The widely adopted Common Core State Standards (CCSS) call for raising the level of text complexity in textbooks and reading materials used by students across all grade levels in the United States; the authors of the English Language Arts component of the CCSS build their case for higher complexity in part upon a research base they say shows a steady decline in the difficulty of student reading textbooks over the past half century. In this interdisciplinary study, we offer our own independent analysis of third- and sixth-grade reading textbooks used throughout the past century. Our data set consists of books from 117 textbook series issued by 30 publishers between 1905 and 2004, resulting in a linguistic corpus of roughly 10 million words. Contrary to previous reports, we find that text complexity has either risen or stabilized over the past half century; these findings have significant implications for the justification of the CCSS as well as for our understanding of a “decline” within American schooling more generally.
ACT. (2012). Catching up to college and career readiness. Iowa City, IA: ACT.
2.
AdamsM. J. (2010–2011). Advancing Our Students’ Language and Literacy: The Challenge of Complex Tasks. American Educator, 34(4), 3–11, 53.
3.
AudS.HussarW.JohnsonF.KenaG.RothE.ManningE. . . . ZhangJ. (2012). The Condition of Education 2012 (NCES 2012-045). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
4.
BakerD.KnipeH.CollinsJ.LeonJ.CummingsE.BlairC.GamsonD. (2010). One hundred years of elementary school mathematics in the United States: A content analysis and cognitive assessment of textbooks from 1900 to 2000. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41, 383–423.
5.
BerlinerD. C. (2006). Our impoverished view of educational research. Teachers College Record, 108, 949–995.
6.
BlairC.GamsonD.ThorneS.BakerD. (2005). Rising mean IQ: Cognitive demand of mathematics education for young children, population exposure to formal schooling, and the neurobiology of the prefrontal cortex. Intelligence, 33, 93–106.
7.
CarrollJ. B.DaviesP.RichmanB. (1971). The American Heritage word frequency book. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
8.
ChallJ. S. (1995). Readability revisited: The new Dale-Chall readability formula. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
9.
ChallJ. S. (1996). Learning to read: The great debate (3rd ed.). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College.
10.
ChallJ. S.ConardS.HarrisS. (1977). An analysis of textbooks in relation to declining SAT scores. New York: Advisory Panel on the Scholastic Aptitude Test Score Decline.
11.
ChallJ. S.ConardS. S.Harris-SharplesS. (1991). Should textbooks challenge students? The case for easier or harder textbooks. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University.
12.
DurkinD. (1978–1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481–533.
13.
DurkinD. (1981). Reading comprehension instruction in five basal reader series. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 515–544.
14.
FisherD.FreyN.LappD. (2012). Text complexity: raising rigor in reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
15.
GrahamP. A. (1992). S.O.S.: Sustain our schools. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.
16.
GrissmerD. (2000). The continuing use and misuse of SAT scores. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 223–232.
17.
HayesD. P. (2003). A guide to lexical analysis of natural texts using QLEX or QANALYSIS. Sociology Technical Report (Vol. 2033-1). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
18.
HayesD. P.WolferL. T.WolfeM. F. (1996). Schoolbook simplification and its relation to the decline in SAT-Verbal scores. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 489–509.
19.
HiebertE. H. (2011). Beyond single readability measures: Using multiple sources of information in establishing text complexity. Journal of Education, 191(2), 33.
20.
HiebertE. H. (2011–2012). The Common Core’s staircase of text complexity: Getting the size of the first step right. Reading Today, 29(3), 26–27.
21.
HiebertE. H.MesmerH. A. E. (2013). Upping the ante of text complexity in the Common Core State Standards: Examining its potential impact on young readers. Educational Researcher, 42, 44–51.
22.
HueyE. B. (1908). The psychology and pedagogy of reading, with a review of the history of reading and writing and of methods, texts, and hygiene in reading. New York, NY: Macmillan.
23.
LovelessT. (2012). The 2012 Brown Center report on American education: How well are American students learning? With sections on predicting the effect of the Common Core State Standards, Achievement Gaps on the Two NAEP Tests, and Misinterpreting International Test Scores (Vol. 3). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
24.
LuX. (2009). Automatic measurement of syntactic complexity in child language acquisition. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(1), 3–28.
25.
MarksC. B. (1974). Word frequency and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 67, 259.
26.
MathewsM. M. (1966). Teaching to read, historically considered. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
McGregorA. K. (1989). The effect of word frequency and social class on children’s reading comprehension. Reading, 23, 105–115.
28.
McGuffeyW. H.GornE. J. (1998). The McGuffey readers: Selections from the 1879 edition. Boston, MA: Bedford Books.
29.
MesmerH. A.CunninghamJ. W.HiebertE. H. (2012). Toward a theoretical model of text complexity for the early grades: Learning from the past, anticipating the future. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 235–258.
30.
MichelJ.-B.ShenY. K.AidenA. P.VeresA.GrayM. K. . . . AidenE. L. (2011). Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science, 331(6014), 176–182.
31.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (NGA/CCSSO). (2010a). The Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Author.
32.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (NGA/CCSSO). (2010b). The Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects, Appendix A: Research Supporting Key Elements of the Standards. Washington, DC: Author.
33.
PearsonP. D. (2009). The roots of reading comprehension instruction. In IsraelS. E.DuffyG. G. (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 3–31). New York, NY: Routledge.
34.
PoppH. M. (1975). Current practices in the teaching of beginning reading. In CarrollJ. B.ChallJ. S. (Eds.), Toward a literate society: The report of the Committee on Reading of the National Academy of Education with a series of papers commissioned by the committee (pp. 101–146). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
35.
PorterA.McMakenJ.HwangJ.YangR. (2011). Common Core Standards: The new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40, 103–116.
36.
ReardonS. F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In DuncanG. J.MurnaneR. J. (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 91–115). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
37.
ResnickD. P.ResnickL. B. (1977). The nature of literacy: An historical exploration. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 370–385.
38.
RothsteinR. (1998) The way we were? The myths and realities of America’s Student Achievement. New York: Century Foundation.
39.
SchmidtW. H.HouangR. T. (2012). Curricular coherence and the Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Educational Researcher, 41, 294–308.
40.
SmithN. B. (2002). American reading instruction. Special edition. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
41.
SnowC. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program for reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
42.
SteelmanL. C.PowellB. (1996). Bewitched, bothered, and bewildering: The use and misuse of state SAT and ACT scores. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 27.
43.
SullivanD. P. (1994). William Holmes McGuffey: Schoolmaster to the nation. Rutherford, NJ: Associated University Presses.
44.
ToutanovaK.KleinD.ManningC.SingerY. (2003). Feature-rich part-of-speech tagging with a cyclic dependency network. Proceedings of the 2003 Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 252–259). Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: The Association for Computational Linguistics.
45.
VenezkyR. L. (1987). A history of the American reading textbook. Elementary School Journal, 87, 246–265.
46.
WesterhoffJ. H. (1978). McGuffey and his readers: Piety, morality, and education in nineteenth-century America. Nashville: Abingdon.
47.
WilliamsonG. L.FitzgeraldJ.StennerA. J. (2013). The Common Core Standards’ quantitative text complexity trajectory: Figuring out how much complexity is enough. Educational Researcher, 42(2), 59–69.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
