The state of California recently adopted 2 language arts programs for
school districts to choose from for instruction, "Open Court" and
"Harcourt, Brace". ALL DISTRICTS MUST CHOOSE ONE OF THE TWO IN ORDER
TO RECEIVE STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING.  No other state, I believe, ties
federal funding to a language arts adoption. My question is:  Who is
the winner in this surprise move? because, in this educators opinion,
it is NOT the children. Rumor has it that this is yet another move to
force a voucher type system on us, even though it was soundly defeated
in the last election. Granted, this is an opinion type question, but
what is the cost to each district? what is the profit to the
publishers? what is the relationship between our elected officials and
the publishers? I admit, I am hoping for a scandal that results in a
reversal of this decision... Hey, a girl can dream can't she?

---

Request for Question Clarification by grimace-ga on 09 Jun 2002 09:42 PDT

Can you briefly explain your objection to Language Arts? Do you object
to the subject itself, or are you just protesting about the funding
formula which is forcing it on schools? The programme of study itself
looks perfectly reasonable to me (at
http://www.cde.ca.gov/cdepress/lang_arts.pdf ).

Hello TT,

In case you're wondering, an earlier answer that I provided to this
question was removed by Google...apparently I didn't follow their
rules closely enough.  So here's another take...

With California State spending more than $400 million a year on K-12
educational materials, competition is steep, winners line their
pockets, losers resolve to try again (if they can stay in business)
and - this is everyone's hope, at least - students benefit from the
best programs that money can buy.  That's the theory, at least, but
there seems to be more and more sceptics out there every day.

I gather you are a teacher, and if so, you are doubtless more aware
than most of the profound changes in public education occurring
through the adoption in more and more systems of standardized testing,
cookie-cutter curricula, and the desire for national testing of both
students and teachers.

As a parent, I am uncomfortable with what I see happening -
standardization of testing and curricula are taking the joy out of
learning for both students and teachers, and severely limiting
opportunities for spontaneous explorations and experiences that follow
a student's natural curiosity about the world (hey...you asked for
opinions!).

As for the facts of who's who in this game in California, I've
included links to articles (or summaries to articles that are not
web-accessible) that focus on Harcourt, McGraw-Hill's "Open Court" and
other key players and products (some of the articles are from
"Educational Marketer", in case you had any doubt about what a big
business this has become – you can see a sample of the newsletter at
http://www.simbanet.com/samples/em1008.pdf).

Scandal???   Not a great deal to offer, but you'll note that in the
article “Deadline Looms, Pearson, Harcourt Struggle In CA
Reading Adoption” key elements of Harcourt's language arts program
were found wanting by the  California Curriculum Commission.  So how
did Harcourt wind up on top??? Hmmm?

Your question was fairly open-ended, so don't hesitate to get back to
me with more specifics if you want some follow up.

All the best (I've always had a soft spot for teachers).

Dave

******************

Educational Marketer newsletter, June 18, 2001, in an article
“PUBLISHERS LINE UP TEXTBOOKS AND TECHNOLOGY-BASED PROGRAMS FOR 2002
CALIFORNIA ADOPTION” (no internet link available) notes that:

“Next year, schools in California will have $423.2 million in state
funds to spend on instructional materials for children in kindergarten
through 12th grade, according to EM estimates. The bulk of that
funding - an estimated $316.6 million - will be available for schools
to spend on state-adopted reading and English language arts materials
for kindergarten through eighth-grade students. ”  



The same newsletter, in the December 10, 2001 issue, has an article
“DEADLINE LOOMS, PEARSON, HARCOURT STRUGGLE IN CA READING ADOPTION”
notes that:

“...the California Curriculum Commission...has recommended the board
not
approve nine of the 21 submitted titles, including elementary basal
instructional programs from Pearson Education and Harcourt School.”

Accoding to the commission chair, Patrice Abarca, 

"Curriculum commissioners conducted our own individual reviews, and we
found during our deliberations that these two programs did not meet
California state adopted reading, language arts, English-language
development criteria,"


The Commission’s recommendation notwithstanding, Harcourt (as you well
know) was approved for adoption by the California State Board of
Education.  Harcourt’s announcement of the approval reads, in part:

“Holt, Rinehart and Winston, a Harcourt Education company, announced
today that the California State Board of Education has unanimously
approved the adoption of Holt Literature and Language Arts for use in
California public schools.  The Board action follows a thorough
evaluation process with reviewers who found the program to be fully
aligned with California's content standards and framework and praised
the program for meeting or exceeding all of the state's criteria for
standards- based instructional materials. Approval by the Board means
that public schools may purchase Holt Literature and Language Arts
using funds from the $250 million Standards-Based Instructional
Materials Program.”

The full text can be found here:

http://www.harcourt.com/about/news/articles/011502_literature_language.pdf


My original response had some additional detail which I can't make
available here...sorry.  Hope this does the trick, but if not, let me
know, and I'm sure I can provide some more information.

Dave

---

Request for Answer Clarification by teachertorture-ga on 13 Jun 2002 21:15 PDT

Dave,

Thanks for the information, I am curious about your original answer
but will learn to live with disappointment. Is there a way that you
could tell me the cost of one textbook, or the cost per child?
Additionally, can you compare the price of this adoption to the
previous? All the articles you and others sent were bottom line, not
the cost per child... Does the price vary by school district?

Thanks,

Lori

---

Clarification of Answer by davidsar-ga on 14 Jun 2002 12:40 PDT

Hello again.

I looked, but I'm afraid I didn't find any cost-per-child (or
textbook) figures along the lines you're looking for (there were some
figures like the cost per child for home schooling, charter schools,
and the like, but not for language art programs).

Sorry...I don't like coming up empty-handed.  If you can suggest some
particular sources worth looking into, I can do some more searching
around.

All the best...

Dave

It was my first time using GA; I wasn't sure what to expect. I
appreciate all the hard work that davidsar obviously went to.

This programme reminds me of the National Literacy Strategy, which was
introduced a few years ago here in the UK.

http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/literacy/

Teachers were very upset about the strategy when it was first
introduced, and it has added somewhat to teacher workload - but it has
recently been judged a success - more or less - by government and
teaching unions alike.

These new initiatives can sometimes look like pointless meddling from
the classroom perspective, and can be very disheartening to teachers
at first, but they can also work, sometimes, and the children can
indeed be winners.

Naturally you shouldn't lie down and take it - and I hope you are a
member of a good teaching union who can dig for scandal on your behalf
- but I don't think it's always productive to prejudge schemes like
this as failures before they've been properly tried.

all the best,

grimace (a fellow teacher in the UK!)

I suggest you look at the currently ongoing debate on
 Mater Plan for California education at: 

http://www.network-democracy.org/camp/pa/agenda.shtml

 There is little doubt that large amounts of educational funds
 fet wasted every year. We certainly do not need new materials 
every two years, some of them thrown out before they are ever used.

 How much of that is corruption, how much just not-caring, bloated
  bureaucracy  - that's a 10 million a year question which google
  answers cannot provide. Only way to deal that problem is to overhaul
 the system. I appreciate the comment from UK, but that, unfortunately,
 is not our case here, in CA, right now.

Dear Grimace,

Language arts and teaching language arts is a passion for me. And, I
am very good at what I do.  The reason I am complaining about the
adoption is three fold.

1.  both are "scripted" programs. In other words, "on week 3,day 2 the
teacher will say..... and will hand out page ### worksheet to the
students to be completed by week 3, day 3...." it totally leaves out
the opportunity for what we in education biz call "teachable moments"
A child's creativity can not be scripted, it has to be given multiple
opportunities, encouraged and nutured.

2.  we just had an adoption 3 years ago, complete with new textbooks,
workbooks and all the assorted accessories that go along with it. In
this day and age of cut backs and shortages, I would rather the money
be spent on quality literature for the classroom, along with classroom
supplies. do you have a concept of how much of my own money I spend to
outfit my classroom?  I I'll wager that you don't know any other
profession that spends their own money to try and get the job done....

3.  I resent that a group of non-educators, consisting largely of
lobbyists, are making binding decisions about what and how curriculum
will be taught in my classroom. All the wrong pockets are being too
well lined at the expense of my students.