It can't hurt, Jeffrey, as another resource. One has to remember that scale degrees are still the predominant nomenclature in secondary and collegiate music theory, and that solfege/Kodaly are "specialties" consigned to voice majors in college, or kids (and their teachers) in fortunate elementary music programs.
I find the "i" interesting as Mrs. Ward's higher octave assignation, I've never seen that. But it was immediately obvious.
In a way it's akin to shape note cognition. Whatever floats the boat.

PS, re-read your concerns from the POV of printing. Nah, pdf's reproduced for specific use in any classroom work fine.
I think that all four of those learning modalities I first mentioned-scale degrees, solfege, Kodaly signs, even shape-notes (which I don't use) should be integrated in good measure into early theory education.

Thank you.

Because adults with limited musical background intuitively grasp the numerical scale, there is much to be said for using that approach. With a schola I coach made up of such individuals (none could read music when they joined), I always preface their introduction to a particular proper with the Ward excercise in the mode of that proper. (See Appendix III of Marier's 'Gregorian Chant Practicum' for those exercises.) After they have mastered the exercise, I then have the group sing the proper melody using numbers. They immediately see relationships with the modal exercise. Within a very short period of time they've got a command of the proper melody.

As has been stated in this forum before, the Ward method is at the heart of the educational foundation at the Boston Archdiocesan Choir School. By their second year (sixth grade), these kids can sight read almost anything. Don't be afraid to try it with adults. It works.

As I understand the Ward method, though, when you see "1" you say "Do."

Had a chance to download this, and I must say - it's totally rad not only as a tool for teaching solfege but as an excellent primer of core hymnody and ordinary chants. I will probably add one of these to my choral warm-ups each week. Although I favor using solfege syllables (from notation or Curwen hand signs), different people learn differently. The more we can say the same thing in different ways, the better to reinforce concepts we are trying to teach.

So much can be done with these, apart from their obvious pedagogical applications for beginning readers. Try singing them forwards and then backwards. Try taking having choir members take dictation for a phrase or a whole hymn, using the score as an answer key. Try taking a melody like "Adoro te" and singing it as a mensuration canon (i.e. with one section singing quarter notes, and another singing the same melody in half notes, or dotted half notes!). Try singing in two different keys at once. A fourth apart will sound like medieval organum, but what about a minor third? a major second? What about inversion? 1 becomes i, 2 becomes 7, 3 becomes 6 and so on. Then sing both parts at once! All of these techniques would probably be less daunting reading from this notation, which is free from the association of absolute pitch (which might be a challenge using traditional five-line notation).

Of course, no reason one has to use the Ward "method" to use this Ward resource. I do tend to avoid numbers myself, since they are also used for counting beats and rhythmic groups. Some people get confused between pitch and rhythm.

I would like to reiterate-
Age appropriate use of each of these "systems" all have their benefits, and as students' cognitive skills improve, the comprehension (which marks the value of the system's pedogogy) of each will coalesce. Basically, using any of them is far superior to what passes for normative classroom pedagogy, even in secondary choral classes: listening, repeating by rote.
For illustration I'll take Mia's example above:
Our PK,K and 1's are beginning to read, A-Z.
What they already have in head is number/digit recognition. Guaranteed.
At that level, not those of the graded Von Trapp brood, is it always and absolutely necessary to infuse another system with another vocabulary? Perhaps yes, perhaps no.
If you take the example of "Adoro te," the teacher works simply to associate known numbers to assigned pitches. There is no concern with those numbers as "rhythm units" and it necessarily ignores letter/text recognition. If the system works on both ends successfully, students will be able to demonstrate recognition of intervallic relationships, such as scale wise movements versus interval leaps. They should be able to cognitively recognize and vocally demonstrate patterned phrasing and groupings as they encounter new song examples. These associations are the proof of the pudding. As they grade up, then successive systems can correlate and compliment what they've accomplished at the primary levels.
But those kids who make it to their collegiate freshman theory classes (as music maj/min's) who will recognize G-F1 as a m7 will do better initially if they weren't restricted to a vocabulary diet of "do-te" (G=do.)

Well, I've taken this too far....somewhat like "I can help, stewardess, I speak jive."

Solfege is not universal. The French still use "ut" and "si" ("ti" is unheard of), and whats more they represent absolute pitch (so-called "fixed" do). If we're talking about chant and polyphony, however, this is contrary to Guidonian theory that was the standard throughout the Medieval period and much of the Renaissance. Germans have their own system, and the American shape note tradition their own. Solesmes did much to standardize solfege, at least as it relates to chant. I'm still baffled when reading music history texts (an article by Mahrt in "Companion to Medieval and Renaissance Music" [I think], for instance) in which pitches of chants are referred to as d,e,f,g etc. Now, I understand the concept of an F-ut or a D-do (if we must, rather than just ut or do), but when you start talking about a g-F or a c-G I get totally lost!