Posted: July 25th, 2024

education

education topics

How to Evaluate a Reading Program

Author(s): Sidney J. Rauch

Source: The Reading Teacher , Dec., 1970, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Dec., 1970), pp. 244-250

Published by: International Literacy Association and Wiley

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20196483

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

Terms and Conditions of Use

Wiley and International Literacy Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Reading Teacher

This content downloaded from
��131.95.109.31 on Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:18:54 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

https://www.jstor.org/stable/20196483

Sidney Rauch is a Professor of Reading and Education at
Hofstra University, Hempstead, Long Island, New York.

How to evaluate a reading program
SIDNEY J. RAUCH

the purpose of evaluation is to take a comprehensive, unbiased
and cooperative look at the reading program and to decide what
modifications or changes, if any, should be made to improve the
program. Evaluation involves value judgments. It is not a care
fully controlled research study. Recommendations for improvement
of the program must consider not only what should be done, but
what can be done. Hemphill (1969) places evaluation studies
within the framework of decision making rather than research. The
administrator, after taking all facts from the evaluation study into
consideration, then must weigh their relationship to its effect
upon the community, staff, and tax structure. Hemphill (1969)
lists six characteristics of school evaluations:

1. The problem is almost completely determined by the situation
in which the study is conducted. Many people may be involved
in its definition and, because of its complexity, the problem
initially is difficult to define.

2. Precise hypotheses usually cannot be generated; rather, the task
becomes one of testing generalizations from a variety of
research studies, some of which are basically contradictory.
There are many gaps which, in the absence of verified knowl
edge, must be filled by reliance on judgment and experience.

3. Value judgments are made explicit in the selection and the
definition of the problem as well as in the development and
implementation of the procedures of the study.

4. The study is unique to a situation and seldom can be replicated,
even approximately.

5. The data to be collected are heavily influenced if not deter
mined by feasibility. Choices, when possible, reflect value judg
ments of decision makers or of those who set policy. There are
often large differences between data for which the collection is
feasible and data which are of most value to the decision mak
ers.

6. Only superficial control of a multitude of variables important to
interpretation of results is possible. Randomization to eliminate
the systematic effects of these variables is extremely difficult
or impractical to accomplish.

Four major steps are necessary in the evaluation of school
244

This content downloaded from
��131.95.109.31 on Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:18:54 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

rauch: How to evaluate a reading program 245

reading programs. These are clarification of the roles of the evalu
ator, collection of data, analysis of data, and reporting of data.
“A Checklist for the Evaluation of Reading Programs,” (Rauch,
1968) is used as an overall guide. The five major categories cov
ered in this checklist are the reading program, the administrative
and supervisory staff, the teaching staff, the pupils, and the
parents.

CLARIFICATION OF THE ROLES OF THE EVALUATORS

Since value judgments are involved, it is recommended that
the evaluation be conducted by a team of two to four reading
specialists from different parts of the country so that the various
backgrounds and points of view can be brought to the program.
This type of representative team is preferable to the selection of
a number of specialists from a single university or college whose
philosophy or viewpoints may be too similar.

It is strongly recommended that the team meet with admin
istrators and teacher representatives prior to the actual evaluation
to explain the purposes and procedures, and to answer any ques
tions. It is most important that the anxieties of teachers (partic
ularly as to classroom observations) be allayed. The evaluation
concentrates on the reading program; it is not an evaluation of
individual teachers. No names or ratings of teachers are to appear
in the final report. The purpose of the evaluation is a constructive
one, i.e., to make recommendations for improvement. It is not a
criticism of individual teachers, though strengths and weaknesses
of reading techniques will be listed. If the evaluation is to be
successful, it must have the confidence and cooperation of all
concerned. Any team approaching the program with the intent to
downgrade it or pick it apart is doomed to failure. Thus, the first
and probably the most important step for the evaluation team is
to gain the confidence and support of the teachers. This can only
be done by clarifying all objectives and procedures before the
evaluation actually begins.

COLLECTION OF DATA

Despite the various criticisms directed at standardized tests,
test scores still remain an important part of reading evaluation.
Robinson and Rauch (1965) describe the merits of standardized
tests as follows:

Like other tools of teaching, standardized tests can be appraised in
terms of both their form and their results. In their form?that is,
their structure and operation?these tests have very important ad
vantages: 1] their content is usually determined by careful design;
2] there are often parallel forms for comparison; 3] they permit

This content downloaded from
��131.95.109.31 on Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:18:54 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

246 THE READING TEACHER Volume 24, No. 3 December 1970

many children to be treated simultaneously; and 4] they are ob
jective in administering and scoring. In many schools, standard
ized tests are the first step in identifying those students who are
below grade level and who are in need of further diagnosis. They
are particularly useful in measuring the wide range of reading
levels in a class, school or school system. They also provide stand
ards for comparing students on a nationwide basis. Standardized
tests make a valuable contribution to modern education by dem
onstrating rather clearly that children differ. They provide stand
ards for making improvements in school programs in the areas of
curriculum, school and classroom organization, and methods and
materials of instruction.

A summary of cautions to be exercised in the use of stand
ardized tests has been listed by Harmer (1967):

1. Test users should keep in mind that the test score is simply the
result of performance on a particular day, at a particular time,
and in a particular testing environment.

2. The diagnosis of reading achievement through the use of stand
ardized tests may be fallacious unless carelessness and atti
tudes toward taking tests on the part of the students are
controlled.

3. The grade score on a standardized reading achievement test
should not be thought of as precise indication of overall reading
achievement; rather, it should be thought of as a measure of
reading ability on that test at a particular point in time.

4. Teachers should keep in mind that grade scores on standard
ized tests are derived by interpolating scores between grade
levels or by extrapolating scores from one grade level to an
other; thus, grade scores cannot be treated as empirically ob
tained indications of month-to-month progress.

If these cautions are observed, and if schools begin develop
ing their own local norms as the tests are used over a period of
time, then the advantages of standardized tests will far outweigh
their limitations. This point is reinforced by the American Psy
chological Association in its Standards for Educational and Psycho
logical Tests and Manuals: “Local norms are more important for

many uses of tests than are published norms.”
In addition to the evaluation of the results of standardized

reading tests, the results of individual and group IQ tests must be
taken into consideration. Reading is primarily a mental process,
and reading test results must be evaluated in terms of intellectual
potential or capacity. For example, a different interpretation must
be applied to the performance of two sixth grade classes whose
median reading score places them both in the 60th percentile on a
statewide basis, but one class has a median IQ score of 106 and the
other a median IQ score of 118. Obviously, the latter group is not
performing up to potential and the reasons for this discrepancy
must be examined.

This content downloaded from
��131.95.109.31 on Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:18:54 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

rauch: How to evaluate a reading program 247

Observation of teachers is the heart of reading evaluation. To
evaluate, without observing teacher performance and pupil behav
ior, is like reviewing a book without reading it. A representative
daily schedule of the evaluator follows:

9:00 A.M.? 9:30 A.M. Observation of a first grade teacher.
9:30 A.M.?10:00 A.M. Conference with teacher following ob

servation. (Class is covered with by
another teacher, administrator or
substitute. )

10:00 A.M.?10:30 A.M. Observation of a third grade teacher.
10:30 A.M.?11:00 A.M. Conference with teacher following ob

servation.
11:00 A.M.?12 NOON Conference with one or two of the

following : administrator, reading
specialist, librarian, school psycholo
gist, school nurse, social worker, etc.,
(anyone connected with reading pro
gram).

1:00 P.M.? 1:30 P.M. Observation of a sixth grade teacher.
1:30 P.M.? 2:00 P.M. Conference with teacher following ob

servation.
2:00 P.M.? 3:00 P.M. Evaluators confer, comparing notes

on observations and results of indi
vidual conferences.

During the conference period following classroom observa
tion, the topics covered should include: information about the
class (e.g., reading range, potential, socio-economic background,
interests), teacher’s background and experience, her philosophy
about reading instruction, and opinion about materials. It has
been found most helpful to save the last five to ten minutes for
the teacher’s response to this type of question: “Assuming that
budget problems were secondary, what recommendations would
you make to improve the reading program in this school?”

Interviews with administrative personnel give them an op
portunity to express their opinions about the reading program to
the evaluator. In addition, each administrator is requested to sub

mit a brief statement in response to these three questions: 1]
What are the strengths of the program? 2] What are the weak
nesses of the program? and 3] What recommendations would you
make to improve the program?

The author has used five opinion surveys as part of his eval
uation of elementary reading programs. These are:

An Opinion Survey of Parents of Kindergarten Children,
An Opinion Survey of Parents of Children, Grades 1-6,
An Opinion Survey of Kindergarten Teachers,

This content downloaded from
��131.95.109.31 on Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:18:54 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

248 THE READING TEACHER Volume 24, No. 3 December 1970

An Opinion Survey of Teachers, Grades 1-6, and Grade Level
Observation Form (to be used by reading personnel).

The survey for teachers is included as an example.

An Opinion Survey of Teachers (Grades 1-6)
Needs To

Strong Be Unable
Program in General Component Good Fair Improved To Answer
Basal Reading Program – -:? – – _
Word Recognition – – – – _
Comprehension – – – – –
Critical Reading – -~ – – –
Literature Program – – – – –
Individualized Reading – – – – –
Content Area Reading – – – – –
Work and Study Habits – — – –
Supplementary Materials ?- – – – –

Meeting Needs of Children
Meeting Individual Needs – – – – –
Superior Reader – – – – –
Average Reader – – – – –
Disadvantaged Reader – – – – –
Remedial Reader- – –
Present Organizational Pattern – – – – –
Diagnostic Services – – – – –
Corrective Reading Program – – – – –
Summer School Program – – – – –
Supplementary Programs – – – – –

Helps to Classroom Teachers
Administration – – – – –
Consultants – – – – –
In-Service Courses – – – – –
School Meetings and Workshops – – – – –
Materials – – – – –

Atmosphere Conducive to Learning
Freedom to Develop Own Program – – – – –
Development of Children’s Love

of Reading – – – – –
Competent Reading Leadership – – – – –
Parent-Teacher Relationship – – – – –

It is important that all teachers be urged to complete their
“Opinion Surveys” and turn them in to the evaluators. Names are
not required. One reading program was harshly criticized by some
members of the school board because only thirty-two out of sixty
teachers had submitted their forms. The board’s reaction, and
rightly so, was “How can we have confidence in these teachers if
they are not concerned enough to fill out a form which will help
us in our evaluation?”

In summarizing the results of the parent opinion survey,
make sure that two or more parents are involved in tabulation.
Unless this is done, it is always possible that some parent (who
is not too happy with the program) will question the accuracy of
the findings.

This content downloaded from
��131.95.109.31 on Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:18:54 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

rauch: How to evaluate a reading program 249

ANALYSIS OF DATA

It was previously noted that one hour at the end of each eval
uation day (2:00 P.M.?3:00 P.M.) should be set aside for the
evaluators to compare notes and opinions. These sessions also
enable the evaluators to gather and classify data for the final
report.

Each evaluator prepares his own individual report based on
interviews, classroom observations, and analysis of opinion sur
veys. The measurement specialist on the evaluation team is re
sponsible for the analysis of standardized test scores. The director
of the study analyzes the reports of each member of the evaluation
team and prepares the final report.

In evaluating classroom performance, the following “Char
acteristics of a Good Reading Lesson” are used as a guide:
1. Teacher has a definite goal or purpose for lesson and that

purpose is evident to students.
2. Lesson is planned, systematic, yet flexible according to dy

namics of classroom situation.
3. Classroom atmosphere is a pleasant, attractive and optimistic

one.

4. Attention is paid to individual differences.
5. Rapport between teachers and students is evident.
6. Teacher is diagnosing as she is teaching.
7. There is readiness for the lesson.
8. Pupils are motivated.
9. Materials are varied (basais, library books, workbooks, kits,

mimeographed materials, etc.).
10. Full use is made of audio-visual aids.
11. Questions are varied to check different levels of compre

hension.
12. Material is at appropriate level for students.
13. Teacher is obviously aware of such levels as “instructional,”

“independent,” and “frustration.”
14. Meaningful oral reading activities are used to check compre

hension.
15. Pupils have been trained in self-direction (i.e., go from one

activity to another without disturbing teacher).
16. All children are productively involved with some aspect of

reading.
17. Use is made of classroom and school libraries.
18. There is application of basic reading skills to content areas.
19. Efficient record keeping is done by teacher and students.
20. Teacher has sense of perspective and humor.
21. There is evidence of review and relationship to previously

learned material.
22. There are follow-up or enrichment activities.

This content downloaded from
��131.95.109.31 on Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:18:54 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

250 THE READING TEACHER Volume 24, No. 3 December 1970

REPORTING OF DATA

Both an oral and written report of the findings of the evalu
ation team are presented to the administrators’ council, teacher
representatives, and the school board. The school board, if it
wishes, can then hold an open meeting for all parents and ques
tions can be asked of the evaluators. Copies of the written report
should be made available to all teachers. Three or four copies can
be placed in the teachers’ professional library or in a special sec
tion of the school library.

A representative “Table of

Contents

” of the final written
evaluation might follow this format:

A. Introduction (How the study was initiated)
B. Description of the School-Community
C. Characteristics of a Good Reading Program
D. Evaluation Procedures (How the study was conducted)
E. Strengths of the Program
F. Weaknesses of the Program
G. Recommendations (The heart of the report)
H. Analysis of standardized test scores
I. Results of Opinion Surveys (Appendix)

SUMMARY STATEMENT

There is a need for constant evaluation of reading programs.
However, all concerned must participate. Teachers must have
confidence in the evaluators, and the evaluators must recognize
the many day-by-day problems faced by the average teacher. De
spite the importance of standardized test results, the heart of the
evaluation is classroom performance. Recommendations must be
realistic. They must consider not only what should be done, but
what can be done within a specific school-community environment.

In most instances, evaluation has a positive effect on the read
ing program. It compels administrators and teachers to take a
closer look at their methods, their materials, and their children?
and this close examination generally results in progress.

REFERENCES
Harmer, W. R. The selection and use of survey reading achievement tests. In

T. C. Barrett (Ed.) The evaluation of children’s reading achievement. Perspectives
in Reading, 1967, 8, 53-64.

Hemphill, J. K. The relationships between research and evaluation studies. In
R. W. Tyler (Ed.) Educational evaluation: new roles, new means. The Sixty-eighth
Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II, 1969, 189-220.

Rauch, S. J. A checklist for the evaluation of reading programs. The Reading
Teacher, 1968, 21, 519-522.

Robinson, H. A., and Rauch, S. J. Guiding the reading program. Chicago:
Science Research Associates, 1965.

This content downloaded from
��131.95.109.31 on Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:18:54 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

Issue Table of Contents

The Reading Teacher, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Dec., 1970), pp. 193-288

Front Matter

Right to Learn [pp. 194, 243]

The Future of Reading for Partially Seeing Children [pp. 195-202, 220]

Guidelines for Planning Special Reading Facilities [pp. 203-208]

Must It Always Be “The Three Little Pigs?” [pp. 209-215]

Informal Reading Procedures: Some Motivational Considerations [pp. 216-220]

Linguistics Applied to the Elementary Classroom [pp. 221-226, 256]

Improving Children’s Ability to Follow Directions [pp. 227-231, 238]

Self-Concept Development in the Reading Program [pp. 232-238]

Take the Child Where? [pp. 239-243]

How to Evaluate a Reading Program [pp. 244-250]

Accept the Negative, Accentuate the Positive [pp. 251-256]

Learning to Read in the Classroom [pp. 257-260, 275]

Listening, Decoding, Comprehension, and Reading [pp. 261-266]

Research [pp. 267, 271, 283]

Interesting Books

Review: untitled [p. 269-269]

Review: untitled [p. 271-271]

Literature for Children [pp. 273, 275]

In Other Magazines [pp. 277, 279]

The Clip Sheet [pp. 281, 283]

Eric/Crier [pp. 285, 287]

Back Matter

The Evaluation and Selection of Basal Readers

Author(s): Roger Farr, Michael A. Tulley and Deborah Powell

Source: The Elementary School Journal , Jan., 1987, Vol. 87, No. 3, Special Issue: The
Basal Reader in American Reading Instruction (Jan., 1987), pp. 266-281

Published by: The University of Chicago Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/1001176

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.com/stable/1001176?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

Terms and Conditions of Use

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Elementary School Journal

This content downloaded from
��131.95.109.31 on Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:17:56 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

http://www.jstor.com/stable/1001176

http://www.jstor.com/stable/1001176?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

The Evaluation and

Selection of Basal
Readers

Roger Farr
Indiana University, Bloomington

Michael A. Tulley
Indiana University, Kokomo

Deborah Powell
University of Northern Colorado

The Elementary School journal
Volume 87, Number 3
o 1987 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.
001 3-5984/87/8703-0003$0 1.00

Abstract

Basal readers dominate reading instruction in
most classrooms across the country. In fact,
considering the central role of basal readers in
the classroom, the selection of a basal reader
represents the selection of a reading curricu-
lum in most American schools. And, because
textbook companies publish what school dis-
tricts and states choose to buy, textbook selec-
tion directly influences the quality of basal
readers. Operating properly, textbook selec-
tion should contribute to the improvement of
reading instruction. However, major weak-
nesses are evident in the process of basal reader
selection by states and school districts: Deci-
sions on basal reader selection are often based

on peripheral or insignificant criteria; members
of selection committees frequently are handi-
capped by lack of time, training, and direction;
selection decisions often do not reflect philo-
sophies about the teaching of reading; publish-
ers and influential committee members often

wield disproportionate power to influence de-
cisions; and, statewide selection, conducted in
22 states, yields few benefits to justify the ad-
ditional investment of money and time. For basal
reader selection to operate as it should, major
changes are needed in assumptions regarding
the adoption process, selection of reviewers, es-
tablishment of criteria, and in procedures for
evaluating materials.

This article describes what we know about

reading-textbook evaluation and selection
and, based on this information, sets forth
several recommendations for improving
that process. We believe that an improved
textbook adoption process-that is, one
that is more reliable and valid-may lead
to the selection of better basal readers and

ultimately to better reading instruction.
There are two basic facts regarding

basal readers that relate to their evaluation

and selection. Perhaps the most important

This content downloaded from
��131.95.109.31 on Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:17:56 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

. ,::.,.:: ‘I ? 1- 1- .;..?- ‘ ? . . .. ……… …. …. ? ?- ?i’:’?.= .’? …. . . :;. .. I . .::;:. ? I I – ..’.’..’ ,..111 ..1 . …… ….. I -‘,:??sn;::- :.’. . .:’- ::%?. ???::? .. ?:?: : : ? m h v ? ? …. : – . . . , .. ……. ?:? ? y . ????! ::::i: I -.? I ??? t!::::::::?? …. ….. .z man THANIRYM ‘? .-.: ?-.’??.’..A jf SHE ….. ..?t ? …?
……… 1? . , ?: ,:.1 ‘… i ??’ ?: ????’ ?: f:::??..,.,.!:??:.::???:????????::?????.?.?:?: ?:? ; ???

?!?.’..’: ?????.”., .?:?:::?:??:?!?::.?.?,’.:.. .,.:”., -:?:….?.. … q:.: :?:s’: v … I. ….. … … !:.?. .. :?’:! ,??:? .. . ” IF TV ! WN

.?? ‘..’ . ?. ? I ,- ,- ? ::?:.! ??.::

?r ?::-?,?I’:-R ?’..i’?.. -…? .t ?.’ W h o , ?.’.? :..::::: …… j ?.:::: . ‘… . . …. … ?.’..’. :?n..?.i:..?: ” :”:. . ls??a. … ‘ ‘ “‘?%]’i,?”:s. – ?i’ ? 1.9 ..:i.: !?ses: i:i?i?: ?:?.’ ‘ ffi’.’-“,”?Uzi?i::: . ‘ .:.i: , :.::z? i::,:i ?? 1, W . ? ?; a ? . , ..

P’t:?i-q’iii?’?’m C -: :.. .”:i?,’?.”iji-?Ixr I ? . ?.’ ? , : ‘. ., y v.. 1: -, ??,. “‘.’?
? . . . .,…e.,. . . ?- , – ,

:??Nl??111?..!..vle.’. ?i?: ??.-i–.’Fls I -,’. ? ?? i, ?:? ? i!:! ..li..$ .?l??!!?i!? ?:: ” ?? ? ? ? I
– I ? ? 0 ??’:: I .
.: .. v:1.j W . I I ? ? I ?i??.. ?… ? M e” T’:? ..’ I ? ? I ? – I .

i?: ‘ .v ,- sllil? ::.. -?????????…? ,,?-?il 1!.”.!’.?::? .??. ……
Ii? ? ::. …. . … , ‘,? …:?-.tl:?’..??:. I ? I ?’.’.’ :::?– ? ??a s& .: I ? ? ? ? I ? :

……….. ‘s? … . . ..?? 1. I .? .. ….. .:?i . SM& -.vl: M . 11: 1
. . ?.?:.:?..: – .. . ??:’:. . .. ?-.?…i…U n : ? ? I ? ‘: ?? ., , I
.1 ‘..?:..??:? t??:”;?:??;’i”fc ,? I I 1, I ” . :!?I?:. ? 😕 .i: ….. … …. . . ?i?..”:.?:…?..::. …..?:’ok .:,.: … I ….. . yq v q l f”? :?? ? ?::? J?:? ? ,”g . ‘?’. . I 10 : a ., . il?.. – I .:?……….%.- – ….. ;?. I I – ..’:??- -?.- ?’ . ?’.?..; f ? …… I I – ‘.

I I %:- … ? ‘. * .-V N “Y . A . t??.:’: ?i ,.. …. :.:::. % .. i . .. . .’… .. .i2..?…. . . : …. I … . .,

.i? -.. ” – m m ” …..`x . ???:. ..: . … .. ei?.. ……… . . . . ?. . .i?ry … . ? ? .’ ?::! ?’ -. . I ? . n?-.?.;;…- – :— : .. . , … ?:n- ,”s. ?’.” ., ? I . . ….. 2 .:::
….:..:.: ‘i .??::?.:::.,… :1 1 . …. ..’ … . .. ?::.:ms:..:? . . . 7 ?? ::?!:?!?:.!o ??::?:i:j ?:??:i…:::: :- ‘ . . .. .. ??::: ‘..il- . . . ? . . – – ‘.- nC’.’..’ …. ??..: ?’? “‘ :.z ,::: :R:.. -.! .:.::.., , ??-?? ‘? I I ‘ : -1?? ” .1 ?’;!’i’. … .. ;?? ‘??!?.’? :: .!::?!?:.??.: , ?? iiiiiii , : :

, – – .. .. ,-;??; .. ….ig!”!’… i;??;??.. I
,- . ‘-‘ ‘,-,??;?.. – …. … . … ?% ‘. z o l ??. . – ??:??v???. !!.: 1 – – ‘….. ‘. %. , – – , ‘.. – … ? … …. …. , ?.. .? .. ?:?:::: f ? .: – – …. .: :::.. `?.??r?: ….. .:?. ? I `..!siii? ..:: . : … I V

.i? % :%:..S ,…… … ? . ? – ? .A ..’ , – – I I I ,9 1 – I I

I ……… , 1 i …. .. I .?.:??. :i. :
.. 111′?:: 161 j p …… I,.::. . ? I ?zz- ..:.,:..::! .? I ?
:; :::

: I ? . I ? ? ?
: :??::??????..?!???????????i???????????? 1 ? , ” I . ?:::…. . ? ??? ……… 1 ‘i’.’.-.P .:z :::- ? -e : …. ? i? 1

.?P?? “” I 11

I I . – ? ? I , i

. I I
? ?”,??i ………. ?v:??. ??M … . , : ? : .. . ;;;;; .. .

ii?.n?: ? I ….. ??::::::: 66 ?!? . ‘!.? ? -?? ? ,.i
1 1 ? ……… 11 . . :. :
I ? I .. . ?:.’-
I ‘ I , ? .

. . ? – . ?:O .f’ I I ? ? :’-, . …!. .
….. ….. I ? I ? ? I . . ….. ::. : ?,

? ? I : : : .

? , . , .:i? I ? I I i.’f:??:?!??:?.?. ‘ – ?;.?? … … I .? I ? I I I ? ? ? . . ? I , , 1 .i::: ? I ? ? ? ;….’?.,.:i:?. “. – ?’ `.’? ..: I I I I . :-.? ….. I ..’..: . ….. .. .. ?-.5`i’?”‘-..?.aE ‘. . . … . “.. ……..- . 1 :.:::’?.!.z!:.. .: ?:?. ‘ ?. ‘? ..i? .. ‘i’ – i:.:.s . z I.: i ‘:..’ ?.?.?.. . …:. . 7: I I I – ..:?: , .. …… : n.??!’.;:?p’?’;,? – .’. – ‘ 1?
I I ? I ‘ f .? I .. … . ??n’r:. i.% ?. ? ?:?k. – ?i…-‘.??. .?:??..??..???’..?:..?”..,.,,?? ‘? ..

. . ” :::?i: s , ? . . . . . . .. . ……..’…… …. . . …

:- .-..:?i; …. 1.1?;?!i . … . … . … . ‘…’ ….. … . L
:’O .:% :.?’.? … ?” ‘ . .. . . ? . . . . ..

R– – . . … …. .. . …… . …’– – … …..
I ? :?? ‘. , ?` .’ ! . ?: ?:i-, ……… ? …… . . . . . . . . .. . . X.. !. I ?- .’.’ :,.???.,;!.%,…!?….!,…,,….’…- . ………. …. …. . ‘. . …… … ,: .:? ‘. . . .. .’.. ..’ .. , .’.. .. ?…? ‘..i-. …. – …. ………. ? .. . .. . ,,, ?. !’..”…’…?jjj’… . . . . .. ? . …. . : …. ? ?’ zk ?!?? …. % . … . ?. .. ‘,. . .. ‘.

I – ? . & s . .. . . .. ..’ . . ..
VW K Y .. ! : ? ? …. . . . . .’.. . ,.. . ,?’- V:’ – .. .

….. .. . V . . . . .. .. … – . . . …? …..

.. . .. ..
.. … . …….. .? . . ….. .. .. .. . . . . . . . 1-

.%?J I 11 .. i.. ?:? 😕 ?i .. . . . … . … ..’ . .. n. . ? … … … . . v p q = q ?::X: . . . . . . . … :: . . . . . .. ? – , ‘. ., .. .. ?’ ?. : . ??:? . . . .. . . . . ‘.?…’. , . . . . … . .. , . . . .. .. ‘.? ? : p: ;..;., ::j ‘.i!!!. 4, ‘ . … …. … . … . …….. . ? . ……… ?! !? . . . .. . , . ..’. e.. .. … ….. .. .. …. ? . …… .. Z. . , … . .

: . . . . .. ….:…;. ? . . . . , ? … ….. ? – e … .. ..

… . ..! ,..-;.. .?? ? . . . , , , . . . … .. … . … . ?: ? … . . . . . . …. . . . . . . . .. . . . ….. % … – … .. ::?: ?
. . . . . . .

‘ ‘ …. . .. .. .% ..? .. . . . .. . .. . ……… – ….. . ..

0 9 1 11 .?. ?::: , ” , , . . ………….. .. ……… . .. 1..?:? ? .:..’.:’.k’, n .. ., . .. . . . . … .. . . … . . . . : ?:::??:::: f l ? .. .: .`!::: ?.??I.’. -?;? I . . . … . . . . . ,’.”,’??’ .”P A U 4 1 ly , ‘ ” :’ , . ::: .:::::: -, ?.. ,.? …..

…. … ., . – …….’…. ..’.1.- … ,..: …

…….. ‘ ? ‘ a?- .:. . . .. . …1.1 ?. R R 1 …. – . . . – .?. ” .E 1 E f A . .. -‘:.? … !:?:?..::!?’Z.,?.!?. ?:.:?’?::: , . — % . Q ., I , in ? . ,’ ? sy ,” I “N.E.- . ….. …… ? i-‘- …’ … 1 -i??.:?: .. . ? ? x5fol”, ?:!? %”F’. – gtitv4 1 W T H ., ?:::???.. . ;;:k – ir?-‘.?.’.:!?;A , sii’:ii :?. , ‘ ? ‘:Iiiii I . ? . :?? I , W.1 ……. …. . .?’; … .?!::!?:??::.!:?N : ‘.. T’. . . . : . – . ?r’?::!– ‘. % Z … . ‘. . . . . ft i?. . : ::?’ % A t ?”‘- j y m W l . ? . 7 . , , :?r : ‘.’ ..’
=?i”‘= f ? ?: ‘ :.. .. ‘A : %% : . %.?:?? ? …. :. ” ?i’6 .

:.. .. . M n ?..’ I ,.? ….. % . . … : ” % ‘ ? ” ?: sk I ” ? .. … ? ‘ ? ni – ? ? : ‘ ?E . ?11.? .
. …………. I , -‘–??.f lij ….. , . . .. ….. . . …. . :: iz. .’ I .”? ? , -1 -1 %-?”. . . . A ? ‘A , . . ., . . : ” .

-” lip 😕 ?? : .’. — . ? 11 ??? : ‘ ‘ ?- … . ” ??.:?.? .-?:-f .. . . ?.?? … – – -‘: ‘. .??-‘ ?.- . . ?: ? .:??.::: “‘???? ,, ??: 114 V -11 X. – ….. iii, .. ::.,, ‘f ?: :’i’ : ?.,.%’ ‘ .. . ? ‘?? . ?F . . . . .1 ??”‘-? ?f:’.’: ” ” ?? … %i ::`-“‘? : : i: … ‘. – ? – 7::.?.%.?- :. n :: … .?. 😕 ?::” ..?.%?..? … . … -‘- . – %… ., ? ?: : , . .. -0 :: 😕 : :: .? 1 ? . … wt??: ::’ ‘ . . . . . ? 4 1 1 “E S ..’ …:,.
….. …… !.. . . :: .. . ….. ., .

. ? : ‘. 1 …… M ON.~. -‘ . . ?-:-: . ??? .M . W ‘–..’. :
..” – i: ?’ ? .’ ? ? . :?::: .::.: : . . . . . . . . . . . . . f … 1. -‘. :. ? ,.;? , … :?.:.: . ?? . . . % . S ????? ? .? :::::: ;:? i.E??. – .. . ‘?f.?n?* 😕 . ::?..:::.’.-.. % ,”. … , — ‘? ?’: ?-.? ?… ?:’? -”

%’: i-?i?? ? . . . . . . M R-M .. ! – ‘- ,M . .:: ::.:.::?.V sr.: D?”‘.? .. -V ? : . :; i .?? ?? ? .. . :.. ‘? i- ?? ‘?’..’ ?i? : , — .’,??.? 0 1 .’?? …: ? . ‘. T W 😕 ‘,’.. ? ?n? , . – -.-:. ?- .. ..’ – – – , F1 Q = -. – :?? %-;??i’ , ? ; … ……… ..
…VA IM S g I “k……”..?”r,- . -111, – -l-‘r ON A?? ? ? “, % ?. ? :?!: :.: :?R”!Iff ?A? . ?,’;;..’ . I.. -!?? A . . – – – Iv- ‘ ? ,. * i n ! . -? ?-,, … ??:; . . -.;? ::-. ?’.-r ,-,: 4 – .

.. . ?. ‘ ?’i4r’?..??:i?”‘.’ :.? . . 1 ” -?%::?::%! f of . ..? 1 1 – – .- F A 2 .. ?.: ?. . — – . . ..’ .? : :. . 11 ?iE .– I…… ? …. :::? …. ?…. , ? . – . “… ? M. X– – – – . .-.= . I : – ? g .f?’:?’rr :??.t’- .? … : ?.- . I . . . . :::::: . ‘ -? ? …’ ….- – … , .. … n:;?%.T ‘:!s?i ‘:!:…. : PAN “?N?’?”‘ ?:? F?’.-: :. : ?: : ?, v’.: “… ?.. ‘:? ‘ 10 H . 1 .:. .. I F I a. As ? : . .. . ? i??. , ,.I .? -‘:;?
%. …. ,X. ? …. .. , – .. V : % ? ?: . . . ‘J A ?’ “‘? . . – 😕 ::: ?* . . nz: ‘? i?:i.%’??.i:l?:_ ?%.-x . – . . . ?

a .:. ? . :e.Z . ??’?: :e,:…7. ..

– ? k I . . . :.. .. 0C ?; ? “.’;j??::….- ” ‘ ,I- ,.::… .. . %?n?_” ?”?`i%’:! 0 0 Q ,
. …? ?:: – . X . ?’ .. :: . ……. .. …: … ?.’ .. ??.”.-“?: . ? ‘p r . …… , , ‘ ‘?:::: ??%” ?? ???::??:??:.:.. ?:lt??%%,.,.:,???:::???::..?:??. ?- . A A I W s , % ::P. .. . . ! ? . “?j ? ?, ? ,X, ?’ ;’. , ?? ?. ? … n..r%:.?::?. ? . . . . . . ‘, “n I ?,”.”-“.??.i : ?. .:. .:: ..?: … : . …! 1 . ‘. , ‘,? . —

N X .. —M – %- . M=,v— …2. ?– It ? :?,-…x ..:%.. n? ? 0 — F- W.g. ‘ %%%%%… W ARM ” . , -I ??.. il . ? 4. , I – ‘: z:.::.’cft %? .. ..: % i: : % ^ R&
.:?:.! .. … …. :- .,

– : … :..?-. :- .. ;.M ? ?:’: .- . ‘. .. “, . ? i;.

…..:?..: . . , . ‘.’ % : i., – ….. :: … :.. ? ? ?.:?..?? … :: ::::??:.?::. ?” ? , ..,. : . 1A ‘ .?:? – 4. j w ?!Z .. – . .. .::..: ?.. .- -5 . . . ?..? ? …?:. . ? ? 1?r I.. .. .?’ .?’.?? i. … ? R . ..::: . ?? ! ? ? ‘?.?? : : s??s?”‘ … – -i?:::.’, ? …. 1:1 – , – . – .: ,’,. :;. ?: ? – , . …? . W – . : v 0 M GM . o t . ,?? !?i . I Q yj ?: % :?? . -;.,..% N ” “.- … I … -…..- 1 r M -g : M s . . I – 4 10 1: ?i:’:’ i ‘x ”!;ti’? ? .. . V – – . – . … ?.. T:1 . .? ,?’- :…. :.. … 1 ;
?:?? ? , I 10 – – – ‘ A P , . ….6 .. .. I …?;: 4′:’. i ?”–!-‘:?: ‘ ‘ – — K : y W …. . .. :0 : – %.”.’ .: L i???.::: . .? ??:?i ,:::?: …. ?4!1n’?. . k?.?::’?:. -‘t. .. :: % U – …Iq A s ? ‘? .! . . . . , I ? . : ‘ .* .- %. …- , i:,:: : : … .. ” I – % . … F?. .. ,? ?. I 1 11 i: .. … . – Y ?n . . I ‘: I ? 1 ?7n sly n :”.. . ‘% I . I , , ? ?.. ? .. …. . . %. , z. . : ?? 1 .?- . … -?L:W ‘ . .. .: .?. W ?- l . I ? i:: . y W? X..% .. .. W – – . ?, T v ? ?.’ ? 😕 x …, ….. .?……… .sn I ? “F 1. . ?. ow – – ?: … . . . . . ‘? A== 1- .. Us 11 .. I MV.,.! . ?
4 :,:.:?.. ‘. ….. . I .. , :v : ? :…..? … – – I :- I , .. ..::.- , ..:::..% ? ‘..’.:., ? i:10 1 :11 . .. g a Q ,.I.If. , S NEF . ,.;;”, … …. ; “?:T. ‘ ‘ ? t ? :,-%-ni?. ?: i, , .: 44 X: – j , ,. . . 1. -::: 111 0 ?4 ….. .. – – – …… . …’..? — ? … ? 1. I AW . .. ……. . I n.. . ‘ 1 iii: -a ..? . – %
. ‘1 11.1…’ – : . – . . . I 0 .?? ‘-K7.;’.i’.’??”: …. ‘:???:??-. ‘? ..” I ‘:.?: ‘ ? . ., ” I . -!;?? ? . ….. . . . . . ?F: . 1 AM 549 ‘ ….V. . . . ?11%;;:”U:??:…’.”.?: : . . – . … … ? ….. .. -;i ? . 11 . ‘?. . -T. , . – – –

..!! ….. … – …..?:::r- .:’ : – ?:.:?ii:??: ?’ .,.,. . …….. .. 0″ W , ‘i;?… 1:.. . ?:?–:-‘? ….. . – :. I .::. I , ? …… , ? ..?.:.-, ? ‘1 ‘?w i n – ..: U?.’.?if.. I . -‘. . …… I … ‘ : ? – ; ”
. . . … . 0 ,I i -, i’. .? ? ??- , – ?: , . ❓ ‘?,. .. , ??-. ,… .. ;? : , I – . . ::%. – ,1.1?4?.Y ??’%’:?n?::: – I ?- .. … .. . . ,1 :. I … — i – 😕 i . :: – :?..

.. … I. . .. ‘-‘. ? ? ? ??’ i .. 11.1.
: . .. I ‘. ‘ ‘ : ?: . – . ?.’I . .% . . .?.’?’?? – .::.. ? ‘:.?? . 0. ? ?. ‘R??. ‘.?’, ft , . . . . .::”‘? ” ?.-‘.’.’., : … . : ;.. ::… X f : … . … . ?A – .Z?t??..??.-?%’:: 9 1 A .: .. ?f.?. ?”!;’.%::?Z.?.:..? – .1 ‘….’:’:…. . . – ‘. : ??.. …? ., . .], .i . ‘K – . . . . . .: &-:?’.. :: . .. : : “‘ 1-ivW -‘.n?.n.’ . . – . :. ?: … “….’ ….. ?’ … …… . … I 7….. .. . . : ….. .. ? … … – : ‘,: ?’ 11 1 ‘; . . . ….’….. : ‘;n? …. :?… .. .- . . ?….: .. , . : , ?. –

. . ….. . ?- ??’:.?- – .? . 7′ li.%:.:? -1 :?I- . ? -.::?.-?. ..X-..” ….. ” .. 1. n.

:??’ .?. ..: la .. ? . 😕 . % ….1 ? . .; ??-. ‘)E?. – . :?? . %?f !?%’Ak …….. ‘1..- ..– ?;?. :?:?!?! , . . – , I A ? ??.. – -… -‘.. 😕 1 😕 ? M , ? . ..z ? : M ?:?.A .. : ..i;i?… .’? ….’ ‘ `z ?’? % …. .. . — – – ‘I- ? .. ” . , ‘?’ .;, . ? ?:: .:.:,.?;? …. . . .??.- .. . ann I .. . . . “-
? ? I . eis?. ? ? 7f , ?”-? r?;”. .,?” – .- – r?. , ..’ I …- ? T. I I A W W ” J ‘?!’!. ‘?’ ? ? .??:? ..::: %:? . v …. , ,%-!

. . – ?…: i.: … : f .;?; in ho y l M ?.:- ‘ . :::.!:: 1!1??::::?%’??’??’.- %…”….? ‘. . .0 . . 5- :1 , I I .?. .;;;…?? P? ” ? ..! :%::.,.:. …’?.’?. ‘ -? … .. …: :-:..’..?::;r?.’
… .. .. .. … … S .. ? – -1 K ? – % % … t o , 1 , p s …… ? ‘ , . . .. ? … .. ,.,v – ….. . ….. ,”.5 ??..?!?.- ‘ .. i s f.’ ” :. :. …. /. .&?T K, ? : 1. .?’ :. I . …… … … .. .. -. .::…………….’-111.1. – ‘. .. ? ::’ ‘ . .: “:. A . – .J . . 1, .-? -An n .. ilk -‘-” ” ?? ” !:?. ‘:?is?::n. !?!.’ ‘?;: ..’A :?’ . . “.1 . ..: ..?? . . .c – : : = . . . – . ‘…:…? … .ff ?. s. ?2?%’- . ? im n -..n.? . . . . . – … -W A – A . 1. – . …… 1. -. ?W . .!:? ?..’ , . % I ….. ?-…”……. …. ? “:: . ::j . I !?. I ? ‘- . ir . – -;- ‘. ? %”?

: : – ?

… q . ? :.. ? ,:: ….’ : ?:..? ?? : ,; ….. .. . %, %’: ?.: , ….. . , ?? – ?i: , ….:. ; j!i: .- . % =”??’L? , :: z 0 -., “?, A 1 ?’ – 4.. .- – . ? , ” – – ….. . . .:ii ?, E ..? :4 ….. . .. … ::. ‘? -on a M? ‘
.1.1.1 . . . . . ? ‘..’ . ? I . . . : . 1: ..

?.?-??.?:L . .? …. ; . .. ‘. . k ” ? -.?4,? ? ., -,it – .. ‘ “‘. . ” . ” – ., .:.::. ….. M – 11 0 1 110 ??’ T:K”%n?: ?,?::: :’! … ?.”.. .’ ? I ? ” ? I … ? .. .. ‘I .: – . I ……. . . K, .:!:?;. … – 1.1’.-N i;”?”, I llk %.??- ?’T “‘t’.?’ ?::: ? ??’ . .?..::%. . …… ? T .:i -:?:.:.f.:….;?% . e, . ❓ ..: r % ‘. ‘. ..1. .% T . ! … ????: :: . . .. “. ‘. . Z yl.-?”si] ? … …. …. . … ‘I’ : . :..%.x , – . . ;”-?. ??:??!:?’, …..?.:!.??::?. .z 4 h y I ?. ., . . F
— A “s ? I ;?… .1. . . . . . . . . . . : ? 1. – ? ‘ ? ?? -? — , – .: f%-?? – , -? ?” ? ,: ; , , I I e – , ! ::’%’.-if;!”i?’? –?.”q r ? – ??’N’ !!!!!!! ? f . . ??’z

I r% .. . . ? ‘i ,

This content downloaded from
��131.95.109.31 on Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:17:56 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

268 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

of these is that basal readers determine the

content and structure of reading instruc-
tion in elementary classrooms (Dixon,
1979). Thus the selection of a basal reader
is tantamount to selecting the reading cur-
riculum. The importance of the textbook
in American schools cannot be minimized.

Since the advent of public education, it has
been recognized that the majority of direct
instructional activities in the classroom in

all subjects involve textbooks. Most esti-
mates indicate that those interactions ac-
count for as much as 75% and more of

classroom time (Goldstein, 1978). Reading
instruction in particular appears to involve
the use of textbooks (Mason & Osborn,
1982). Research repeatedly documents the
fact that basal reading textbooks are pres-
ent in more than 90% of all elementary
classrooms, and that those texts are the
basis for reading instruction in the over-
whelming majority of those classrooms in
which they are available (Davis, Frymier,
& Clinefelter, 1977; Durkin, 1984; Edu-
cational Products Information Exchange
Institute, 1977).

The second fact about basal readers that

seems inexorably tied to textbook adop-
tion is the similarity among those pro-
grams presently available. Basal readers,
regardless of the publisher, include ma-
terials for students from kindergarten
through the eighth grade. The materials
at each grade include a student book, a
teacher’s manual, a workbook, a set of ditto
masters, and a collection of tests. Some
programs sell other supplemental mate-
rials with their programs. However, unless
a basal program has these materials, it is
almost certain to be a commercial failure

because of the observed tendency of local
districts to avoid the “new,” the “unique,”
or the “experimental” in reading mate-
rials. Perhaps this reflects the importance
attached to reading and the reluctance to
“take chances” with reading. Regardless
of the explanation, however, one funda-
mental aspect of the present basal reader

marketplace is that less risk results in
greater homogeneity.

The similarities, however, go much far-
ther than just individual components of
programs. The structure of the lesson
plans, the specific stories that are included,
skills that are taught, length of teaching
units, and even the artwork are more alike
than different when one basal reading pro-
gram is compared with another. Indeed,
in some of our interviews with textbook

adoption committee members, many in-
dividuals could not tell one program from
another when they examined instructional
materials without seeing the name of the
program, even though these interviews
took place immediately after the commit-
tee members had completed a several-
month review of the materials and had se-

lected the program that they believed was
best for their school or district.

Beck (1985), who also documents the
similarity among basal readers, suggests
that the selection of a basal reader may be
analogous to the purchase of a family car.
He contends that the decision in both cases

is made on the basis of the reputation of
the manufacturer/publisher, what your
neighbor is driving or what is being used
to teach reading in a nearby school, the
advertising slogans of the auto dealer/
publisher, the various companies’ records
for service, and other such issues. Beck

suggests that a thorough and critical ex-
amination of the vital differences among
both automobiles and basal readers is sel-

dom made. If this is the case, it seems rea-
sonable to conclude that both automobile

manufacturers and textbook publishers will
spend as much money on advertising and
promotion as they will on improving the
quality of their products because periph-
eral rather than substantive considerations
often determine commercial success in
both industries. The lack of critical ex-
amination of basal readers seems to be a

second contributing factor in the homo-
geneity of basal readers.

JANUARY 1987

This content downloaded from
��131.95.109.31 on Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:17:56 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

EVALUATION AND SELECTION 269

Publishers of basal textbooks are often

blamed for perceived problems in the con-
tent and structure of basal readers. Many
critics contend that schools would use bet-

ter books if publishers took the time to
produce better books. Indeed, many critics
of education suggest that the ills of the
profession are partially caused by inade-
quate textbooks. One of the most quoted
of these critics was former Secretary of Ed-
ucation Terrel Bell, who claimed in 1984
that the textbooks had been “dumbed
down.”

Publishers of basal readers, however,
see the situation quite differently. Al-
though publishers agree that textbooks
provide the structure and content for what
is taught, they nevertheless believe that the
books they publish are based on curricu-
lum outlines and instructional guidelines
that state departments of education and
local school districts have developed. In
other words, they argue that the textbooks
are responsive to the demands of the mar-
ketplace. Robert Follett (1985), chairman
of a major educational publishing com-
pany, emphasizes the importance of the
textbook adoption committee, the mar-
ketplace for textbooks: “Successful pub-
lishers produce textbooks that appeal to
adoption committees.”

The homogeneity of basal readers is
certainly related to the fact that basal
reader publishers attempt to publish what
sells. Follett (1985, p. 19) further empha-
sizes the importance of this point when he
states that “from the publisher’s stand-
point, the textbook adoption process is the
system that produces sales. Publishers are
dependent on sales for survival. Because
of sales their work has an impact on the
education of children, confirming the value
and worth of their efforts. Sales keep pay-
checks coming; they are the ultimate mea-
surement of publishing success or failure.”

Among the most significant factors that
publishers respond to is the timing of their
revisions so that they correspond with the
adoption cycles of major states or the larg-

est school districts. Squire (1985, p. 16),
an executive with a major educational pub-
lisher, makes the point quite specifically:
“Where large state adoptions do influence
publishing even more directly is the timing
of revisions or new programs. Because of
the magnitude of revenues available dur-
ing the first year of adoptions in a Cali-
fornia or Texas and the marketing advan-
tage of having a late copyright, many
publishers will time introductions to co-
incide with the call for new programs in
two or three of the larger states, or a com-
bination of calls in states and large cities.”

The similarity among basal readers is
the result of publishers’ attempts to pro-
duce what sells. We believe that what sells

is determined more by marketing tech-
niques than by the quality of the materials.
Unless textbook adoption committees be-
gin to analyze the textbooks more care-
fully and thoroughly and communicate
their evaluations to textbook publishers,
textbooks will continue to look more and

more alike. However, if committees will
begin to examine textbooks critically and
let publishers know that they are con-
cerned with the way lessons are planned
and the way reading skills are taught in
basals, some publishers will put more ef-
fort into those aspects. We believe that
better textbook evaluation procedures will
result in a greater diversity among basal
readers. Moreover, we believe that this
greater diversity will have to do with fac-
tors that make a real difference in teaching
reading.

State textbook adoptions
Considering the importance of the basal
textbook to reading instruction, it is sur-
prising that we know so little about the
manner in which educators go about the
task of selecting reading textbooks. Fur-
thermore, that which is known is less than
encouraging. Describing the factors that
influence reading textbook evaluation and
selection is difficult because most adoption
processes are complex. However, a hand-

This content downloaded from
��131.95.109.31 on Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:17:56 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

270 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

ful of recent studies shed some light on the
dynamics of these processes.
The tendency among those who de-

scribe textbook adoption policies and pro-
cedures is to divide the 50 states into two

distinct groups: (1) 22 “adoption” states
that maintain some form of centralized,
state-level textbook evaluation and selec-

tion process, and (2) 28 “open” or nona-
doption states in which local school dis-
tricts evaluate and select textbooks with
little or no state control or intervention.

It has now been adequately demonstrated
that the adoption process of neither of
these two groups can be considered mon-
olithic. Specific adoption practices differ
sufficiently to dispel any notion that gen-
eralizations about the nature of adoption
processes can be easily formed and validly
applied across either group of states.
Nevertheless, enough is known about
adoption practices to identify the major
similarities and differences that exist be-

tween the adoption and the nonadoption
states.

Chief among the differences, ob-
viously, is the two-tiered evaluation and se-
lection process in the adoption states. In
these 22 states, statutes require state au-
thorities or commissions to review all sub-

mitted textbooks in each subject area and
to approve a list (varying in number from
state to state) from which school districts
must choose. In the other 22 states, school
districts are essentially free to adopt
whichever books they choose.

A second major difference between
adoption and nonadoption states is the in-
fluence on textbook development and
textbook content that state adoption pro-
cesses make possible. The “California” or
“Texas effect” on textbook content, as well
as on the adoption process of other states
and school districts, is now widely accepted
as valid (Crane, 1975; Keith, 1981). To
reiterate, this effect refers to the situation
in which publishers coordinate revisions or
updates of basal series with the adoption
cycles of these large states. Being among

those basals adopted by a large state gen-
erally means increased sales and restricted
competition from other publishers. Thus,
the publishing companies attend closely to
the adoption criteria, guidelines, and cy-
cles of these states. The adoption processes
of other states and districts are thought to
be influenced by these large states as well
in that the basal texts available to the rest
of the nation are the same texts that have

been developed first and foremost with the
interests of the large “adoption” states in
mind.

What is it that the adoption states have
in mind when they conduct textbook adop-
tions? What do they hope to accomplish?
Tulley (1985) attempted to answer these
questions by ascertaining the presumed
advantages and disadvantages of statewide
adoption. In his literature review, Tulley
found that from 1890 to 1950 three major
advantages of statewide adoption were em-
phasized: (1) a reduction in textbook costs
through volume purchasing, (2) the selec-
tion of better textbooks, and (3) some as-
surance of a uniform statewide curricu-

lum. Tulley’s literature review also
identified counterarguments to each of
these supposed advantages. It was argued
that most school districts possessed the
necessary resources to select their own
textbooks, that the effects of a competitive
marketplace would be sufficient to keep
prices down, and that states could employ
other and more reasonable procedures to
ensure compliance with a state-mandated
curriculum. In his own study, Tulley (1985)
also found that those who currently fa-
vored statewide adoption believed that
these centralized processes would: (1) en-
sure a periodic review of textbooks, (2) save
time and work for local personnel, (3) al-
low public participation in the adoption
process, and (4) provide structure and or-
ganization for the local review process. Farr
and Tulley (1985, p. 469) point out that
“the debate as to whether these purposes
can best be achieved by statewide or local
adoption has been going on for a number

JANUARY 1987

This content downloaded from
��131.95.109.31 on Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:17:56 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

EVALUATION AND SELECTION 271

of years. Nor is the debate likely to be eas-
ily resolved, because there are strong pro-
ponents on each side of the issue.”

Farr, Tulley, and Rayford (in press)
conducted a study to determine whether
or not there were, in fact, any differences
among school districts in adoption states
as contrasted with school districts in non-

adoption states in terms of textbook adop-
tion practices and reading textbooks se-
lected. That study examined the textbook
adoption laws in all 50 states, and also in-
cluded personal interviews with state ad-
ministrators in each state as well as a ques-
tionnaire survey of school district
administrators in more than 300 districts

throughout the country.
The results of that study indicated that

except for slight variations in cost, there
were no significant differences in reading
textbook adoptions between school dis-
tricts in adoption and nonadoption states.
The authors concluded that any advan-
tages that accrue as a result of state-level
adoption could be achieved through state
legislation without the expense and energy
necessary to conduct a state-level adoption
of textbooks.

How adoption committees function

The overwhelming single commonality in
textbook adoption in both adoption and
nonadoption states is the influence of the
textbook adoption committee. Decisions
about which reading textbooks will be used
in classrooms are basically made by these
committees, which are usually composed
of teachers, administrators, and, often,
parents. Considering the importance of the
textbook adoption committee, it may be
presumed that much is known about how
these committees are organized and how
they go about evaluating basal readers.
Such, however, is not the case. Relatively
little research has been conducted, and the
majority of that which does exist consists
primarily of surveys that have attempted
to document committee structure and or-
ganization (Educational Research Service,

Inc., 1976; Institute for Educational De-
velopment, 1969; Kreiner, 1979; Stewart,
1980).

Much is known from these studies about

how committees are organized, but little is
known about how the committees actually
function. For example, the surveys indi-
cate that most reading adoption commit-
tees are organized by grade level, and that
reviewers are assigned materials to review
that correspond to the grade level they
teach or in which they are most interested.
The typical basal reader adoption com-
mittee considers an average of eight to 10
textbook series of the 15 to 18 basal reader

programs that are presently published.
As we have studied the reading text-

book adoption processes we have found
that committee members review the text-

books using predetermined criteria, usu-
ally in the form of a checklist or rating
sheet. The criteria sheets are a part of al-
most every adoption process; however, the
reviewers often do not actually use the cri-
teria sheets-a point we will discuss later
in this article when we review the func-

tioning of textbook adoption committees.
Many of the checklists that we have read
were developed by or are adaptations of
instruments available from publishing
companies, state departments of educa-
tion, or professional organizations. Other
districts develop their own instruments
based on tradition (previously used check-
lists) and what the district believes is im-
portant. It is interesting to note that the
items on many of the checklists that we
have examined require the reviewers to
determine only the presence of particular
features rather than to evaluate the quality
of these features.

Probably the most important common
feature we found as we examined the func-

tioning of textbook adoption committees
is the brief amount of time that districts

assign to the selection process. Most dis-
tricts complete their textbook selection
within 1 school year; the actual amount of
time spent examining textbooks is usually

This content downloaded from
��131.95.109.31 on Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:17:56 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

272 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

much less than this-usually about 2
months. It is estimated that teachers spend
1 hour to slightly over 2 hours per basal
reading series to complete an evaluation
(this includes examining all of the text-
books and ancillary materials, discussing
the choices, and making the final selec-
tion). Follett (1985) estimates that each
reading series, including textbooks and an-
cillary materials, contains the equivalent of
5,000 pages of text. One hour spent re-
viewing one series would represent less
than 1 second per page. It is no wonder
that Powell (1986) found that the predom-
inant review technique was the “flip test,”
during which the pages of the pupil’s read-
ing text are quickly examined for their
general appearance: color, white space, size
of type, variety of selections, and variety
of illustrations.

Meetings with representatives of each
publisher whose books are being consid-
ered are another common activity of most
textbook evaluation committees. Repre-
sentatives are usually invited to make a for-
mal presentation of their textbook pro-
grams to the adoption committee or to the
entire school district faculty. This may oc-
cur early in the process or after the com-
mittee has narrowed the textbook choices.

Most of the members of adoption com-
mittees with whom we have talked feel ill-
trained to evaluate textbooks. This is not

surprising, since teachers, parents, and ad-
ministrators who serve on these commit-
tees receive little or no in-service educa-

tion in the evaluation of reading textbooks.
An exception to this is the state of Florida,
which has recently passed legislation re-
quiring textbook reviewers to receive in-
service training before they serve on a state
textbook adoption committee.

The criteria sheets that are used in the

evaluations do not seem to provide much
help to reviewers, primarily because the
selection criteria are not ranked by prior-
ity, leaving committee members to set their
own priorities. Rarely does the district or
the committee set standards that help re-

viewers agree on good and poor examples
of various text features. Thus the process
is one in which reviewers are generally left
to develop their own procedures and stan-
dards for distinguishing among basals.

A trend that seems to be widespread
and growing is the “all-teacher vote.” In
this situation, all of the teachers in a school
district are asked to vote for the program
they believe should be adopted, even
though a school district committee has
carefully examined all textbooks. Our ex-
perience with all-teacher votes is that they
produce less careful textbook evaluations.
The more persons involved in the final de-
cision, the less commitment individuals feel

to review the textbooks carefully. When
all teachers vote, most committee mem-
bers seem to develop the feeling that the
committee review is superfluous, since the
final adoption decision will be based on the
teachers’ vote. We have found that in most

“all-teacher vote” adoptions, very few
teachers have carefully examined each of
the texts that is available for adoption. In
two case studies of district basal reading
textbook adoption processes, Powell (1986)
found that in a district that allowed all
teachers to have an equal vote, teachers
spent considerably less time reviewing
textbooks than did teachers in a district
that allowed the committee to make the
final recommendation to the school board.

Although the overall organization and
activities of adoption committees are im-
portant, the actual work of evaluation is
accomplished by individual committee
members. What does a committee member

actually do? What factors influence a com-
mittee member’s evaluation? How do com-

mittee members feel about the task they
have been given? Questions such as these
have been examined in studies by Court-
land, Farr, Harris, Tarr, and Treece (1983)
and by Powell (1986). Although there is
little basis for generalizing the findings of
either study to committee actions in other
districts and states, these two studies none-
theless provide interesting insights into the

JANUARY 1987

This content downloaded from
��131.95.109.31 on Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:17:56 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

EVALUATION AND SELECTION 273

types of procedures that might character-
ize adoption practices throughout the na-
tion. We believe that these insights merit
discussion here not only because of the in-
triguing issues they raise, but also because
our experiences with professional groups
and with conducting in-service sessions
throughout the nation lead us to suspect
that these practices may, in fact, be more
widespread than is immediately apparent.

Courtland et al. (1983) conducted a case
study of a statewide reading textbook
adoption in one of the 22 “adoption”
states. The study focused on the criteria
and procedures used by those who actually
reviewed reading textbooks. The review-
ers were appointed by members of the state
textbook commission (the body granted
statutory authority for textbook adop-
tion), and they were assigned to review the
basal readers and report their evaluations
to the textbook commissioners.

Although most of these reviewers were
experienced classroom teachers who
seemed to have strong theoretical and
practical beliefs regarding the teaching of
reading, many expressed confusion and
lack of focus regarding the evaluation pro-
cess. Several did not believe that the eval-

uation guidelines they were given pro-
vided them with adequate direction for
conducting the evaluation.

Another major problem that many of
the reviewers expressed was the lack of
time to conduct the reviews. The review-
ers had a total of 6-8 weeks to conduct

their evaluations, which they conducted in
addition to their regular teaching and ad-
ministrative responsibilities; most felt
overwhelmed in trying to get theirjob done
in this limited amount of time.

Because of the lack of time, many re-
viewers commented that they first
“browsed through” a program to decide
whether or not they liked it. After making
their evaluation decisions, they filled out
the specific items on the criteria sheets so
the sheets would agree with their overall
evaluations. These reviewers therefore

based their specific evaluations on a global
evaluation of a program rather than form-
ing (as logic might suggest) a global opin-
ion as a result of more detailed analyses.
Not too surprisingly, when asked to iden-
tify specific factors that caused them to se-
lect as “best” one basal reading program,
the reviewers responded with a wide va-
riety of general responses and very little
specificity. Courtland et al. also report that
the reviewers often seemed to be looking
for reasons to exclude a set of texts rather

than for significant reasons to choose one
textbook over another. This conclusion

seems to be supported by the fact that many
of the reviewers stated that there were few

significant differences between the pro-
grams.

These researchers also attempted to
determine if the reviewers followed any
patterns in going about their task. They
were not able to classify all of the reviewers
because many (33%) did not seem to follow
any discernible pattern. Although the re-
searchers identified four patterns, two pat-
terns accounted for almost all of the cases
that were classifiable. Of the 67% of the

cases that were classified, the largest num-
ber of reviewers (50%) followed a pattern
in which they began with the teacher’s
manuals, since their primary interests were
with the skills sequence and lesson plans.
After they had assessed the teacher’s man-
ual, they examined the pupils’ books and
finally the supplemental materials. These
reviewers completely reviewed one pro-
gram before starting a second program.

Reviewers who used the second pattern
(approximately 13%) began with the pup-
il’s book. They typically looked at the sto-
ries and illustrations and considered the

overall appeal that they thought these fac-
tors might have for pupils. They then re-
viewed the teacher’s manual and con-

cluded their review with the supplemental
materials. These reviewers also completely
reviewed one program before starting a
second.

This content downloaded from
��131.95.109.31 on Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:17:56 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

274 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

Only 2% of the reviewers were in-
cluded in the third pattern. These review-
ers seemed to be very conscious of the cri-
teria on the review sheets. They started
with the first item on the review sheet and

progressed through a program, examining
it in regard to the first criterion. They
would then go to the second item on the
criteria sheet, and so on, until they were
finished with the sheet. Then they would
follow the same pattern with a second pro-
gram. The order in which they examined
the various materials in the program was
generally determined by the order of the
items on the criteria sheet.

The fourth pattern included only about
1% of the reviewers. This group examined
all of the programs that were being con-
sidered on one factor at a time-such as

the quality of the illustrations. After eval-
uating this factor across all the programs,
they would go to a second factor. They
believed that the evaluation process was
more efficient if they made comparisons
across programs from the very beginning
of their review. The four patterns depict
the variety of practices-some logical and
seemingly efficient, and some obviously
wasteful-that committees and individuals
use to evaluate basals in the absence of ad-

equately defined evaluation procedures.
Courtland and her colleagues also asked

the reviewers to identify the most impor-
tant factors in their individual evaluations
of the basal readers. The areas mentioned

most prominently were: (1) the quality of
the stories, (2) the quality of the illustra-
tions in the pupils’ books, (3) the ease of
use and organization of the teacher’s man-
uals, (4) the relationship of the workbooks
to the skills being taught, and (5) the re-
lationship of accompanying tests to what
was taught in the program. It is important
to point out that the researchers found ma-
jor discrepancies among the reviewers’ def-
initions of each of these five factors. For

example, to one reviewer, “quality stories”
meant traditional stories that the teacher

had read when she was an elementary stu-

dent, while to another reviewer “quality
stories” meant those that related to the

backgrounds and experiences of the pupils
in her class.

In the second study, Powell (1986) con-
ducted extensive examinations of the ac-
tivities of several individuals who had

served on local reading adoption commit-
tees. She identified a number of factors

that reviewers perceived to be important
influences in choosing a basal program.
Powell reports these influences in five ma-
jor categories. The first of these cate-
gories, physical appearance, was likely as in-
fluential as, if not more influential, than
any other factor. Committee members’
concern with appearance is illustrated in
these examples: (1) reviewers disliked the
outside cover of one program because both
third-grade teachers’ editions were the
same color, and (2) one reviewer com-
plained about the shape of the teacher’s
edition because it “flopped in half” when
she carried it. Reviewers also thought that
the teacher’s manuals and the pupils’ edi-
tions needed to look similar to those that
were familiar to the teachers. Most teach-

ers wanted manuals to include vocabulary
and enrichment sections, but did not men-
tion any criteria for the content of these
sections. In other words, looks and labels
could sell a textbook.

The second category was labeled pilot
tryouts. When conducted, pilot tryouts
seemed to be one of the most influential
factors in reviewers’ decisions. Powell

found that committee members generally
listened to teachers who had tested read-

ing programs in their classrooms and highly
valued their opinions. It is interesting that
almost all of the teachers who had piloted
programs became proponents of the pro-
grams they piloted.

The third category, pedagogy, was char-
acterized by the belief among committee
members that they selected textbooks
based on the district’s philosophy or on
their personal philosophy of teaching
reading. However, when asked to explain

JANUARY 1987

This content downloaded from
��131.95.109.31 on Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:17:56 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

EVALUATION AND SELECTION 275

their beliefs or the district’s philosophy,
committee members often discussed past
instructional practices rather than articu-
lating a succinct view about an ap-
proach(es) to reading instruction. Atti-
tudes about previously used textbooks were
often mentioned as affecting the review
process as well. Reviewers often attached
importance to primary-grade teachers’ be-
liefs about the early levels of a particular
program, probably because of the impor-
tance generally assigned to reading in-
struction in the beginning grades.

The fourth category, publishers, refers
to reviewers’ perceptions of what influ-
enced not only the final decision but also
what determined how carefully a reviewer
examined a particular textbook program.
Most of that influence, it was discovered,
was determined by the reputation and im-
age of each publishing company and the
market strategies that the company em-
ployed. Typical comments by reviewers
often mirrored the marketing emphases of
the publishers: “That was the really diffi-
cult series”; “That program gets good test
results”; “That was the book that had those
ugly covers”; “We wanted a writing pro-
gram and it was the one program that had
the kids write in complete sentences.” In-
fluential marketing strategies included
providing free items that the district might
not otherwise purchase, hosting dinners or
wine and cheese receptions, trying to in-
fluence key people, and providing in-ser-
vice sessions for added exposure to the
company. Some companies host summer
institutes for extended exposure for their
companies and textbook programs to
which key school personnel are invited,
with all expenses paid. Reviewers reported
that publishers’ “special events” can influ-
ence persons to examine textbooks more
closely or to look no further. Yet another
perceived influence was the personalities
of the publishers’ representatives. Sales
representatives who knew how to talk to
teachers without either “talking down” to
them or appearing to be “totally unin-

formed” about reading seemed to have the
most success. There was no question that
the images of a basal reader program and
its publisher are determined to a large ex-
tent by the personalities of the sales rep-
resentatives.

The fifth category, politics, refers to the
effect on the selection process of persons
who were highly respected or well liked,
as well as the effect of interpersonal rela-
tionships among committee members. For
example, in one school district, the adop-
tion committee chairperson’s search for a
job in educational publishing may have in-
fluenced the committee selection and cri-

teria development. It is interesting that the
chairperson was hired by the company
whose books were adopted.

With the exception of physical appear-
ance, it is not clear from Powell’s study
which of the five general factors had the
greatest influence, not did she intend to
determine the relative influence of each of

these factors. The results of Powell’s study
do, however, further emphasize the com-
plexity of the textbook adoption process.

Improving the adoption process

Our suggestions for improving the text-
book adoption process start with the prem-
ise that most teachers have strong beliefs
about reading development and that they
know how to teach reading. There was, of
course, a range of beliefs about teaching
reading among the teachers we inter-
viewed. When asked about their teaching
procedures, many teachers described the
teaching steps they usually followed in us-
ing a basal reader.

It is certainly true that many teachers
have not kept up to date on new strategies
and concepts regarding the teaching of
reading. It seems that the time available
for committee members to conduct their
reviews and textbook evaluations is too

limited to add an in-service program on
the teaching of reading. Such information
is essential; however, such knowledge needs

This content downloaded from
��131.95.109.31 on Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:17:56 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

276 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

to be developed prior to the time text-
books are reviewed.

One of the most illuminating findings
from our extensive discussions with teach-

ers on adoption committees was the ab-
sence of a connection between their strong
beliefs about the teaching of reading and
their textbook adoption decisions. There
was a significant discrepancy between what
committee members said and what they ac-
tually did.

When we talked with textbook adop-
tion committee members, the reasons they
gave for the differences between their be-
liefs and practices included such comments
as, “The evaluation form was given to me
to use and what I know about the teaching
of reading didn’t seem to be included on
the sheet”; or, “There wasn’t enough time
to really look at what I thought was im-
portant”; or, “We were told to pick the
books that matched our school district ob-

jectives, and that didn’t seem to leave any
room for what I believe about the teaching
of reading.”

We believe that teachers need a process
that allows them to develop a feeling of
“ownership” of the textbooks by gaining
control over the adoption process. Those
who use the textbooks must establish the
criteria that are used to evaluate the books.
The review and selection of a basal reader
involve evaluation, and evaluation is sim-
ply the collection of information on which
to base a decision. In the case of textbook

adoption, the decision to be made is quite
clear: Which of these books should we se-

lect for use with our pupils? What is not
clear is what information reviewers should

collect and how they should evaluate that
information.

Our response to this question is ex-
pressed in the form of specific recommen-
dations, divided into four sections: (1) basic
assumptions regarding the adoption pro-
cess, (2) selection of those who are to do
the reviewing, (3) establishing criteria, and
(4) procedures for evaluating and review-
ing materials. It is not possible for us to

present all the guidelines for reviewing
basal readers because of space limitations.
We believe, however, that the recommen-
dations that follow include most of the is-
sues that need to be considered in text-
book evaluation and selection.

Guidelines for basal reader adoption
process

Basic assumptions

1. The selection of a reading textbook series
should not be considered the same as the adop-
tion of the total reading curriculum. Basal
reader textbooks should be considered

merely as an aid to instruction. When basal
readers are viewed as the total curriculum,
they are expected to do too many things,
many of which may be unrealistic. When
this happens, basal reader publishers in-
clude in their series as many labels of as
many different things as they can-and
good reading instruction gets lost.

2. Basal reading adoptions should be con-
ducted by school districts rather than by states.
We believe that teachers with complete
freedom to choose from all available pro-
grams will feel much more in control of
their own reading programs. Further-
more, research does not indicate any sig-
nificant benefits for school districts in state

adoption over nonadoption states.
3. The final decision regarding textbook se-

lection should reside with the committee that

spends the time and energy reviewing the books.
All-teacher votes lead to situations in which

teachers who spend no time reviewing bas-
als have as much influence on the final de-

cision as those who spend many hours en-
gaged in careful study. Furthermore, we
believe that administrators and boards of
education should follow the recommen-

dations of the adoption committee. Some-
times committee recommendations are ov-

erridden because the program selected is
more expensive than others. If cost is to
be a factor in the final selection of the pro-
grams, the adoption committee members
should be given this information when they
begin their task. The entire adoption pro-

JANUARY 1987

This content downloaded from
��131.95.109.31 on Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:17:56 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

EVALUATION AND SELECTION 277

cess is significantly weakened when com-
mittee recommendations are not followed.

Selection of reviewers
1. Reviewers should have the respect of other

teachers in the school system. Although this
guideline often leads to the selection of
more experienced teachers, the critical
criterion for selection should be compe-
tence in reading instruction. Committee
members should be teachers who under-

stand issues and research in the teaching
of reading and curriculum development.
The onset of a basal reader evaluation pro-
cess is not the time to conduct in-service

training for teachers who have not been
keeping up with current information on
the teaching of reading. Waiting until the
adoption process is about to get under way
may not leave enough time to affect the
selection.

2. We do not recommend in-service training
in the teaching of reading, but we do strongly
recommend training for reviewers in the review
and evaluation of reading textbooks. Unfor-
tunately, classroom teachers typically do
not receive adequate training in textbook
evaluation and adoption. Virtually no
preservice preparation in this area is in-
cluded in present education programs;
much of what reading teachers do know
in this area appears to be the result of pre-
vious experience on adoption committees.
The lack of systematic training not only
casts considerable doubt on the reliability
and validity of procedures that teachers
use, but also likely limits the extent to
which they are able to participate effec-
tively in the entire textbook adoption pro-
cess. Our experiences have demonstrated,
however, that, with adequate (i.e., system-
atic, well-planned, specific) training, most
teachers can evaluate basal reader text-
books.

Establishing criteria

1. The adoption committee’s most important
task is the determination of the basal reading
series factors to be used in evaluating the pro-

grams. That is, the committee members
have to decide, based on the school dis-
trict’s philosophy and goals, their own be-
liefs about the teaching of reading, their
knowledge about effective textbooks and
reading instruction, and their classroom
experience, which factors constitute a
“good” reading text for their district. Be-
cause most committees have developed lists
that are certainly too long to yield an ad-
equate review, the committee should con-
sider dividing the list into three categories:
(1) factors that are most crucial to having
a top-quality program, (2) factors that are
desirable but not essential, and (3) factors
that are important to consider if the fac-
tors in the first two categories are equiv-
alent for several programs. Ranking the
factors allows committees to function more

efficiently by eliminating any programs that
do not meet the essential criteria. The

committee can then spend more time with
a smaller number of programs-those that
include the essential factors.

2. As the selection criteria are established,

the committee must agree on the meaning of each
factor. One of the best ways to accomplish
this is to share examples of the criteria from
various reading textbooks. These exam-
ples should be selected from books other
than those being considered in the evalu-
ation. Bad examples as well as good ex-
amples are useful. Committee discussions
of these examples are almost certain to in-
crease the reliability and validity of the
evaluation when the criteria are actually
used in the review process. The discussions
should focus on why particular examples
are good or poor. These examples can then
be used as standards against which each
reading series is evaluated.

Procedures in reviewing and evaluating
basal readers

1. Committees must be provided an ade-
quate amount of time to conduct thorough eval-
uations of reading textbooks. The lack of time
to conduct adequate reviews of the texts
was the most often expressed concern of

This content downloaded from
��131.95.109.31 on Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:17:56 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

278 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

textbook evaluation committees. Text-
book evaluation must not be rushed. We
believe that it is essential that teachers be

given release time to review textbooks. The
recommendations that we have presented
in this article will certainly take more time
than is typical of the adoption committee
reviews we have observed, and increased
time will almost certainly increase the cost
of the adoption process. Perhaps these in-
creased costs could be met if a certain per-
centage (such as 2%) of a school’s or a
state’s total textbook budget could be set
aside for the review process. This might
also provide the needed funds to release
teachers to evaluate textbooks.

All too often we found teachers who

spent their entire weekends reviewing
books, who reviewed books during lunch-
room duty, or who spent late evenings
trying to get through the books they were
to review. Those conditions can only lead
to hurried reviews and an attitude on the

part of committee members that the school
district does not view textbook evaluation
as an important task. Committee members
also need time to develop carefully and
rank the criteria for their evaluations; to
discuss examples of each criterion; and to
develop, test, and revise evaluation pro-
cedures.

2. Committees should be organized in ways
other than by grade level. When committees
are organized by grade levels, there is little
opportunity to review the development of
reading across program levels, and the
overall evaluation of a basal program gets
lost in a series of grade-by-grade evalua-
tions.

3. Procedures used to evaluate basal pro-
grams should be tested before the actual eval-
uation takes place. Even when these evalu-
ation procedures are nothing more than
criteria sheets with a number rating sys-
tem, each committee member should test

them with a “try-out” program that the
school district is not considering, or with
some previously published program that
the district has not used. All committee

members should evaluate the same try-out
program and discuss the evaluations and
any problems they encountered. Revisions
in the evaluation procedure will almost
certainly be needed. Even when such re-
visions are not made, and even when com-
mittee members have used the same eval-

uation procedure in previous adoptions,
the trial evaluation and discussion will en-
able committee members to use the same

procedure and will increase the validity and
reliability of the ensuing evaluation.

4. Whatever evaluation procedures are used,
committee members must do more than make a

check mark. Evaluation procedures should
require committee members to provide
written examples of the features they like
and dislike in the basal series. Such ex-
amples need not be extensive. Even simple
page numbers, single examples, brief out-
lines of effective or ineffective practices,
and other such comments can increase the
validity of the reviews. Furthermore, spe-
cific strengths and weaknesses should be
identified and discussed with peers at com-
mittee meetings in which the books being
considered are available for further ex-
amination.

5. Any person who wishes to address the
entire adoption committee or any individual
committee members should be allowed to do so.

During the evaluation, those who wish to
speak about a particular program should
have an opportunity to do so-either orally
or in writing. The goal is to allow all per-
sons concerned with the adoption an op-
portunity to make their views known in a
comfortable situation. The committee

should urge those presenting their views
to discuss specific examples of the factors
of basals that they are discussing.

It is also important that all of the pro-
grams that are being considered are avail-
able to anyone who wishes to review them.
This will usually necessitate some sort of
public display and multiple copies of all the
programs.

6. Reading adoption committees need to
consider carefully how much and what contact

JANUARY 1987

This content downloaded from
��131.95.109.31 on Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:17:56 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

EVALUATION AND SELECTION 279

to have with publishers’ representatives. We do
not believe that an adversary relationship
must necessarily exist between publishing
companies and educators. Nor do we ad-
vocate strict guidelines governing inter-
actions between representatives of pub-
lishers and committee members. We see

no reason why the educational publishing
industry should be subjected to any
greater-or any less stringent-regulation
than all other commercial enterprises with
which public schools are involved.

It would be naive, however, to discount
the potentially powerful influence that
representatives of publishing companies
can and do exert on committee members.

We have seen many adoptions determined
by a publisher’s marketing efforts rather
than by the quality of the basal program.

We believe, however, that this influ-
ence is often exaggerated by the manner
in which districts typically evaluate text-
books. It is easy to understand how com-
mittee members can be influenced by dy-
namic salespersons and presentations,
particularly if those contacts occur during
a time-consuming, pressure-filled adoption
process characterized more by a lack of
time and expertise than by adequate re-
sources. It appears that educators are often
too willing-because of apathy or perhaps
merely through default-to allow publish-
ers to “save them the trouble” of thor-

oughly examining all textbooks. Thus, we
believe that undue influence can be- re-

duced by implementing many of the rec-
ommendations discussed here. More time

and a greater degree of competency in
evaluating texts will allow committees to
make decisions based primarily on the
characteristics of textbooks.

Publishing companies and their rep-
resentatives can be a valuable resource to

adoption committees. Well-focused, timely
sales presentations not only save time for
reviewers but also clarify questions that
arise before, during, or after review. The
key to effective use of publishers is the abil-
ity of committee members to make certain

that the presentations respond to the needs
of the committee.

7. Pilot studies are useful if they are care-
fully controlled. Pilot studies should be the
responsibility of the committee, not the
publishers. If any program under consid-
eration is to be piloted, then all programs
should be piloted. Pilot studies need not
last for an entire year; teachers could be
asked to try out only one or several units
from a particular series. A focused test of
several units is often adequate for a teacher
to determine the strengths and weaknesses
of a particular program. It is usually best
if a teacher tries more than one of the pro-
grams that are being considered for adop-
tion, enabling the teacher to compare the
programs with the same children in the
same year. Try-out teachers should be se-
lected carefully. They should be experi-
enced teachers from a range of schools in
the district. The pilot teachers should not
select the programs they are to pilot;
rather, programs should be assigned ran-
domly to teachers. It is not uncommon for
pilot teachers to ask to try out programs
with which they are familiar and about
which they have already formed favorable
impressions. Finally, pilot teachers should
evaluate the programs using the same cri-
teria, so their evaluations will be compa-
rable. This does not, of course, mean that
pilot teachers cannot also provide addi-
tional information and insights about the
programs or try out programs they like.

8. When the committee has completed its
work, a report of the committee’s evaluation pro-
cedures and findings should be made public.
The report should include a description of
how the committee went about its task and

the specific reasons that it ranked the pro-
grams as it did. Examples of features of
each program that were strong and weak
should be included. The report should be
sent to each publisher. Publishers will make
changes in their books only if they rec-
ognize that adoption committees find spe-
cific features of their programs unattrac-
tive.

This content downloaded from
��131.95.109.31 on Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:17:56 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

280 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

Conclusion

We believe that basal reader evaluation and

selection can be an important means of im-
proving reading instruction. The recom-
mendations described in this article are in-

tended to guide educators toward that type
of influence. Admittedly, it is speculative
to assert that improved basals will result
from improved adoption processes and that
improved reading instruction will result, in
turn, from improved basals. The logic be-
hind these assertions seems compelling and
attractive, but the evidence necessary to
support this view is, nevertheless, absent.
Relatively little is known about the way
textbook adoption is presently conducted
throughout the United States, and unfor-
tunately what is known is derived from re-
search findings limited in both quantity and
scope and findings that may not be appli-
cable or generalizable to many adoption
processes.

What we do feel certain about, how-
ever, is that improved basal readers are
likely to be developed if textbook adoption
procedures improve. The major improve-
ment in basal readers will be the devel-

opment of programs that are more con-
sistent with individual teachers’ beliefs

about the teaching of reading and about
the manner in which instructional mate-

rials should be employed during reading
instruction. To achieve this consistency, it
seems imperative that basal reader evalu-
ation criteria and procedures be developed
and applied by those professionals most di-
rectly responsible for the teaching of read-
ing.

In closing, we would like to note that
we are not among those who subscribe to
the belief suggested by English (1980) that
textbooks are “mediocre” products cre-
ated by the interactions, compromises,
competing forces, and interests that seem
to characterize many adoption processes.
It is true that much of what we are begin-
ning to discover and to understand about
textbook adoption is less than encourag-
ing. Yet, we prefer to assume a more pos-

itive posture. There is a need for improve-
ment in the way educators presently go
about the task of selecting basal readers,
and there is much about basals that can be

improved. By and large, however, Amer-
ican educators are fortunate to have avail-

able such a large quantity of high-quality
textbooks and other materials to support
reading curricula. Aside from any prob-
lems that may beset existing state and local
processes, textbook adoption represents
choice. As long as teachers continue to have
a choice, the promise of and potential for
effective reading instruction will exist. Our
hope is that these suggestions will contrib-
ute to those choices being more rational,
valid, and informed.

References

Beck, M. (1985). Overview and other views. Book
Research Quarterly, 1, 36-46.

Courtland, M. C., Farr, R., Harris, P., Tarr, J.,
& Treece, L. (1983). A case study of the In-
diana state reading textbook adoption process.
Bloomington, IN: Center for Reading and
Language Studies.

Crane, B. (1975). The “California effect” on
textbook adoptions. Educational Leadership,
32, 283-285.

Davis, O. L., Frymier, J. R., & Clinefelter, D.
(1977, April). Curriculum materials used by
eleven-year-old pupils: An analysis using the An-
nehurst Curriculum Classification System. Pa-
per presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Associa-
tion, San Francisco.

Dixon, C. N. (1979). Selection and use of in-
structional materials. In R. C. Calfee & P. A.

Drum (Eds.), Teaching reading in compensa-
tory classes (pp. 104-113). Newark, DE: In-
ternational Reading Association.

Durkin, D. (1984). Is there a match between
what elementary teachers do and what el-
ementary manuals recommend? Reading
Teacher, 37, 734-744.

Educational Products Information Exchange
(EPIE) Institute. (1977). Report on a national
study of the nature and the quality of instruc-
tional materials most used by teachers and learn-
ers (Rep. No. 76). New York: EPIE.

Educational Research Service, Inc. L. H. Kun-
der (researcher). (1976). Procedures for text-

JANUARY 1987

This content downloaded from
��131.95.109.31 on Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:17:56 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

EVALUATION AND SELECTION 281

book and instructional materials selection. Ar-

lington, VA: Educational Research Service.
English, R. (1980). The politics of textbook

adoption. Phi Delta Kappan, 62, 275-278.
Farr, R., & Tulley, M. A. (1985). Do adoption

committees perpetuate mediocre text-
books? Phi Delta Kappan, 66, 467-471.

Farr, R., Tulley, M. A., & Rayford, L. (in press).
Selecting basal readers: A comparison of
school districts in adoption and nonadop-
tion states. Journal of Research and Develop-
ment in Education.

Follett, R. (1985). The school textbook adop-
tion process. Book Research Quarterly, 1, 19-
23.

Goldstein, P. (1978). Changing the American
schoolbook. Lexington, MA: Heath.

Institute for Educational Development. (1969).
Selection of educational materials in the United
States public schools. New York: Institute for
Educational Development.

Keith, S. (1981). Politics of textbook selection (Re-
search Rep. No. 81-AT). Stanford, CA:
Stanford University School of Education,
Institute for Research on School Finance
and Governance.

Kreiner, R. P. (1979). A status study of existing
procedures for textbook selection in Ohio. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, University
of Akron. (University Microfilms No. 80-
19115).

Mason, J., & Osborn, J. (1982). Is there a match
between what elementary teachers do and what
basal reader manuals recommend? (Tech. Rep.
No. 44). Urbana, IL: Center for the Study
of Reading.

Powell, D. A. (1986). Retrospective case studies of
individual and group decision making in dis-
trict-level elementary reading textbook selection.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana
University, Bloomington, IN.

Squire, J. R. (1985). Textbooks to the fore-
front. Book Research Quarterly, 1, 12-18.

Stewart, P. L. (1980). The selection of basal
reading textbooks: A study of procedures
and evaluative criteria (Doctoral disserta-
tion, University of Iowa). Dissertation Ab-
stracts International, 41, 1393-A.

Tulley, M. A. (1985). A descriptive study of the
intents of selected state level textbook adop-
tion processes. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 7, 289-308.

This content downloaded from
��131.95.109.31 on Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:17:56 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Contents

[267]

[266]

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

Issue Table of Contents

The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 87, No. 3, Special Issue: The Basal Reader in American Reading Instruction (Jan., 1987), pp. 243-384

Front Matter

Introduction [pp. 243-245]

A History of the American Reading Textbook [pp. 246-265]

The Evaluation and Selection of Basal Readers [pp. 266-281]

Improving the Selection of Basal Reading Programs: A Report of the Textbook Adoption Guidelines Project [pp. 282-298]

Forms of Discourse in Basal Readers [pp. 299-306]

Commercial Reading Materials, a Technological Ideology, and the Deskilling of Teachers [pp. 307-329]

Influences on Basal Reader Programs [pp. 330-341]

Getting the Most from Basal Reading Selections [pp. 342-356]

Putting the Teacher in Control: Basal Reading Textbooks and Instructional Decision Making [pp. 357-366]

Rethinking the Role of Oral Reading in Basal Instruction [pp. 367-373]

Basal Readers and Language Arts Programs [pp. 374-383]

Back Matter [pp. 384-384]

Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away

Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.

Calculate the price of your order

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

You will get a personal manager and a discount.

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at

Total price:

$0.00