Dr. Dobb's Journal November 2002
Once every eight years, textbook publishers and special-interest groups begin circling over Austin, Texas, as the Texas State Board of Education wades into the process of adopting new instructional materials for public schools. Among other requirements, the process involves public hearings that give citizens the opportunity to comment on what's right and (more often) what's wrong with textbooks. If nothing else, this is at least entertaining, with everyone from the impassioned to the downright nutty spouting off.
But for their part, publishers are less interested in what taxpayers have to say and more interested in selling books. All in all, Texas will spend $344.7 million on instructional material for its 4.1 million public school students over the next selection cycle. Still, the pie is much bigger for publishers than just the millions Texas has to offer because smaller states with fewer dollars and less stringent selection processes (only 22 states have textbook adoption processes at all) usually settle for whatever Texas adopts.
Like any bureaucratic competition, the selection process (see http://www.tea.state.tx.us/textbooks/adoptprocess/index.html) is arduous, requiring publishers to submit material that meets Texas-specified standards and Texas-mandated budgets. For instance, books for Texas high-school students tackling computer science must cover sequential and iterative algorithms, address object-oriented data types, algorithm analysis, compare and contrast design methodologies, and analyze models used in the development of software including software lifecycle models and design objectives, to mention just a few topics. On paper, these standards seem well-thought out, somewhat rigorous, and generally flexible enough to accommodate change. Specific languages aren't identified, enabling individual instructors to use contemporary languages of their choice when appropriate. The bottom line, of course, is that the instructional material the publishers are hawking must support these standards.
Among the current crop of Texas-approved programming books are Visual Basic in the Classroom, by Michael W. Sprague (South-Western Thomson Learning, 1998); Introduction to Computer Science Using C++, by Todd Knowlton Sprague (South-Western Thomson Learning, 1998); Fundamentals of C++: Understanding Programming & Problem, by Kenneth Lambert (West Publishing-ITP, 1998); Fundamentals of Pascal, by Douglas W. Nance (West Publishing-ITP, 1998); and Fundamentals of Program Design and Data Structures with C++, by Kenneth A. Lambert and Thomas L. Naps (West Publishing-ITP, 1998)—all of which will likely go by the wayside as new ones pop up in November 2003. In December of this year, Texans will get their first peek at what their new computer-science textbooks/programs will be.
Interestingly, Texas plans on shifting, for the first time, from a per-unit price for textbooks to a subscription model based on annual payments. For example, the budgeted amount for a computer-science textbook is $55. Instead of paying all $55 up front, Texas intends on stretching out payment, giving publishers $8.50 the first and second years that schools have the book; $10.50 for years 3 and 4; and $12.50 for years 5 and 6. Publishers will eventually get the full amount, but must wait for it. To make this scheme palatable to publishers, Texas is also moving into web-based instructional material—a new Java programming book might not be a book at all, but an interactive web site or PDF document. The beauty of this, from the publisher's perspective, is that they'll get the same $55 but without having to spend money on paper, printing, and distribution—meaning their profit margins go way up. From the state's perspective, web-based instructional materials are good because schools aren't locked into out-of-date books until the next adoption cycle, since publishers can update material on the fly. If this model had been in place in the current cycle, for instance, Java programming could have been introduced to students years ago. Furthermore, this approach lets Texas amortize a major investment in instructional content over several years.
While Texas is to be commended for taking the lead in leveraging technology for educational purposes, states less awash in spare change and selection standards are in danger of falling behind. The burden is, therefore, on textbook publishers not to turn their backs on schools that can't afford Texas-style computers and connectivity. There's plenty of room for both profit and educational progress, unless corporate greed once again gets in the way.
Jonathan Erickson
editor-in-chief
jerickson@ddj.com