Review seeks to evaluate alignment to research He also noted that the company works with district leaders on implementation and training plans. “While we recognize the SAP concerns over the amount of material in California Wonders ©2017, it is also true that the wealth of additional activities, texts, and choices provide an effective way to meet a wider range of students’ instructional needs,” Reed wrote. In an email, Tyler Reed, the senior director of communications for McGraw Hill, wrote that Wonders-and other basals-'include many resources by design.” The programs are meant to be comprehensive and address all state standards. “The ‘make-your-own-adventure-because-one-cannot-possibly-teach-all-that-is-offered’ design of Wonders left reviewers skeptical that crucial aspects of reading acquisition would get the time and attention required to enable all students to become secure in their reading ability.” “Teachers could easily shortchange research-based elements,” the report reads. Reviewers found many positives: foundational skills components, lots of English-language learner support, complex texts, and some evidence of knowledge building.īut the reviewers also said the program was “overwhelming” and bulky, “a significant issue that dilutes its many strengths.” There’s more content than teachers could reasonably get through, they wrote, allowing for teacher choice in designing units-but the reviewers cautioned that this design puts a lot of onus on teachers. It’s one of the top 10 most popular reading programs, according to a recent Education Week Research Center survey : 15 percent of early reading teachers surveyed used Wonders in their classrooms.īecause Student Achievement Partners conducted its review before they could access the 2020 version of Wonders, the group evaluated the 2017 California edition. The curriculum in question is Wonders, a basal reading program published by McGraw Hill.

Mcgraw hill english language learners