|
|
|
 |
AEP Online |
Blaschke on Federal FundingConservative Fordham Foundation Calls for Abolishing Textbook Adoption Process and/or Radically Reforming Processes Currently Used in 22 StatesThe conservative Thomas Fordham Foundation headed by Dr. Chester Finn, has published “The Mad, Mad World of Textbook Adoption,” a report that recommends the textbook adoption process be disbanded or radically reformed. “There is no evidence that textbook adoption contributes to increased student learning," it claims. "In fact, the vast majority of adoption states are also in the bottom half of all states when it comes to NAEP reading and math scores…Meanwhile textbooks are almost never field tested to gauge whether they are effective in raising student achievement.” In the foreword to the report, Finn argues that everyone who has analyzed the adoption process has found it does “far more harm than good” and is sustained by “pure self interest” of the “textbook publishing cartel (though not the small boutique houses) and vested interest of political pressure groups on the left and right and state officials and bureaucracies whose very existence hinges on the adoption process.” Noting that NCLB judges education practices in terms of increasing student achievement, Finn argues, “but the fact that few textbooks are subject to any sort of independent field testing of their educational effectiveness is not only a scandal and an outrage, it clearly violates the spirit of NCLB, which places a premium on methods and materials that have been proven to work. I am unusually loathe to suggest further Federal involvement in K-12 education that Congress should seriously consider legislative action here, perhaps requiring instructional materials paid for with Federal dollars to prove their efficacy, which would make life less pleasant for textbook adoption states.” Later on, the report recommends that USED What Works Clearinghouse fund new research centers to “appraise textbook effectiveness” and that in the current situation, USED “asking publishers to conduct their own field trials should be dropped.” Moreover, it notes, “To date, however, most effectiveness research presented to textbook buyers and adoption committees consist of publisher sponsored trials of their own instructional materials. Few surprises here: publishers typically find that their own books work well.” The report also recommends that adoption state officials should drop policies and practices that discourage small high quality publishers from competing in the textbook market, for such barriers to competition or requiring publishers to post performance bonds to provide excessive numbers of free book samples, to stock state book depositories, and to publish frequent revisions. In the introduction section, Diane Ravitch, best-selling education author and co-author of the report, argued that there is no “natural ally in the fight against corruption of text books….I argued for a free market in the world of textbook publishing where decisions about which books to buy were made by individual teachers of schools not by state agencies.” Referring to the American Association of Publishers (AAP), which she felt would be at the Ravitch said she felt that the American Association of Publishers would be at the “forefront of freedom to publish and therefore prepared to oppose a process that allowed state bureaucrats and political pressure groups to demand revisions of content,” but that she found differently. She stated, “Unfortunately, I was wrong…the AAP sadly uses its considerable clout to protect the adoption process in the states that benefit a very small number of publishing giants and disadvantages a large number of small publishers who simply cannot afford to meet the expensive requirements of the process and to break into the textbook market.” And last, picking up on Finn’s suggestion, the report recommends “Congress should consider modestly expanding Federal funding to assist states in purchasing effective instructional materials in math, science and history as it has with the Reading First program, but funds should only be provided for the purchase of materials shown to be effective in increasing student achievement.” Ironically, most of the “interventions” that are on USED “unofficial” Reading First lists, or state Reading First lists, are textbooks which claim to have most or all of the “essential elements” of scientifically-based reading interventions, included in the National Reading Panel report and USED guidelines for Reading First. The two above recommended actions for the What Works Clearinghouse (i.e., conducting independent pilot tests and only allowing research from independent parties and not publishers who fund or perform field trials) would require significant USED policy changes.
Questions, ideas, or in need of more information? Please contact Dave Gladney at 856-241-7772 or dgladney@AEPweb.org. |
For a copy of the report go to www.edexcellence.net. |
|
©
2008 The Association of Educational
Publishers
|
||
