONS (Harcourt, 2000) |
SCOTT FORESMAN READING (Addison, 2000) |
SCHOLASTIC LITERACY PLACE (Scholastic, 2000) |
SING, SPELL, READ & WRITE (International Learning, 1998) |
SAXON PHONICS (Saxon, 1996) |
JOURNEYS (SRA/ |
|
| decodability1 | 97% | 89% | 85% | 81% | 84% | 99% | 99% | 100% |
| comprehensiveness2 | 100% plus 29 additional sound-spellings |
83% plus 9 additional sound-spellings |
86% plus 6 additional sound-spellings |
87% plus 7 additional sound-spellings |
81% plus 5 additional sound-spellings |
100% plus 22 additional sound-spellings |
100% plus 24 additional sound-spellings |
80% plus 5 additional sound-spellings |
| intensiveness3 | 100% | 43% | 37% | 44% | 56% | 67% | 36% | 26% |
| consistency4 | A- | B | B- | C | D | A | A | A |
| total overall ranking | Best | Better | Better | Fair | Fair | Excellent | Good | Fair |
| Conformingº | Non-conformingº | |||||||
1 DECODABILITY: For each series we added phonetically regular words, all of whose sounds have been taught, plus phonetically irregular words that have been taught, and divided by the total number of words, in 20-30 randomly selected stories in Grade 1.
2 COMPREHENSIVENESS: We identified 70 basic sound-spellings often taught in Grade 1, and counted how many of these each program covers. Our documentation of these percentages also lists any additional sound-spellings each series teaches in Grade 1.
3 INTENSIVENESS: We counted how often students practice (i.e., see, hear, say, and write) three sample sound-spellings in their introductory lessons, and also compared randomly selected blending lessons. This number compares each series with Open Court.
4
CONSISTENCY: We checked the decodability of word-attack practice strategies/activities, i.e., their use only of those
sound-spellings that have been taught and no others. In this category, "A" is best and "D" is worst, and refers to each Grade 1 program as a whole.
º Conforming / Nonconforming are Texas' terms for whether these series meet all state standards, many of which have nothing to do with how good phonics programs they are.
On our summary comparison chart of Grade 1 Reading programs as approved for 2000 Texas adoption, Saxon Phonics scored 36% in "Intensiveness" compared to Open Court's 100%. Open Court was our standard here because it had the most student practice (ie., seeing, hearing, saying, and writing) in three randomly chosen introductory sound-spelling lessons, and also in randomly selected blending lessons.
Our chart tries to define the best standard review criteria for ranking those eight very different series along one spectrum. We knew the "intensiveness" percentage by itself did not credit Saxon's "rolling review" feature for all its additional student practice on successive days throughout the program. To offset this we added the "consistency" category, which shows that in its totality Saxon does a fine job teaching sound-spellings.
We organized our chart for the Texas adoption. Its "conforming" and "nonconforming" sections refer to Texas' (not our) decision on whether or not these programs meet all state standards, most of which have nothing to do with phonics. In our ratings, "better" is worse than "good." We judge many textbooks "better" than others, but we still would not call them "good," and that is the case on this chart.
⇓ For full documentation, contact: ⇓
