The authors examine the first-grade materials in five new basal programs submitted for the 1993 Texas state adoption.1 These series are compared with program materials currently in use in the state (copyright 1986/1987). The analysis focuses on features of the pupil texts (e.g., total number of words, number of unique words, readability levels, literary quality) and features of the teachers' editions (e.g., program design, organization, tone). Results of the analysis indicate substantial changes in the more recent series. The findings are interpreted in terms of historical trends as well as recent developments in the literature-based and whole-language movements. Implications for future research are identified that relate to the study of the implementation and effects of these new programs.
References
1.
AlvermannD.GuthrieJ. (1993). Themes and directions of the National Reading Research Center (National Reading Research Center, Perspectives in Reading Research, No. 1.). Athens, GA: University of Georgia.
2.
AppleM. W.Christian-SmithL. K. (1991). The politics of the textbook. New York: Routledge.
3.
AukermanR. C. (1981). The Basal reader approach to reading. New York: John Wiley.
4.
BettsE. A. (1946). Foundations of reading instruction. New York: American Book.
5.
BormuthJ. R. (1969). Development of readability analyses (Final Report, Project No. 7-0052, Contract No. 1, OEC-3-7-070052-0326). Washington, DC: USOE Bureau of Research, HEW.
6.
BowlerM. (1978). Textbook publishers try to please all, but first they woo in the heart of Texas. Reading Teacher, 31, 514–518.
7.
ChallJ. S. (1983). Learning to read: The great debate (updated ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
8.
DuffyG. G. (1991). What counts in teacher education? Dilemmas in educating empowered teachers. In ZutellJ.McCormickS. (Eds.), Learner factors/Teacher factors: Issues in literacy research and instruction. Fortieth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 1–18). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
9.
FarrR.TulleyM. A.PowellD. (1987). The evaluation and selection of basal readers. Elementary School Journal, 87, 267–281.
10.
FleschR. F. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221–233.
11.
GaldaL.CullinanB. E.StricklandD.S. (1993). Language, literacy and the child. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
12.
GlaserB.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
13.
GoodmanK.S. (1989). Access to literacy: Basals and other barriers. Theory into Practice, 28, 300–306.
14.
GoodmanK. S.ShannonP.FreemanY. S.MurphyS. (1988). Report card on basal readers. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen.
15.
HansenJ.NewkirkT.GravesD. (Eds.). (1985). Breaking ground: Teachers relate reading and writing in the elementary school. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
16.
HarsteJ.ShortK. G. (1991). Literature circles and literature response activities. In PowerB.HubbardR. (Eds.), Literacy in process. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
17.
HiebertE. H. (Ed.). (1991). Literacy for a diverse society: Perspectives, practices, and policies. New York: Teachers College Press.
HoldawayD. (1982). Shared book experience: Teaching reading using favorite books. Theory into Practice, 21, 293–300.
20.
HonigW. (1988). The California reading initiative. New Advocate, 1, 235–240.
21.
JensenJ. (Ed.). (1989). Stories to grow on. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
22.
KintschW. (1979). On modeling comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 14, 3–14.
23.
KlareG. (1984). Readability. In PearsonP. D. (Ed.), The Handbook of reading research (Vol. 1, pp. 681–744). New York: Longman.
24.
LukensR. (1990). A critical handbook of children's literature. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
25.
LytleF.BotelM. (1988). PCRP II: Reading, writing, and talking across the curriculum. Philadelphia, PA: Pennsylvania State Department of Education.
26.
MaeroffG. I. (1988). The empowerment of teachers: Overcoming the crisis. New York: Teachers College Press.
27.
MartinR. (1991, May). Empowering teachers to break the basal habit. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Reading Association, Las Vegas, NV.
28.
PowerB.HubbardR. (1991). Literacy in process. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
29.
Proclamation of the State Board of Education Advertising for Bids on Textbooks: Proclamation68, (1990). Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.
30.
RhodesL. (1981). I can read! Predictable books as resources for reading and writing instruction. Reading Teacher, 34, 511–518.
31.
WriterRight (1990). Que Software, Version 3.1. [Computer software].New York: Macmillan Computer Publishing.
SmithN. B. (1965). American reading instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
35.
SulzbyE.BarnhartJ. (1992). The development of academic competence: All our children emerge as writers and readers. In IrwinJ.DoyleM. A. (Eds.), Reading/Writing connections: Learning from research (pp. 120–144). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
36.
TraceA. S. (1965). Reading without Dick and Jane. Chicago: Henry Reginery Company.
37.
VenezkyR. L., (1987). A history of the American reading textbook. Elementary School Journal, 87, 247–266.
38.
WepnerS. B.FeeleyJ. T. (1993). Moving forward with literature. New York: Macmillan.
39.
WixonK. K.PetersC. W. (1984). Reading redefined: A Michigan reading association position paper. Michigan Reading Journal, 17, 4–7.
40.
WixonK. K.PetersC. W. (1987). Comprehension assessment: Implementing and interactive view of reading. Educational Psychologist, 22, 333–356.
