Forty first-grade classes were divided into four treatment groups to determine the effectiveness of three reading methods with low ability students. Treatment A subjects used the regular basal program. Treatment B subjects used the same basal program, with the low subgroup receiving additional instruction from remedial reading teachers. Treatment C low subgroups used Houghton Mifflin readiness materials and tradebooks, while the rest of the class used the basal program. Treatment D low subgroups received additional remedial instruction as well as regular classroom instruction with the Houghton Mifflin readiness materials and tradebooks. At the end of the 140-day experimental period, the Stanford Achievement Test, Primary 1, Form X, and the San Diego Attitude Inventory were administered to all subjects. Additional testing was done with a random sample. Fifty-three tables present and compare the data, and eight tables summarize the trends. It was tentatively concluded that use of the Houghton Mifflin materials plus tradebooks instead of basal readers was more effective than either a regular basal program or remedial teacher time spent with the low subgroups. However, the combination of the special materials with remedial teacher time appeared to be more effective than either by itself. (CM)