4.
:
*
B 1,548,854
RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION,
* . . .
§ 3; viºr, ºr 3 º' …
*-ij i. t ; º, º q
A f - &
§ § rt ty..."
FEDERALLy-FUNDED EDucATIONAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
AGENCIES, AND COMMERCIAL PUBLISHERS
FINAL REPORT
FEBRUARy 25, 1977
The National
Institute of
Education
U.S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare
Washington, D.C. 20208
^, ; ; i ºr w * ---
‘. . t t s' # º : •-
3 : , t > S. 5 *4
# , ‘f -: *...* *.. !- **.*







RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION,
FEDERALLY-FUNDED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
AGENCIES, AND COMMERCIAL PUBLISHERS
F | NAL RE PORT
An introduction, six reports,
and three appendices, covering
Tasks I through VI, prepared
for the
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION
under -
Contract No. 400–76-0086
zº B C M A A's sociates, Inc.
February 25, 1977 52 Vanderbilt Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10017
Telephone (212) 683-8262




º TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i-vi
Task I: An analysis of the current PAS effort . . . . . . . . . 1 – I 21
Appendix to Task I Report: Special study of the use of
PAS by developers other than the laboratories -
and centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I i – I xl
Task II: An analysis and evaluation of the alternatives
to PAS • © Cº © tº Q © e e e © © º c Gº © © tº gº e tº © © II l dº II 6
Appendix to Task II Report: Examples of alternatives
to PAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II i - II Xxxi
Task III: Analysis of special problems associated with *
"thin market" products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III 1 - III 20
Task IV: Analysis of the potential role publishers could
perform in a consultant or working arrangement
with the Institute in regard to new development
activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV 1 - IV 14
Appendix to Task IV Report: Reports of counselling
sessions with NIE staff members . . . . . . . . . . . IV i – IV vi
Task V: Review of consumer interest and issues that
should modify or constrain any of the previous
policy recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W 1 - W ll
Task VI: Prepare a final summary of all of the recommen—
dations and activities required in the foregoing
sections tº C G O © © º Ç O º ſº tº gº gº © gº o © º º © tº VI l gºe VI 7
Contract No. 400–76–0086



INTORDUCTION







INTRODUCTION
to
TASKS I — VI
Contract No. 400-76-0086






INTRODUCTION
to
TASKS I - VI
Background
Conversations about this assignment began with Mr. Lawrence
Hutchins and others at NIE in August 1975 and were resumed in late
February 1976. Early in March BCMA received from Mr. William C. Sullivan
a Scope of Work, in response to which BCMA submitted a Tentative Proposal
on March 29. This was reviewed and discussed at a meeting in Mr. Patrick
Noone's office on April 2, involving Mr. Noone and Dr. Richard Lallmang
of NIE and Emers on Brown, John Lloyd, and Cameron Moseley of BCMA.
Mr. Hutchins, who could not attend, was represented by a detailed memo-
randum, containing comments and questions on the Tentative Proposal. On
April 23, BCMA submitted a formal proposal, which was amended in BCMA's
1etter of May 5. This 1etter became the basis of Contract No. 400-76-0086,
with an effective date of June 1, 1976, and a termination date of November
16, 1976. On September 28 the contract was extended to March 1, 1977,
to enable BCMA to complete additional tasks described in BCMA's proposal
of September 16. This proposal had been submitted in response to a Work
Effort sent to BCMA by Dr. Lallmang, who had been BCMA's Project Officer
since the beginning of the assignment. As of October 27, 1976, Dr.
Lallmang was succeeded as BCMA's Project Officer by Mr. Morton Bachrach.
Accomplishing Tasks I - VI
The six tasks to be completed by BCMA under the first portion
of Contract 400-76-0086 are briefly described as follows in the Scope of
Work:
Task I. An analysis of the current PAS effort.
Task II. An analysis and evaluation of the alternatives to PAS.
Task III. Analysis of special problems associated with "thin market"
products. |
Task IV. Analysis of the potential role publishers could perform in a
consultant or working arrangement with the Institute in regard
to new development activities.
*
Task W. Review of consumer interest and issues that should modify or
constrain any of the previous policy recommendations.
Task VI. Prepare a final summary of all of the recommendations and
activities required in the foregoing sections.



ii
Between the beginning of June and the end of November 1976,
Emerson Brown and Cameron Moseley of BCMA spent most of the time devoted
to this assignment interviewing representatives of regional laboratories
and centers, other developers, educational publishing executives, and
consumers (i.e. school administrators, supervisors, teachers, and other
educators). A tabulation of these interviews follows:
Specified in Organizations Individuals
amended proposal interviewed interviewed
NIE staff members 10(a) 1 17
*:::::::::: * 9 10(b) 37(b)
Other developers 5 7 100e)
Publishers 20 33(d) 51(d)
Consumers 15 gº º 16(e)
131 O
(a) refers to Associate person-days to be used for interviewing
(b) BCMA also has been in close touch with another laboratory but has not
formally interviewed staff members concerning this project.
(c) As explained in the Appendix to Task I, these interviews were sup-
plemented by a special mail and phone study conducted mainly by
William Boutwell of BCMA,
(d) includes one publishing trade association plus Systems Development Corp.
(e) These specific interviews were supplemented, as explained in the Task v report,
by recollections of talks with hundreds of consumers spread over a period of
years, and by comments from many developers and publishers who also have been con-
- Suille IS .
BCMA also had full access to NIE files and read and analyzed,
during the course of this assignment, a great variety of relevant docu-
ments, starting with the Copyright Guidelines and ranging from brief
memoranda to lengthy, complex studies. Many of these were called to
BCMA's attention by persons being interviewed.
Because of the time spent making acceptable arrangements to
extend the contract (noted above), the temporary illness in early December
of both Emerson Brown and Cameron Moseley, the difficulties of scheduling
and conducting interviews on convenient dates for all concerned, and the
complexity of the tasks themselves, it proved to be impossible to submit
completed reports on the original schedule covering Tasks I through VI. O



iii
An incomplete draft version was, however, completed on December 30 and
submitted on January 3, and a preliminary final version was completed on
January 24 and submitted on January 25. The final report reflects comments
and suggestions made at a meeting in Dr. Senta Raizen's office on
February 3, involving Dr. Raizen, Lawrence Hutchins, Morton Bachrach,
Dr. Susan Klein, and Mildred Thorne of NIE, and Emerson Brown and Cameron
Moseley of BCMA, and further discussion between Mr. Bachrach and Mr. Brown
on February 8 and 9.
Commercial publishers
The term "commercial publishers" used in this study covers perhaps
as many as 1,500 companies that produce and market instructional and
informational materials of many different kinds, purchased for the use of
students and faculties in schools (pre-kindergarten through grade 12), the
major area with which these reports are concerned, and in college and
university departments and schools of education. Many of these estimated
1,500 companies are, however, autonomous or semi-autonomous divisions or
subsidiaries of larger companies.
School (or "el-hi") publishers and producers”
In publishing parlance "school publishers and producers" (often
called "e1–hi publishers") are the companies that produce and market
materials in a variety of media designed for student use as classroom
texts in pre-kindergarten through grade 12. The companies in this group
range from about a dozen very large firms (by the standards of a rela-
tively small industry), each with annual sales of $20 million and up,
that produce multi-grade, multi-component, multi-media programs in
several different curriculum areas (almost always with basic textbooks
at the core) to dozens of very small companies each with annual sales
under a million dollars that produce only a few products aimed at some
special segment of the school market, such as special education, career
education, bi-lingual education, etc. -
The products of these companies include: basic textbooks (cloth-
bound or paperbound); supplementary printed materials (paperback books,
booklets, and periodicals); audio-visual materials (moving pictures, film-
strips, audio-tapes, transparencies, etc.); multi-media kits; educational
games and toys designed for classroom use; standardized tests. Teacher
aids and other "educator education" materials produced by these companies
are usually related directly to the pupil-use items and are most commonly
furnished to teachers without charge.
The 1arger companies rely for their marketing efforts primarily
on salesmen and consultants, supported by sales correspondents, direct-
mail promotion, journal advertising, and attendance at exhibits. The
very small companies, however, rely entirely on some combination of
* "producers" usually implies non-print materials - phonograph records,
cassettes, manipulative items, etc.



iv
direct-mail promotion, sales correspondents, journal advertising, exhibit
attendance, phone selling, and selling through dealers and distributors.
(In a number of these companies, teacher-use products are sold along with
student-use products). The companies in between rely on various combina-
tions of a few salesmen and the other methods noted above.
A11 companies in the school publisher/producer group must be
prepared, as a regular cost of sales, to supply examination copies at
no charge and/or to establish on-approval ordering procedures (particu-
larly for expensive audio-visual materials and multi-media kits) so that
teachers and supervisors may inspect their products before making purchase
decisions. Many of these companies, the larger ones especially, also fur- .
nish consultant service without charge. The cost of all these "free" materials
and services must be recovered, however, in the pricing of the products that
are actually purchased.
Other commercial publishers
Many hundreds of other publishing companies, 1arge and small,
sell portions of their list of products to schools, and to college and
university departments and schools of education. These products include:
"educator education" materials (methods textbooks, other professional and
scholarly books, special studies and reports); dictionaries, encyclopedias,
and other reference works; clothbound or paperbound "trade" books (general
books for children and adults) purchased for supplementary text or library
use; "entertainment" and documentary films; general and special-interest
periodicals. -
The larger companies usually have sizable "school and 1 ibrary
divisions," sometimes spear-headed by sales representatives, but in the
smaller companies "school and library division" may mean little more than
an occasional mail-order campaign for a product that, by design or
accident, turns out to have a school and school-of-education market. Most
of the companies in this large and diverse group rely for school and
college marketing mainly on mail-order promotion, journal advertising, and
sales through dealers and distributors. -
In many cases, methods textbooks and other professional books
that are sold as student-use textbooks by sales representatives of college
departments are sold to schools through mail-order promotion by "school
divisions" for reference, or in-service-training and workshop use.
Publishers selling to the educational market have found that
direct-sales efforts designed primarily to sell products in multiple quan-
tities for student text use in classrooms cannot be combined successfully
with sales efforts designed to sell products in 1imited quantities for
student reference or faculty use. For this reason a "school division"
that produces and sells materials for student use may be completely in-
dependent, in the same company, from a "school and library department"
set up in another publishing division to sell only a certain portion of
its 1jist to schools. -



Other kinds of publishers
Many other organizations supply instructional and reference
materials to the educational market. These organizations include
university presses, professional and trade associations, special-interest
associations and institutes, government agencies, and the "educational
divisions" of many corporations. Some of these materials are sold at:
prices comparable to those of commercial publishers; others are sold "at
cost" or are given away.
School budget limitations
Publishers of a 11 kinds selling instructional and informational
products to schools are competing for a market that totaled, in the
school year 1975-1976, an estimated $1.4 billion. This looks like -- and
indeed is -- a large sum, but it looks considerably smaller when expressed
as a percentage of total school operating expenses of upwards of $70 billion
(1ess that 2%) or as an average amount per student (about $28). And the
$1.4 billion (1ess than the annual sales of dozens of major corporations)
is divided up among many hundreds of companies, about a dozen of which
account for nearly a third of the total.
The funds available to schools for the purchase of instructional
materials for students and aids for teachers are relatively small. The
personal funds that teachers and supervisors have available for the purchase
of professional books are minimal. In such a budget-limited climate, funds
to satisfy genuine interests, needs, and demands -- even pressing demands --
by the schools for instructional materials are often lacking. And, in such
a climate, many worthwhile projects that publishers would like, for educa-
tional reasons, to undertake must, for business reasons, be rejected or
indefinitely postponed.
Implications for developers
The extraordinarily varied and complex nature of the segment
of the publishing industry that furnishes materials to schools and the
1imitations of school budgets have important implications for a 11
developers, but particularly for developers seeking publishers for "thin
market" materials. These implications are discussed at length in the Task III
report, and are touched upon in the other reports.
Nature and importance of this assignment
BCMA not only believes it was particularly well qualified to
carry out this assignment but also has a particular personal interest
in it. Several of BCMA's Associates -- especially William Boutwell,
Emerson Brown, and Cameron Moseley -- have been deeply involved, / as
publishers, in developer/publisher relationships since the beginning in
the late 1950's of the federally-funded development projects. These



vi
same Associates, as consultants, have worked with various laboratories
and centers and other non-profit organizations in assisting them (some-
times successfully) to find suitable publishers. In addition, they have
known and worked with literally thousands of consumers over many decades,
and they have, as individuals, a deep personal commitment to education
at all levels, but particularly in the public schools of this country.
They also believe, in the words of one developer among those interviewed,
that the major mission of federally-funded developers is "to work with
publishers to create and distribute better instructional materials."
BCMA hopes earnestly that these reports will help NIE to help
developers achieve this important goal.
A word of appreciation
In concluding this Introduction, BCMA wishes to express its
special appreciation to all the people interviewed for the full and
courteous cooperation extended to us, and particularly to Dr. Richard
Lallmang and Mr. Morton Bachrach for their patience and help throughout.
This assignment has been pleasant and rewarding as well as stimulating
and demanding.



Supplement to Report Entitled
RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION,
FEDERALLY-FUNDED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
AGENCIES, AND COMMERCIAL PUBLISHERS
Prepared under
Contract No. 400–76–0086
* B C M A A S S O C is tes, Inc.
March 11, 1977
52 Vanderbilt Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10017
Telephone (212) 683-8262




G” and individuals interviewed by BCMA
National Institute of Education Number of individuals interviewed
17 - Bachrach, Chalker, Cunning–
ham, Hodgkinson, Hutchins,
Klein, Lallmang, McCord
(Anacostia); Milrod, Noboa,
Penney, Raizen, Muraskin,
Schaffarzick, Sealey, Sticht,
Tucker.
Regional Laboratories (7)
CEDar
CEMREL
Far West
Northwest
Research for Better Schools
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory
SWRL
i
Total 28
Oreº and Development Centers (3)
Center for the Study of Evaluation 3
Research and Development Center for
Teacher Education 2
Wisconsin Research and Development Center
for Cognitive Learning 4
Total 9
Other developers (7)
American Institute for Research, Palo Alto 2
Battelle Institute, Columbus, Ohio l
Bureau of Educational Cooperative Services,
Nassau County, New York l
Educational Development Center, Newton, Mass. 2
Institute for Curriculum Development
Boston University 2
National Association of Industry Education Coop. l
New York University ––
Total 10


Publishers (33)
ACI Media
Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Allyn & Bacon
American Book Company (Litton)
Association of American Publishers?
Benziger Bruce & Glencoe (Macmillan)
Bowmar Publishing (Thomson Ltd.)
Citation Press (Scholastic)
Doubleday Multimedia
Encyclopaedia Britannica Educational Corp.
Fearon Publishers, Inc. (Pitman)
Follett Publishing Company
Ginn and Company (Xerox)
Harper & Row, Publishers
Houghton Mifflin
Imperial International Learning Corp.
Macmillan Publishing Co.
Mafex Associates
McDougal, Littell & Company
McGraw-Hill
McKnight Publishing Co.
Materials for Today's Learning
National Educational Laboratory Publishers
Rand McNally & Company
Random House School Division (RCA)
Sage Publications
Scholastic Magazines
Science Research Associates (IBM)
Silver Burdett (Scott Foresman)
Systems Development Corporation **
Steck—Vaughn (Intext)
Viking Press (Penguin)
Webster (McGraw-Hill)
Total
º: trade association
** contractor for PAS
Number of individuals *O
:
1.
:
3
:il:
3


Consumers (17)
Dr. M. L. Brochette, Commissioner
of Education, Texas
Mrs. Virginia Cutter, Director of
Dissemination, Texas
Dr. Dorothy Davidson, Associate
Commissioner of Education,
Texas
Dr. 0, L. Davis, Jr., Professor of
Social Studies Education,
University of Texas
Joseph Diamond, science and mathematics
teacher, Britanny Junior High
School, University City,
Missouri
Norman Draper, Principal, Wilson
Elementary School,
Janesville, Wisconsin
Dr. Roy E. Harkin, Professor of Education,
University of North Carolina,
Wilmington
Marlene Knobbe, music and theater arts
specialist, Edgar. Road
School, Webster Groves,
Missouri
J. Henry Perry, Jr., Director,
Division of Textbooks, Texas
Dr. Calvin Schlick, Associate
Superintendent of Schools,
Mamaroneck, New York
William Stevens, Social Science
Supervisor, Wichita Public
Schools
Dr. Murray Stock, Science and
Mathematics Supervisor,
Greenwich, Connecticut,
Schools
Dr. Barbara Thompson, State
Superintendent of Schools,
Wisconsin
Dr. Gladys Unruh, Assistant
Superintendent of Schools,
University City, Missouri
Guy West, Division of Textbooks,
Texas
Dr. Nancy Wyner, Early Childhood
Department, Wheelock College,
Boston, Mass.



TASK I







TASK I
AN ANALYSIS OF
THE CURRENT PAS REPORT






TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction (º © • e • * > cº º © cº tº Q tº © e - º e º º • º ©
Pages
i-vi
Task I: An analysis of the current PAS effort . . . . . . .
Appendix to Task I Report: Special study of the use of
PAS by developers other than the laboratories
and centers - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task II: An analysis and evaluation of the alternatives
to PAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix to Task II Report: Examples of alternatives
to PAS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task III: Analysis of special problems associated with
"thin market" products . . . . . . . . . . . .
Task IV: Analysis of the potential role publishers could
perform in a consultant or working arrangement
with the Institute in regard to new development
activities - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Appendix to Task IV Report: Reports of counselling
sessions with NIE staff members . . . . . . . . . . .
Task V: Review of consumer interest and issues that
should Inodify or constrain any of the previous
policy recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Task VI: Prepare a final summary of all of the recommen-
dations and activities required in the foregoing
sections - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
I. 1 — I 21 |
I i — I xl
.*
II 1 — II 6
II i – II xxxi
III 1 - III 20
IV l – IV 1 A
IV i – IV vi
V 1 – V ll
VI 1 – VI 7
Prepared by BCMA Associates, Inc. for the National Institute
of Education under Contract No. 400–7 6–0086.
February 25, 1977


I-1
TASK I
AN ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT PAS REPORT
Brief history and description of PAS
A USOE memorandum dated April 13, 1970, entitled "Summary of
Meeting on Publisher's Alert System (NYC March 31, 1970)," opens with
this statement:
"The idea of a systematic alerting service to inform
publishers early about OE-supported development projects
came from a December 1969 meeting involving OE staff
and publisher association representatives. The meeting
held in New York City, March 31, 1970, followed."
The March 31 meeting was attended by five educational publishers,
a university press publisher, three representatives of publishers' trade
associations (one from each association), a publisher of a newsletter
addressed to educational marketers, five persons from four different
regional laboratories and research and development centers, a representa-
tive of LEASCO, and three members of the OE staff.
A copy of this memorandum follows immediately in this report
(pages 2-5). The comments, suggestions, questions, and recommendations
summarized on pages 2 and 3 of the memorandum indicate that virtually
a11 the characteristics of, and a 11 the problems connected with , the
nature and eventual operation of the Publishers Alert Service were fore-
seen and understood by various members of this diverse group.
A major developer, responding a few months later to a widely-
distributed request for comments on the Publishers Alert Service-
Developer's Product Data Form, summarized the characteristics and problems
in this way:
"Our experience indicates that accomplishing the
objectives will require attention to a deceptively
complex set of technical and institutional structural
relationships. . . . Any form, irrespective of design,
is likely to be a simplistic response to this
desirable but terribly complicated objective."


I-2
Date:
Reply to
Attn of:
Subject:
To:
/*) REL and R&D Center representatives
APPEND IX B.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION. AND wel FARE
OFF , C E OF EDUCAT ION -
April 13, 1970
DASPRE/OID
Summary of Meeting on Publisher's Alert system (NYC March 31, 1970)
Office of Information Dissemination, U.S. Office of Education
See addressees below
Background
The idea of a systematic alerting service to inform publishers early
about OE-supported development products came from a December meeting
involving OE staff and publisher association representatives.
The meeting held in New York City, March 31, 1970 followed.
The attached outline, "outline for Publisher's Alerting Service”, -
March 20, 1970, sets forth the objectives and a strategy for the
projected service. e -
The March 31, 1970 meeting
Three groups of attendees participated:
//e) Publisher representatives: . . -
Vincent Alexander, Holt, ... Rinehart and Winston ’
- William Jones sº. Educational Development Corporation - T - .
Eliot Minskers Knowledge Industry Publication ------
John Vance, McGraw-Hill -Books Company rº
Alden Clark, American Association of University Presses
Robert Barnes, Columbia University Press º º
Frank Anderson, Encyclopedia Britannica T
Paş1 Zurkowski, Information Industry Association
º Bates, Litton Educational Publishing, Inc. *T
Austin McCaffrey, American Educational Publishers Institute
John Yeager, Learning Research and Development Center
Robert Dentler, Center for Urban Education
Lila Walz, Center for Urban Education
James Walters, Wisconsin Center for R&D for Cognitive Learning
John Cantwell, Division of Educational Laboratories, NCERD/OE
OE staff 0.
Morton Bachrach
Thomas Clemens
Lee G. Burchinal
LEASCO representative
Ted Broadhurst



I-3
Page 2
Recommendations
|
1. Robert Dentler, from CUE., raised seven objections to the proposed
service, namely:
a. The alert system will transmit second and third-hand data
lacking in accuracy and qualitative significance.
b - The alert system will generate new confusion and costly
interchange as publishers seek clarification from 1abs and centers and
as they build up false hopes about prospects.
c. The alert system will duplicate existing program reporting
requirements designed by USOE/fEL. - -
d. The alert system will locate vitually all burden for message
preparation upon the 1abs and centers, yet message sending will be
control.1ed by USOE/OID. ^ -
~ e. The system is not a truly two-way device: it does not .
inform 1abs of publishers'--activities and products that would benefit
both sets of agencies. ' º b
f. It does not foster free, creative and flexible, two-way
communication in that lab and center inputs are monitored by USOE.
g. The system is over-elaborate for 15 1abs and 9 centers.
These were later transmitted to Pr. Larry - Fish ; head- of- the REL
directors in-azletter of April-1, with the counter_suggestion that ----
the interface between .i.abs and Centers be-handied by the new Information
Officer-of-the Lab and Center-Conference. -- - - - -
-*
2. The publisher representatives did not share Dr. Dentler's view.
They endorsed the projected alerting service and offered suggesticns for
ensuring its effectiveness.
- -
3. Publisher representatives offered the following recommendations
for data elements: - . " . . . . . . . . .
a. A clear statement of objectives, as concrete as possible.
b. Definition of the target population, with at least some
preliminary analysis of the market--who will be the buyers, how many, how
distributed, how reached. -
- c. Description of the program; what conceputal approach is
used. w - - ... •
= . . . . . d. Description of the early plan for the system, what print
and nonprint components are to be *...*.*.*.*.*
per component, for the system; how available is the equipment used
in the system.



I-4
O re. 3
e. Description of the time scale for delivery for the
Product, system, and its components.
f. Revision schedule; how of ten; under what conditions.
g. Validation data; what test data are there; how hard.
h. Data on amount and type of teacher retraining required to
use the product or system ... .º.º. can the developer
make to support of retraining efforts; what support could be foun
—under-racāror FedEFäTauspices-—-
i. Uniqueness of the product or system, what related systems
or products are there; how is this one unique; will it remain so.
4. Other publisher suggestions included: 2-
a . . Use a news gathering technique for identifying and collecting
aeeded information. . . . . . .
b. Timely and accurate information is much superior -to
comprehensive reporting. *
c. Arrange for periodic updating of the alert. A single
source that aggressively pursues the information and obtains the
updated information will be superior to a system that relies on
information supplied through administrative channels. . * * *
d. Reporting should include any tentative RFP schedule; when
ready, released, proposals - due, selection period; when products will
be ready. . . - t
5. AEPI was willing to act as the agent for transmitting the alert
information to publishers. Burch inal agreed , but added that other
channels could be used as well, such as Publisher's Weekly, Educational
Marketer and others. . . .
6. The group also recommended that the reporting service be
developed for use by OE staff and contractors as well as by publishers.
7. Finally, the group agreed that alternatives for collecting
the needed information should be explored. In particular, the annual
comprehensive REL reports and R&D Center reports should be exploited
before additional data is sought, and, if possible, the nonprint form
(now in test stage) and the alerting service should be combinca.



I-5
Page 4
Next steps
1. Alternatives will be considered for collecting and packaging
the information. LEASCO will be given added funds to undertake this
work, beginning in FY 1970. - • -
2. Implementation will await LEASCO's report, including results
of a test run-through, from collection and processing of information,
through transmission, via AEPI, to publishers.
3. Further input on implementation will be sought from NCERD
and RELs and R&D Centers . - -
Acting Assistant Commissioner
Office of Information Dissemination -
Addressees: - - -
Michael Marge
Austin McCaffrey
Paul Zurkowski
Howard Hjelm.
John Cantwell
Morton Bachrach
Thomas Clemens





I-6
The aims of PAS are stated clearly in a descriptive folder
prepared in 1973 for the information of developers:
"The objective of the Publishers Alert Service is to
announce to the publishing industry the availability
for publication and marketing of educational materials
developed with funding from one of the Education
Division components . . . (It) is part of the Copyright
Approval Program, which is intended to facilitate
the marketing of educational materials . . . marketing
of materials under copyright is authorized for a
limited time, to encourage private firms to under-
take the publication and distribution of these
products. Publishers are selected on the basis of
proposals submitted."
Between August 1970 and October 1970 the first four PAS
announcements were distributed under a pilot-operation contract with
LEASC0. Between July 1972 and January 1976, when PAS was suspended,
97 additional PAS announcements were sent out under a contract with
Systems Development Corporation (SDC), negotiated after competitive
bidding. A11 told, 101 announcements were sent out describing 101
products of 68 different developers. Eight laboratories and centers
and four other developers used PAS two or more times; six labora-
tories and centers, and 50 other developers used it only once. The
following table summarizes the frequency of PAS usage :
(1) (2) (3)
Number of times PAS used Number of developers using
by a single developer it that many times Total
Other
Laboratories Centers developers
7 l O O 7
6 3 O O 18
3 1. 1 2 12
2 O 2 2 8
1. –4 –2 50 –56
TOTALS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 5 54 101



” O
Each PAS announcement was printed in a standard one-sheet, -
two-page format, which was modified on two occasions, slightly with
PAS 72–01, and considerably with PAS 73-27. PAS 76-97, prepared by
SDC and issued in January 1976, nevertheless bears a distinct family
resemblance to No. 70-0001, prepared by LEASCO and issued in August 1970.
The procedures under the SDC contract (1972-1976) worked as
follows. A developer wishing to use PAS filled out a standard data form
describing the product. This was sent to NIE for approval. It was then
forwarded to SDC, where first-draft copy was prepared as soon as possible
and sent to the developer for comments and suggestions. These were
communicated to the contractor by correspondence and/or phone, after which
second- draft copy was prepared by SDC. This revised draft was sent by
SDC to NIE, where it was checked to see that all necessary elements had
been covered, and then forwarded to the Public Affairs Office for final
review. Any changes resulting from the checking and review were
communicated to SDC, usually by phone, after which SDC produced camera-
ready copy (which could include line drawings and half-tones) and sent
it to NIE for printing and distribution.
It was reproduced by NIE, using government printing services,
and then mailed. Initially the mailing was accomplished by sending
copies of each announcement in bulk to the three industry trade associa-
tions for distribution to all members -- the Association of American O
Publishers (AAP); the Educational Media Producers Council (EMPC), now the
Association of Media Producers (AMP) ; and the Information Industries
Association (IIA). Beginning in mid-1973, however, it was sent to an
expanded computerized mailing list prepared by SDC under a contract
extension, , using as a base the AAP, EMPC, and IIA lists.
Names on the SDC mailing list finally ran to a total of
slightly more than 400. If subsidiaries are counted as separate
companies, the mailings were eventually being sent to 373 publishing
organizations, including university presses. The difference between
this figure and the total is accounted for by the listing of more than
one name for a few organizations and by a few miscellaneous entries.
Comments like the following, made in October 1970, suggested
that, at least from the point of view of publishers, PAS would attain
its objective :
"We are sorry, indeed, to learn that this is the last
announcement of the PAS pilot operation and hope very
much that OE will decide to continue the program . . .
publishers have been unusually enthusiastic about this
program. It is the general feeling that the PAS announce-
ments are well conceived, arresting in format, and ex-
cellent in presentation of the material, giving any
potential publisher the necessary information to decide O
whether or not he is interested in the project."



I-8
Of the 101 PAS announcements that were distributed, 43 de-
scribed the products of regional laboratories and research and develop-
ment centers. Many of these products were multi-component, multi-grade
programs designed for per-pupil- use in the elementary grades. The re-
maining 58 announcements described the products of single-project (or
at the most two- or-three-project) other developers, usually organized on
a task-force basis to accomplish a specific objective. A large number of
these products, but by no means all, were single-component, print-medium
items designed for "educator education."
Interpretations of PAS objectives
The objectives of PAS were derived from a serious attempt to
reach a consensus among developers and publishers concerning what was
needed. They were clearly stated initially, and later re-stated. A 15-
page bulletin issued by NIE in August 1975, containing information in
question-and-answer form about the Copyright Program, includes this ex-
planation of PAS :
"10. What is the Publishers Alert Service (PAS) 2
The Publishers Alert Service (PAS) is a part of
the Copyright Program Activities. It is an
announcement mechanism intended to inform pub-
lishers across the country of individual products
seeking publishers. Each announcement is pre-
pared by NIE 's PAS contractor. The grantee or
contractor pays nothing to use PAS and the
announcement must have the approval of the
grantee or contractor before it is issued. Any
grantee or contractor wishing to utilize PAS
need only complete a PAS data form and submit
it with its request for copyright authorization
in lieu of the list of publishers to be
solicited."
Although the Copyright Guidelines, as well as the statement
quoted above, make it quite clear that PAS was an optional service, this
fact does not appear to have been clearly understood by everyone in the
developer and publisher communities. A few developers appear to have
been under the impression that they were required to use PAS if they were
seeking a commercial publisher. A few publishers, on the other hand,
seem to have believed that, through PAS, they would be receiving notices
about all potentially-publishable products being developed with govern-
ment funds. And some developers, OE-NIE staff members and publishers ap-
Darently believed that PAS announcements were reaching more or less everyone in
the educational publishing community. "It assures me," said one developer,
"because it is distributed to so many educational publishers, that I am
covering the field when I use it." Another developer stated: "PAS as a
procedure for obtaining dissemination avenues is highly useful because of
its ability to reach publishers (small and large) throughout the nation."



I-9
NIE naturally turned to the publishing community for guidance
and help in the distribution of the announcements. Initially they appear
to have concluded that distribution through AAP, EMPC (now AMP), and IIA
would assure PAS of reasonably wide coverage. They subsequently arranged,
as noted previously, to have the PAS contractor take over and expand the
mailing list. NIE probably felt they had achieved reasonably wide coverage.
They certainly never claimed, however, that complete coverage had been
attained, nor indeed ever could be attained.
PAS in relation to the need for copyright protection
Although it is nowhere stated specifically, descriptions of
PAS and pertinent sections of the Copyright Guidelines reflect the important
basic assumption that ordinarily no commercial publisher will be interested
in publishing and marketing a product in the absence of copyright pro-
tection. Also implicit in these documents is the assumption that better
distribution will be achieved through commercial channels. Section 3(c) of
the Guidelines states: "If the grantee or contractor elects to publish
the materials, or to have them published, without copyright, it may do so
without the necessity of obtaining approval from the USOE. However,
such publication should not be undertaken unless the grantee or contractor
believes that educational objectives will be adequately served by that
approach."
Developers generally appear to have understood and shared these
assumptions, even though on many occasions they have been disappointed by
the sales achieved for their products by commercial publishers with which
they have entered into contracts.
How developers used and regarded PAS
The most experienced and sophisticated developers (mainly the
laboratories and centers) used PAS whenever they thought it would be useful,
or perhaps politically judicious, or because they very sensibly concluded
that, since the service had been made available, they should take advantage
of it on the chance that it might produce results. For example, in the
course of one of BCMA's previous consulting assignments, a regional labora-
tory said they thought it would be wise to use PAS for a particular product
even though they were not hopeful about possible results. We encouraged
them to use PAS and made some suggestions regarding the text before it was
returned to SDC for second-draft revision.
As the years went by , however, this group of developers came to
the conclusion that PAS announcements were virtually use less for announcing
their programs. "A11 of the big publishers had to be contacted by me
directly to get any interest at a11 except ... one time," said a representa-
tive of one of the regional laboratories. "PAS is probably not worthwhile,"



said another. "If labs and centers are doing their proper job, and
publishers are doing their proper job, PAS is not really needed," was
the opinion expressed by an official of one of the research and develop-
Iſlent CenterS .
In many cases publishers responded to PAS announcements issued
by the laboratories and centers. On 1y in a modest number of cases, however,
was this the medium through which the publisher first became aware of the
product being described, and only in very rare cases (BCMA has been able
to identify with absolute certainty only two) did a PAS announcement issued
by a laboratory or research center give the publisher his first notice of
a particular product and also lead eventually to a publishing contract.
One of these products, however, though multi-component and complex, was a
learning module, not a major program; the other was a professional book.
Even at the beginning, no laboratory or center relied entirely
upon PAS announcements. All began developing personal contacts with
publishers, and were creating their own mailing lists of prospective
publishers. The record of effort by laboratories and centers in attempting
to find commercial publishers is impressive. One laboratory, using PAS
along with other methods, was directly in touch with approximately 60 potential
publishers in connection with one of its major programs. One of the centers ,
concluding that its potentially-publishable products were too highly special-
ized to be of interest to most of the companies on the PAS list, carefully
developed its own list of about 30 publishers to which they mailed announce-
ments of a 11 products which they felt had commercial potential.
The other developers, however, were generally less familiar with
the publishing industry and usually turned to PAS as a convenient means of
getting news of their products to publishers who might be interested.
"Excellent" . . . "helpful" . . . "a very useful service" were some typical
comments. Even in this group, however, many developers depended mainly
on their own publishing contacts. "In both cases," said one of these
developers, "personal contact and an 'in' with the publishers were the
reasons for publication." Said another: "We did, in fact, have a select
group of publishers in mind when we entered the services." In one case,
a small publisher that had responded to a PAS announcement and had eventu-
ally published the product said: "Yes, we responded to the announcement,
but we already were following the author's work and would have gone after
it anyway."
Aside from the complaint that publishers' responses to PAS were
generally disappointing, and that personal contacts had to be made anyway,
the developers' most serious specific complaint about PAS concerned the time
it took between filling out the product data form and the actual mailing
of the announcement. In one case, a center decided not to use PAS for a
particular program just because "we knew it would take at least three or
four months to get it out." A spokesman for one of the regional laboratories



I– 11 O
felt the procedures were "just too cumbers Ome." Still another objected
to what he felt were unnecessary copy revisions made by SDC. Many
developers said they felt a much briefer, much earlier announcement would
have been preferable.
Developers as a whole tended, at 1east eventually, to be realistic
about the main reason why publishers' responses were disappointing -- i.e.
in most cases the products described simply had little or no appeal to pub-
lishers. "There were too many turkeys," was the way one interviewee ex-
pressed it. "We were greatly disappointed by the poor response, probably
due to the nature of our materials," was another expression of opinion in
this area.
One comment made by a single-project developer is of considerable
significance. "I also was surprised that NIE did not provide users of the
PAS with a written description of this service, telling how long it took,
what the steps were , etc. A One-page note with some basic, factual in for-
mation would, I think, be very helpful." It was clear from the interviews
that many developers did not really fully understand what PAS was and how
it was intended to work.
Another comment that occurred frequently in various forms was
an objection to the standard, two-page format. "It suggested that all the
products and programs were of similar dimensions, whereas they were all
different." (note: SDC pointed out to us that they often had to "stretch O
out the copy" so that it would fill the two pages).
How publishers regarded PAS
Publishers certainly paid attention to PAS announcements , , although
often they read them with "irritation," as one publisher expressed it.
There were three main causes for the "irritation." First, in the words of
one smaller publisher, "When I saw the announcement, I knew it was too late
to try to bid; it was already locked up." Second, in the words of one
larger publisher, "I read them all religiously, but I never saw one I wanted
to follow up on." Third, most of the larger publishers already knew,
through their own investigation, about the larger programs announced
through PAS, and generally were not interested in considering the smaller
Oſ) e S •
These three complaints are expressed in one way or another in
many of the interviews. A fourth important complaint, related to the first
(i.e. that a program was "locked up"), also crops up frequently. Many
publishers said they wished they had received an announcement of a program
or product before it had reached what looked like a final or near-final
prototype form. A few said it had not been sent to the right person in
their companies, and they were not sure they had seen them all.



I – 12
Other complaints from publishers about PAS are minor. Several
commented adversely on the format. Like many developers, others noted
that, since a11 PAS announcements looked a like and were approximately the
same length, the impression was created that a 11 programs and products
were of equal importance.
In general, publishers accepted PAS as a sincere effort to render
an important service, and most seem to have responded to at 1 east a few
announcements. Many responses, however, reflected what might be ca 11ed
routine editorial curiosity rather than serious thought of possible interest
in publication. "I'm sure I sent in for an RFP once in awhile just to keep
myself informed," was one comment. On the other hand, one of the smaller
publishers told us that one of his reasons for joining AAP was to get on
the 1ist for PAS announcements, and several said they read PAS announce-
ments very carefully in the hope of finding something of real interest.
Products in the areas of a slow-learner education, special education, urban
education, career education, early learning, bi-lingual, bi-cultural
education, and vocational-technical education tended to get the most re-
sponses, since these are viewed as growth areas in educational publishing.
Attempting to quantify PAS results
A variety of overlapping factors made it impossible to develop an
accurate and meaningful quantitative analysis of (1) which and how many
publishers responded to each PAS announcement, (2) how many responses led
directly or indirectly to a publishing contract. (3) how much it cost
developers to prepare PAS announcements, (4) which and how many developers
did not use PAS for particular products, and for what reasons.
The files of both developers and publishers were in almost all
cases incomplete. More than six years had elapsed between PAS 70-0001 and
PAS 76-97, and there was a gap of nearly two years between PAS 70-0004 and
PAS 72-1. In addition, memories are fallible, many people involved among
the 1aboratories, centers, and publishers had moved to other jobs, and
many single-project task forces had been disbanded. In the area of
developers' and publishers' costs particularly, specific and reliable
information was almost completely lacking. A tabulation made by NIE
matching PAS announcements with publishing results (or lack of results)
does not indicate whether PAS was the means of bringing developer and
publisher together. And the tabulation ends in December 1974, with PAS
74-66.
These factors clearly emerge in the Appendix to this Task I
report, a special study made by BCMA of experiences "other developers" (i.e.
other than the laboratories and centers) had in attempting to find commer-
cial publishers.



Costs of PAS
The two PAS contractors were paid $129,587 spread over six years.
NIE overhead expenses could not be precisely determined. But if we assume
that, for every dollar paid to the contractors, another dollar was spent on
overhead, the total cost to NIE was about $260,000. If we further assume
that developers averaged as much as $1,000 in expenses per announcement
(conferring with NIE, preparing copy, conferring with SDC, etc.), the total
cost of PAS (NIE plus developers) for 101 PAS announcements was about
$360,000, or an average of $60,000 per year for six years, and about $3,600
per announcement. If we assume that each announcement produced 10 responses
on the average, the cost per response was about $360.
The evidence is quite clear, however, that very few PAS announce-
ments actually led to publishing contracts. We have identified with certainty
only two among the announcements sent out by 1aboratories and centers and
about five among the other developers questioned. If we round this off
generously to 10 for the entire group of 101 announcements, the cost of PAS
per completed contract was about $36,000. Thus, viewed from one perspective,
the cost of PAS was modest, but from another, it was very high indeed,
especially since the total costs of negotiations between developers and pub .
lisers averaged many thousands of dollars per completed contract. Was it
worth spending an additional $360,000 to secure 10 more publishing contracts,
several of which might have been completed anyway without PAS 2 On the other
hand, it should be noted that PAS announcements must have stimulated general
interest in developers' activities and therefore undoubtedly led indirectly O
to publishing contracts not related to speciſ PAS announcements.
º
Attainment of PAS objectives
From one point of view, NIE attained its objectives for PAS.
An "announcement mechanism" was made available, It was used by 68 de-
velopers, and 101 announcements were issued. They were clearly written
and sufficiently informative. Publishers who received the announcements
read them, and occasionally responded. In several cases the PAS announce-
ment was the first notice of a product that publishers received, and in a
few cases the response to a PAS announcement led eventually to a publish-
ing contract. The cost of preparing and distributing PAS was modest in
comparison with total NIE and developers' costs during those six years.
From another point of view, however, PAS fell considerably short
of attaining the objectives that developers, publishers, and NIE appear to
have had in mind when the idea of an alerting service was first proposed.
A primary NIE objective should be to attempt to make sure that
all potentially-publishable products being developed with the aid of.
government funds (i.e. with "taxpayers' money") are called to the attention
of anyone and everyone who might be interested in publishing them -- and
called to their attention in time for them to bid for publication in fair
competition with everyone else who might be interested. Section 1 (b) of
the Copyright Guidelines comes close to stating this primary objective. O




I– 14
"The primary purpose of these Guidelines is to promote the effective dis-
semination and use of USOE supported materials in a fair and equitable
manner to all interested parties -- developers, producers, and users."
In BCMA's experience no one takes issue with this objective --
not even the many persons who are opposed to using taxpayers' money under
any conditions to develop materials for commercial publication, or for
publication in competition with commercial publishers. All the developers
and publishers interviewed by BCMA, including those few publishers who
said, in one way or another, they "wish the labs and centers would fold
up," agreed that there should be some mechanism for acquainting a 11 possible
publication sources with potentially-publishable materials being developed
with government funds.
Every developer who feels he is producing something worth pub-
lishing wants to let a 11 potential publishers know about it, and wants to
get it published. Conversely, any publisher wants to be informed about .
anything being developed by anybody that he may want to publish. Contrary
to the beliefs of many people outside the commercial publishing industry,
every potential publishing project submitted to a commercial publisher in
any form (even though it may be just a gleam in somebody's brain) gets
attention from somebody in the firm, even though most submissions are re-
jected quickly for any one of a number of editorial and/or business reasons,
usually sensible (from the publisher's point of view, if not the author's),
but sometimes not.
NIE, despite the statement in the Copyright Guidelines noted
above, did not make full provision for developers to communicate easily
"in a fair and equitable manner with all interested parties." PAS was
an orderly step in this direction, but only a step. Actually, three major
burdens were placed on the shoulders of developers. First, they had to
decide whether or not a particular product had publishing potential.
Second, they had to decide who should be approached regarding publication,
and how and when this approach should be made (personal contact, corre-
spondence, developing their own publishers mailing lists, use of PAS, or
a combination of all four). Third, they had to carry on a 11 negotiations
themselves under a complex set of rules. (Said one developer, "Red tape
surrounding the contract is almost as difficult to wade through as a deal
with the Office of Government Contracts."). Individual authors in the
private sector of course have to accept all these burdens, turning for
advice to friends, literary agents, lawyers , and a countants, as they need
it and can afford it. Developers working with government funds, however,
although they are "corporate authors" as far as publishers are concerned,
need special help in making all these decisions. In particular, they need
special help in getting information about their products "in a fair and
equitable manner" to "all interested parties."
0.
NIE's assumption that ordinarily commercial publishers will be
interested in products only if they can be assured of copyright protection
may have confused some developers. It is probably true that no educational
publisher undertaking a major program (or even a very simple product)



I-15
designed for per-pupil use would consider publishing it in the absence of
copyright. It is also true that the five-year limitation in the case of
major programs often made contract negotiations more difficult. On the
other hand, many commercial publishing operations of various kinds make
money by publishing and selling materials that are in the public domain.
For example, we told one small, specialized publisher not on the PAS list
about the existence of an important study made by a regional laboratory,
that had never, in the laboratory's opinion, been disseminated properly.
This publisher immediately expressed an interest in considering it for
publication despite its public-domain status, and we put the laboratory
and the publisher in touch with each other.
Some of the materials designed for teacher education, both in
the laboratories and centers and with single-project developers, and a
number of special studies such as the one mentioned, may fall into this
category -- i.e. copyright protection may not be of overriding importance.
In any event, under the present system, the developer must himself decide,
after turning for advice to anyone he may have available, whether or not
he should apply for copyright protection and announce his product to com-
mercial publishers. If he decides the answer is "no," then he possibly
may not have been "fair and equitable" as far as potential commercial pub-
lisher interest is concerned. If he decides the answer is "yes," and has
nowhere to turn but PAS, he may miss the potentially-interested publisher
or publishers, because they may not be on the PAS mailing list. Once again
it could be said he is not being "fair and equitable,". It really is NIE
that is not being "fair and equitable," however, since the PAS service is
not "covering the field" as completely as the developer may believe.
From a practical point of view, this may not be regarded as a
serious problem. Most developers are not aware of it, or not fully aware
of it, and most publishers are too busy to spend much time complaining
about the fact that they were not informed about a few products in which
they might have been interested. From a conceptual point of view, however,
BCMA believes this is important, It represents a break in the dissemination
chain, and it is entirely possible that several products that should have
been published, commercially or otherwise, may not have been published (or
may not have been published by the best publisher? , because information about
them did not get to the right publisher at the right time. Also, since
taxpayers' money is involved, NIE should make every effort to make sure that
"all interested parties" are informed.
The nature of the publishing industry is part of the reason for
the state of affairs described above. When OE-NIE turned to the AAP, the
EMPC, and the IIA for help in distributing PAS announcements, it seems to
have assumed that something close to complete coverage would be achieved.
As far as major programs and products designed for per-pupil use are con-
cerned, the AAP list of companies was reasonably satisfactory, especially
since the AAP on its own initiative added the names of a few important non-
member companies. But the AAP list, even with additions, omitted literally
hundreds of small non-member companies that conceivably might have been
interested in some of the teacher-aid items and special studies being produced



I-16
O by the laboratories, centers, and other developers. Although it was wise
to include the EMPC and IIA lists, they were of only marginal value, since
most members of these organizations were not interested in the kinds of
programs and products being developed with the aid of NIE grants. The
situation improved when SDC expanded the list, but something considerably
less than Saturation coverage of the right companies was achieved.
Whether this point was ever fully discussed and clarified when
PAS was on the drawing board is not entirely clear. It is clear, however,
that teacher-aid items and special studies were not of great interest to
AAP members' school publishing divisions, to which most of the PAS announce-
ments were sent. "About 125 go to AAP members who publish educational
matérials," says a memorandum in BCMA's files, dated December 11, 1972,
concerning AAP and PAS. "This is done on a selective basis, sending the
PAS bulletin to El-Hi or College publishers, depending upon the nature of
the project being announced. Normally one copy is sent to the official
contact office of the AAP member. Approximately 25 additional copies are
sent to non-members who have been identified as being interested in these
bulletins. Another 25 copies are mailed to names supplied to AAP by USOE.
Some of these are publishers, but many tend to be educational news media.
The opinion was expressed that there is little commercial value in the
projects which have been announced thus far through the PAS bulletins."
(note: We were asking AAP about PAS distribution at this time because of an
assignment we were carrying out for one of the regional laboratories.) *
It may be asked why the AAP did not do more than it apparently
did to acquaint NIE with the limited nature of its membership distribution.
One answer is that a trade association exists mainly to serve its members,
and in any event could not be expected to sit down with NIE and help develop
a complete mailing list. Second, and actually more important, it was
customary in those days for publishers to think of government-funded
products primarily as "big-ticket items" requiring large investments. The
dimensions of , and the success achieved by, NSF-funded programs were fresh
in the minds of the larger educational publishers. AAP's coverage in
this area was good. Also, it was reasonable of AAP and NIE to expect that
any notice concerning a truly major program, even though it was mailed to
the "official contact office of the AAP member," would be routed internally
to the proper person, who in many cases would actually be the official
contact. But unless the AAP contact official who received the announce-
ment of a teacher-aid item or special study was in a company that included
a division or section that handled such items, it was quite likely that
such announcements would be filed immediately or tossed out. This accounts
in part for the comment that PAS announcements described "little of commercial
value."
The PAS mailing list
In BCMA's opinion, SDC is to be commended for recognizing that
the combination AAP/EMPC/IIA mailing list was far from complete, and for
making efforts of various kinds to expand and improve it. These efforts
included attendance on their own initiative at educational conventions,


I-17
and the addition to the 1ist of university presses and some producers of
educational games, toys, and equipment. These efforts reflect, however,
a lack of knowledge of the instructional materials industry as a whole.
Almost any experienced educational publishing executive with some knowledge
of mailing-list techniques probably could, in less than a day, using his me—
mory and available directories of textbook publishers, professional book pub-
lishers, audio-visual publishers, and educational materials and equipment
producers, have put together a list superior in quality to the one
that was used for the mailing of PAS 76–97. . . . -
The following incident typifies this lack of knowledge. In a phone
survey following up on how PAS announcements had been received by publishers,
one of the companies listed was Hammond. The address given on the survey
form for Hammond was Maplewood, New York. Since no phone number was attached,
the phone researcher called Maplewood, New York, and was informed there was
no such place. No further effort was made to 10cate Hammond. The conclusion
seems to have been that the company had moved or had gone out of business.
Any educational publisher would have known, even without consulting Bowker's
Literary Market Place (LMP), which he certainly would have done before giving
up, that Hammond is in Maplewood, New Jersey, not New York. The entire phone
survey, although well organized and conducted with efficiency, could have
been done better in a day or so by almost any experienced educational publish-
ing executive.
It cannot be said with certainty exactly how many commercial pub- O
1ishers produce materials designed for pupil use in schools, or for "educator
education," or both, but undoubtedly the number is large, especially if sub-
sidiaries and divisions are counted as separate companies, as they should
in most cases. Our estimate is about 1,500, about four times the total on
the PAS list developed by SDC. Therefore, simply creating a truly complete
mailing 1jist of publishers and producers that might be interested in re-
ceiving at 1east some of the PAS announcements is a task of considerable
dimensions. Establishing name criteria (how many and who in each company?)
and selection criteria (which companies could be omitted from what categories
of PAS announcements?) is an even larger task. Creating a system for "cleaning"
and updating the 1ist systematically is the largest task of all, especially
since many of the smaller publishing companies change addresses quite fre-
quently, or go out of business, or merge with larger companies, and since
there are frequent personnel turnovers and changes of responsibility in pub-
1ishing companies of all sizes. SDC discovered that publishing is a "volatile"
industry!
- How much effort and money should be expended on a mailing list
before the point of diminishing returns is reached is always a question. In
this particular case, it appears to us that the list could have been made
substantially better and maintained somewhat more effectively with relatively
1ittle effort and at 1ow cost, but that it would take a relatively major and
expensive effort to create a truly comprehensive list with full selection
capabilities, and then to update the list efficiently and systematically. -
With regard to the PAS list, we believe that, given the cost of the PAS O
z'
_2^



I-18
announcements, the first suggested step would probably have been worth-
while, but that the second step –- i.e. the major and expensive effort ––
would have gone far past the point of diminishing returns. If, however,
the PAS announcement process had been made simpler and less expensive,
the savings quite possibly could have been used to create a more sophisti-
cated and regularly updated mailing list.
In any event, creating a good mailing list in any complex
area (as this certainly is) and updating it efficiently are difficult,
complex tasks, requiring special knowledge and experience. It is not a
job for beginners or amateurs. SDC was well aware of this, but does not
appear to have been fully aware that their lack of experience in the
publishing industry was a serious handicap.
The crux of the problem with PAS
Although the Copyright Guidelines are not really specific on
this point, they reflect the assumption that developers' products can be
divided into two categories -- "thick market" (BCMA's term, for purposes
of exposition in this context) and "thin market". Section 4, which deals
with procedures for requesting copyright authorization, in (b) (4) requires
the grantee or contractor to supply "a list of prospective producers to
be solicited, "but includes this parenthetical statement: "(However, see
section 6 below for the treatment of 'thin market' materials.)"
Section 6, dealing with "thin market" materials, states:
"Notwithstanding the requirements of section 4 above, the obligation to
obtain competition for publication of 'thin market' materials will be
satisfied by the following procedure: (a) The grantee or contractor
should write to those producers (a minimum of three) which would most likely
be interested in publishing the materials. Each should be informed that
others are receiving letters. The letter should ask the terms under which the
producer would be willing to publish.
But nowhere in the Copyright Guidelines are "thick market"
and "thin market" defined adequately. Section 2 (d) says only that "'Thin
Market Materials' are those for which a limited market, and consequently
insubstantial publication revenues, are anticipated." Section 5, it also
should be noted, deals with an area with important implications for "edu-
cator education" in this way: "In the interest of rapid dissemination of
educational information, no restriction whatever is placed upon the pub-
1ication of educational articles in scholarly and professional journals,
and in other periodicals."
One aspect of the "thin market" question is illustrated by
this series of events, culled from our files of interviews with research
centers. The developer wanted to publish, using commercial channels, a
professional book that had been defined as "thin market," even though a
previous product of the same nature had been announced through PAS, and
had been published by a major company that had responded to the PAS
announcement. The reason: the major publisher had sold only about
2,500 copies of the previous product, also a book. For the second item,
therefore, PAS was not used, but a letter was sent to six publishers.



I-19
The only publisher that sent in a proposal was the major company that had
published the first item, and another publishing contract was successfully
negotiated. The next item in this "series" was announced by a letter sent
to only four publishers, and once again only the above-mentioned major
company responded, resulting in a third publishing contract with this
company. The fourth item was announced by letters sent to a list of 31
different publishers made up by the center after reviewing its own files
and updating them by consulting LMP. Two proposals were received, but
once again the same major company won out, because they offered a larger
royalty. The fifth item was announced by a letter to 20 publishers, out
of which came one publishing proposal followed by a contract —– once again
the same major company: A sixth item in the same "series" was announced
by a letter to five publishers, and, at the time of the interview, the
same major company had responded with the information that "a strong bid
will follow."
This record of publishing success can also be viewed as a
failure of dissemination and as an overly—limited definition of the term
"thin market." Obviously, the major publishing company and the center
did not have the same definition of "thin market." Had not 2,500 been
considered as an acceptable sale, they probably would not have made a
bid on the second item in the series. Also, one should ask: suppose
the original PAS announcement and the subsequent letter announcements
had been sent to a reasonably complete list of publishers interested in +
professional "educator education" books? Perhaps more and better pub- O
lishing proposals would have been received. In any event, it seems clear
that these various items were not announced to "all interested parties."
In this particular instance, the center clearly made a
conscientious effort to do what was expected of them under the Copyright
Guidelines. They equated "thin market" with small sales, and they apparently
believed (quite logically, considering the terms of the Copyright Guide—
1ines) that as 10ng as they received a publishing proposal and negotiated
a publishing contract, they had been successful. The fact that it may
well be a marketing advantage to have all these items under the same
publishing roof (since, in a specialized catalog, each item in a related
series helps to sell the others) is beside the point.
The center referred to previously that did not use PAS because
their activities were specialized, and they felt their own list of pub-
1ishers covered all those with both interest and capability, overlooked
one fact, Publishers' interests keep changing, and they continually in-
vestigate possible new fields. For this reason alone, too much selectivity
in sending out product announcements can be unnecessarily restrictive.
It seems quite clear, after examining the record, that the
PAS announcement system was of little or no use in helping developers
find publishers for major programs designed for per-pupil use. By the
time the announcement was distributed, most publishers with the resources,
capabilities, and interests already knew what they needed to know about the
programs. "Any go-get-'em publisher would be in touch with projects before



I-20
the announcement went out. That certainly has been our experience,"said a
center representative who has been involved in developer-publisher negotia-
tions for nearly 10 years. The publishers that responded to PAS announce-
ments of large programs discovered either that the bidding already was
"locked up" (i.e. it was too late for them to come up with a winning pro-
posal in competition with publishers who had been close to the project for
some time) or that the project was too far along for them to be able to
influence it in a way that would make it more commercially marketable.
PAS announcements of the large programs should have gone out sooner.
It also seems clear that the PAS system did not well serve the
needs of developers of professional "educator education" products and
educational studies. The mailing list should have been larger, and created
with the aid of someone with wide publishing industry experience. Developers
should have been encouraged to disregard the "thin market" limitation and
to let "all interested parties" know about their products.
The PAS process was, in the words of one developer, "too formal-
istic." Instead of a product data form, the developer should have been
asked to write a brief description of his product, following models furnished
by NIE, or by SDC, or both. SDC could then have revised the copy.
The contract with SDC should have made it possible for announce-
ments to go out promptly -- i.e. no more than a month at most from the
developer's draft to the mailing. The cause for the back-log problem appears
to have been mainly that the single, very competent SDC person writing the
copy and supervising the design could not always give immediate attention
to PAS because of the pressure of other SDC duties.
The nature of PAS should have been described better, particularly
for developers. And the developers should have been on the PAS mailing list --
a point made particularly by SDC, as well as by a few developers.
The format of the announcement could have been improved. This is
a minor point, however. No publisher, it is safe to say, failed to respond
to a PAS announcement because he disliked the format: And a few publishers
thought it was attractive: -
The gap of nearly two years between PAS 70-0004 and PAS 72-1 was
particularly unfortunate. The history of PAS might have been considerably
different had there been an uninterrupted flow of announcements between
October 1970 and July 1972.
In Summary
PAS was a commendable effort, developed after an earnest attempt
to reach a consensus among the various interested parties. It was efficiently
administered. Its cost was certainly very modest in relation to NIE and
grantee-contractor costs as a whole, and relatively modest in relation to
what PAS actually accomplished. In relation, however, to contracts that
came about through PAS announcements, its cost was high.



I-21
PAS was founded in part on mistaken assumptions by OE-NIE about
the nature of the educational publishing industry, and by mistaken assumptions
by the larger publishers about the kinds of information they would be receiving.
The purposes of PAS, though clearly enough stated, were never
explained sufficiently to developers, and instructions about using PAS
were inadequate.
The mechanism itself should have been improved in several ways.
The time lapse between the first draft (by the developer) and distribution
should have been no more than a month. Announcement preparation should have
been less formal and more individualized. The mailing list should have been
enlarged and improved qualitatively.
The fact that the PAS announcements described "too many turkeys"
that presumably had no publishing potential of any kind, and possibly made
1ittle or no contribution to education, is beyond the scope of this Task I
report. So, too, is the fact that most of the programs and products de-
scribed were judged to have "little commercial value." Regardless of the
quality of the materials being developed, OE-NIE's obligation is to make
it as easy as possible for developers to announce everything at an approp-
riate time (or times) to "all interested parties." The companies that
receive the announcements should be the ones to decide whether or not they
are reading about "turkeys" or American Eagles. And there have been times
(see Appendix to Task I report) where publishers' unfavorable reactions
have spurred developers on to attempt to transform their turkeys into eagles.
In BCMA's opinion, PAS as an "announcement mechanism" attained
its specified objectives reasonably well, but fell considerably short of
attaining the objectives that NIE should have established for it.



APPENDIX I \，
TASK I







APPENDIX
TO
TASK I REPORT
SPECIAL STUDY
OF THE USE OF
PAS BY DEVELOPERS OTHER THAN
THE LABORATORIES AND CENTERS
An appendix to one of six reports



TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i-Vi.
Task I: An analysis of the current PAS effort . . . . . . . . . I.1 - I 21
Appendix to Task I Report: Special study of the use of
PAS by developers other than the laboratories *
and centers - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I i – I xl.
Task II: An analysis and evaluation of the alternatives
to PAS º © e © º sº cº & e • 3 e © º © º e . º Qe © º © tº º Q II l sº II. 6
Appendix to Task II Report: Examples of alternatives
to PAS ge & º º º * > º e © © © © ... gº tº e ºp º ſº tº o e « » © © II i grº II xxxi.
&
Task III: Analysis of special problems associated with
"thin market" products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III 1 - III 2.0
Task IV: Analysis of the potential role publishers could
perform in a consultant or working arrangement
with the Institute in regard- to new development
activities. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV 1 - IV 14
Appendix to Task IV Report: Reports of counselling
sessions with NIE staff members . . . . . . . . . . . IV i – IV vi .
Task V: Review of consumer interest and issues that
should modify or constrain any of the previous
policy recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V l - V ll
Task VI: Prepare a final summary of all of the recommen—
dations and activities required in the foregoing
sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI 1 - VI 7
Prepared by BCMA Associates, Inc. for the National Institute
O º of Education under Contract No. 400–76-0086.
February 25, 1977


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Letter of inquiry to "other developers"
Tabulation of: all developers who used PAS,
and for what products; "other de-
velopers" who received and answered
letter of inquiry; available infor-
mation about who published what PAS-
announced products
Publishers who responded to PAS
announcements by "other
developers"
Analysis of responses to letter of inquiry:
Items 1-13
Items 14–15
Nature of products of "other developers,"
audience aimed at, media used
Evaluation practices: commentary and
tabulation
— iv
- * xiv.
— xxvii
– xxxiv.
xxxviii



INTRODUCTION
Background
BCMA's Contract No. 400-76-0086 with NIE specifies that BCMA
will interview members of the staff of at least 10 regional laboratories
and research and development centers, and at least five "other de-
velopers" -- i.e. other grantees and contractors besides the laboratories
and centers that developed potentially-publishable educational materials
of various kinds. -
These "other developers" were mainly, though not entirely,
single-project developers -- i.e. task-force groups assembled for a
limited period to produce one particular product, in contrast to the
laboratories and centers that have produced many products over a period
of several years. - -
Because there have been so many "other developers" of such a
varied nature, BCMA concluded early in the assignment that five would not
be a satisfactory sample, and, furthermore, that it would be impossible
to interview a satisfactory" sampling within the time and expense limits
imposed. BCMA's project team therefore proposed, on its own initiative,
to send a letter of inquiry to "other developers" that had used PAS but
were not scheduled to be interviewed. This additional activity was
explained to, and approved by, the Project Officer.
Since the results of this study have special relevance to our
analysis of PAS, and general relevance to a 11 the other tasks, BCMA is
including it as an appendix to the Task I report.
Nature of the study and how it was conducted
Of the 101 PAS announcements, 60 were sent out by 54 developers
other than the laboratories and centers. Most of these "other developers"
were single-project developers. The other 51 announcements were sent out
by nine laboratories and five centers.
It is clear, however, that the single-project developers relied
much more heavily on PAS to acquaint potential publishers with their
specialized activities than did the laboratories and centers, all of which
were in more or less regular contact from the beginning with the major
educational publishers. -



I-ii
A carefully-drafted letter inquiring about the responses re-
ceived to PAS announcements was sent by BCMA to 50 "other developers"
and to two centers not scheduled for BCMA interviews. Replies were
received by mail and/or phone from 34 recipients of BCMA's letter. Three
of these replies led eventually to personal interviews. In addition, two
"other developers" who received letters were interviewed eventually under
the regular schedule of BCMA interviews. :
* {
BCMA's 1etter contained 15 items to which the recipients were
asked to respond. Items 1-13 dealt specifically with developers' ex-
perience with publishers. Items 14-15 solicited opinions in two areas:
(1) views of PAS as an aid to publication and dissemination; (2) sug-
gestions for improving the process of disseminating the results of
government-funded R&D activities.
Pages Ixxx - Ixl of this study present a detailed analysis of the
responses, which reflect a great diversity of experiences and results.
Correlative data
The answers to the inquiry letter clearly show that certain
factors in PAS announcements influence publisher interest and decisions.
The audience addressed was either in or out of the area in
which the publisher concentrated.
The media used by the developer could be "inappropriate or viable
to a publisher's line.
Had the product been field tested? This too made a difference to
publishers. 44
All this information is to be found in the individual announce-
ments. Clearly, actions taken at the planning stage could ultimately
determine a product's reception by publishers.
We therefore drew out of the PAS announcements correlative data
such as the above. These data are presented in the charts on
pages Ixxxiv -- Ixl , together with comments. These data cast light on
the responses - positive or negative - reported by the developers.
The audience aimed at and the media used
Our own analysis of the PAS announcements showed that the single-
project developers had relatively little to offer the publishers who serve
the mass market with materials for elementary and high school students.
Most of the projects aimed at improving teaching, especially in frontier
programs in ecology, career education, the handicapped, etc. That is, the
"other developers", in the main, wished to reach special professional
audiences, not mass audiences.



I-iii
The medium used was generally print (paperbound teacher guides,
pamphlets, and books), and most of the products offered little promise
of profit to commercial publishers. In the chart on pages Ixxxiv - Ixxxvi
we show the different educational areas dealt with, the audience aimed
at, the instructional level, and the medium (or media) used by each
developer who responded to our letter.
Importance of evaluation
In considering any new product, an educational publisher generally
looks for, or arranges for, "feed-back" evaluation of some kind before
publication. The 1etter of inquiry sent to developers therefore inquired
about evaluation, even though not all PAS announcements provided such
information (in some cases, of course, it was not called for under the
terms of the grant).
The commentary and chart that appear in the section on evaluation
practices (see pages Ixxxviii--Ixl ) show the varied pattern of responses.
It is probable that more convincing and wide-ranging evaluation could have
increased the number of publishers asking for information about the products,
and hence have led to more publication. -
The instructional materials industry
O There are probably about 1,500 commercial companies (including
autonomous or semi-autonomous subsidiaries or divisions of larger
companies) that produce and market materials used for instructional
purposes in schools (pre-kindergarten through grade 12), and in colleges
and university departments and schools of education. The varied nature
of these companies is discussed at greater length on pages iii - v in
the general introduction to this study. They include publishers of
"educator education" materials (professional books, teacher aids, etc.)
as well as publishers of basic and supplementary materials designed for
pupil use. •
About a dozen of these companies are very large (in a relatively
small industry), but most of them are very small, or sell only a small
percentage of their total output to schools. For example, of the 114
publishers and producers listed on pages Ixiv--Ixix only 35 could be
considered, by the very broadest criteria, as large school publishers,
or large school subsidiaries of large companies.



zºº B C M A A S S O C is tes, l n C.
gº § - - 52 Vanderbilt Avenue I—iv
New York, N.Y. 10017
Telephone (212) 683-8262
Cable address: BOCRAMO
Nº.
August 10, 1976
Letter to "other developers"
Our organization, BCMA Associates (see brochure) has been retained
by the National Institute of Education to study certain NIE dissemina-
tion procedures, especially the Publishers Alert Service, and make a
report with recommendations.
Attached is a copy of PAS NO. issued for your development
product.
As a part of our scope of work, NIE has asked us to inquire from
you about your experience with this Publishers Alert Service. The in-
formation supplied by you and other developers will assist NIE to re-
view and improve the dissemination process leading to better use of
research and development investment.
Your replies to a few questions will contribute to NIE's dissemina-
tion effort.
1) Did you receive inquiries from publishers following the distri-
bution of the Publishers Alert on your development product? If so, how
many inquiries? -
2) Could you supply from your files the names of the publishers who
made inquiries either by mail or telephone?
3) Did your response to these inquiries lead to further interest on
the part of the publishers?
4) If so, please name the publishers who followed up and indicate
their interest.
5) Did an exchange of views between you as a developer and one or
more publishers result in aegotiations regarding a possible agreement
to publish and disseminate the development product?
Established in 1971 as Boutwell Crane Moseley Associates




6) Was an agreement to publish reached?
7) If so, with what publisher?
8) How successful in your opinion has been the publisher's
dissemination effort?
9) In our scope of work, NIE has asked us to obtain from de-
velopers the estimated cost to them of activities pertaining to
dissemination; that is , roughly how much did it cost to prepare
the material for PAS and for responding to publisher inquiries, in-
cluding negotiations leading to an agreement, if such occurred.
Although this question may well prove difficult to answer, your
best estimate will be appreciated.
10) If no agreement was reached with a commercial publisher,
were you able to have your development product marketed in another
way?
11) If so, how was it marketed and by whom?
12) With what results?
13) In your efforts to find a publisher for your product, did
you rely solely on the PAS2 -*.
From your experience with PAS, please supply: (14) first, your
view of PAS as a procedure for obtaining dissemination of development
products financed by NIE, and, second (15) your recommendations for
alternate means of accomplishing desirable dissemination of products
developed to improve education in the United States.
This inquiry may raise questions calling for person-to-person ex-
change. If so, please call BCMA collect: (212) 683-8262. If I am
not available, either Cameron Moseley or Emers on Brown will take your
call.
Your response to this study will be a contribution to the NIE pro-
gram's effectiveness. It will assist materially in the review of poli-
cies and procedures looking toward extending the reach of innovative
programs. We look forward to your response. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
William D. Boutwell



DEVELOPERS WHO USED PAS
(with notations concerning "other developers" who received and answered the letter of inquiry,
and incomplete information on who published what PAS-announced products)
Received Responded to
Product published by
Developer Use of PAS BCMA letter BCMA letter Interview
CEMREL, Inc. 70-0001 -Elements of Mathematics Series 0 No gº tº Yes (1) Walker Educational Book Corp.
73-15-Darcee Preschool Program tº gº &_ _º gº º
73-18-Classroom and Instructional tº gº tº gº tº º
Management (Claim)
Upper Midwest 70-0002-Dialects & Dialect Learning No i tº No
Regional Laboratory t
Wisconsin Research and 70-0003-Cognitive Operations in Concept No tº º Yes (1) Academic Press (HBJ) (5)
Development Center Learning &
for Cognitive Learning -
70-0004-Developing Mathematical Processes gº tº tº º gº tº º º
| -
72-05-The Prereading Skills Program tº gº tº º gº tº Encyclopaedia Britannica
* Educational Corp.
National Educational Assn. 72-04-Project Life - Yes No No General Electric Company
New York University 72-06-COPES Yes Yes yes (*)
74-52-Exploring the Natural World with tº º ge tº tº º Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
Young Children -
The University of Texas 72-01-Adelante: (Mexican American Ed.) Yes No No
Center for Communication
Research
(1) regularly scheduled interview (3) led to phone interview - (5) PAS announcement led
(2) led to face-to-face interview . (4) followed by regularly scheduled interview to publisher contract • *, f
<!



Developer
University of Pittsburgh
Learning & Research Center
New York Institute of
Technology
American Institutes for
Research
Oregon State System of
Higher Education, Teach-
ing Research
Ohio University
DEVELOPERs WHO USED PAs
Use of PAS
72-02-The Perceptual Skills Curriculum
73-1l-New Primary Grades Reading System
74-42-Design & Development of Curricular
Materials
74-48-The Use of Learning Principles in
Instruction
75-78-Adaptive Early Learning Program
75-90-Assessing & Influencing sºuver
72-03-Self-paced Physics Course
72-07-A Technology for Developing Instruc-
tional Materials
74-50-Evaluation Training Program
75-71-Career Education Instructional
Units for Grades K-12
72-08-Feather
73-22-"Flexibility" & "Perseveration"
73-32-Model Programs in Early Childhood
Education for the Handicapped
72-09-Africa: A Thematic Geography
Received
BCMA letter
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Responded to * ~ *
BCMA letter Interview Product published by
- - No Walker Research Corp.
º ºn - *-º <>
- - - - Addison Wesley Publishing Co.
No No
Yes Yes (1)
& sº No ACI Films
No No



DEVELOPERS WHO USED PAS
Received
BCMA letter
No
Yes
Yes
No
Responded to
BCMA letter
Yes
Yes
Interview
Yes (1)
Product published by
Ginn and Company (Xerox)
(communications portion only)
National Microfilm Association
º
Allyn and Bacon
Webster Division, McGraw-Hill (?)
Docent Corp.
Developers
SWRL Educational Research
& Development
The American Association
of Community & Junior
Colleges
Michigan State University
Research for Better Schools
Philadelphia, PA
Far West Lab. for Education-
a 1 Research & Development
Use of PAS
72-10-SWRL Communications Skills & Fine
Arts Programs
73-12-A Microform Handbook for Community
& Junior Colleges
73-13-I CAN (Physical Ed.)
73-14-Achievement Competence Training
73-20-Staff Development Package
73-21-Systematic Progress in Reading &
Literature
74-66-Search
75-67-The Language of Personal Experience
75-75-Making Judgments
73-16-A Sourcebook of Elementary Cur-
ricula, Programs & Projects
73-37-The Educational Information
Consultant
73-38-Developing Open Education in America
A Review of Theory & Practice in the
Public Schools
74-60-Content Analysis of Textbooks for
Black Pupils (Grades 1-3)
National Association for the
Education of Young Children
He
He
He



Developer
Far West Lab. for Education-
al Research & Development
(Cont'd)
Johns Hopkins University
Center for Social Organiza-
tion of Schools
Indiana
Southwest Educational
Development Lab.
Northwest Regional Edu-
cational Lab.
University of Texas
DEVELOPERS WHO USED PAS
Use of PAS
75–69-Designing Instructional Programs
75-70-Evaluation for Program Improvement
73-17-Teams –Gaames Handbook
74-57-Rainy Days & Mondays
73-19-Teaching for Mastery
73-23-Handbook for a Parent-School-
Community Involvement Program
73-26-Health Education for Grades One,
Two, and Three -
73-36-preparing for Today's Classroom
75-81-Exploring Number Concepts
75-88-Pass It On
75-89-Thinking & Reasoning
75-95-Spanish/English Language Per-
formance Screening
73-24–The Elements of Computer Careers
73-25-Teaching Mathematics Modules
Received
BCMA letter
Yes
No
No
Yes
Responded to
BCMA letter
Interview
Product published by
Far West Laboratory
Indiana University Audio-Visual
Service
National Education Laboratory
Publishers
Prentice -Hall



DEVELOPERS WHO USED PAS
Developer
North Carolina State Univ.
University of Tennessee
Miami-Dade Community College
Southern Illinois Univ.
Portland Cement Association
National Association for
Environmental Education
Drexel University
University of Michigan
©.
Mississippi State University
University of Wisconsin
Asian Newcomer Parent
Program
Use of PAS
73-27-Programmed Instructional Materials
for Adult Basic Education
74-45-Guidelines for Establishing & Operat-
ing an Adult Learning Library
73-28-Educational Cooperation: Quality
Through Combined Resources
73–29-Man & Environment
75-73-A Point of View: Proceedings of
the First American Conference on
Teachers' Centers in Math. Ed.
73-31-National Concrete Technology
Curriculum
73-33-Man and Environment for Secondary
Schools
73-34-The Information-Poor in America
73-35 -Fehr-Practicum
75–91-New Vistas in Counseling & Human
Systems
73-39-Art for Young Children
74-40-Ideals Concept: Purpose-based
Educational Planning
74-41-Everyday English
Received
BCMA letter
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Responded to
BCMA letter Interview
Yes No
Yes NO
Yes No
NO No
Yes No
Yes No
No No
No No
No No
No No
No No
Product published by
National Association for
Environmental Education
John Wiley & Sons
National Association for
Environmental Education
-, * * * * º
Scarecrow Press
.



DEVELOPERS WHO USED PAS
Received Responded to
Developer Use of PAS BCMA letter BCMA letter Interview Product published by
Orange County Consortium 74-43-Learning Units in Career Education Yes Yes No OUSA
Center for Vocational & 74-44-Career Education Curriculum Units Yes Yes {º tº Center for Vocational Education
Technical Ed., Ohio State U.
Technical Education Research 74-46 -Biomedical Equipment Technology Yes No No Technical Education Research
Centers, Inc. (BMET) Modular Curriculum Center
East Los Angeles College 74-47-Self-Image Development: A Chicano Yes Yes
Enfasis Self-Programmed Counseling
& Self-Programmed Control
Palisades Park Board of Ed. 74-49-Learncycle: An Encyclopedia of Yes No NO
Behavior Construction &
University of New Mexico 74-51-Support for Teachers in Alternative Yes Yes No
Teaching Programs
Woodbridge Township School 74-53-Moppet Yes Yes NO
District, Iselin, N.J.
Nassau Board of Cooperative 74-54-While Your're At It Yes Yes Yes (2) Reston Publishing Co. (Prentice-Hall)
Educational Services
University of Utah 74-55-Systems O.N.E. (Orientation: Yes Yes No
Normal Environment)
Battelle-Columbus Labs. 74-56 -The Future of Educational Tele- Yes Yes Yes (9) Lexington Books (Heath/Raytheon)
communication: A Planning Story
Mark R. Rosenzweig & Edward 74-58-Neural Mechanisms of Learning & Yes Yes No MIT Press
L. Bennett (Univ. CA, Berkeley) Memory
University of Kansas 74-59-Articulation Learning Yes Yes No University Park Press
University of Connecticut 74-61-Project Math (for handicapped) Yes Yes tº e º º Educational Progress, Inc.
g


DEVELOPERS WHO USED PAS
Developer
Exemplary Center for Reading
In struction, Ogden, Utah
The Claremont Colleges
Systems & Evaluation in
Education
University of Oregon Center
for Ed. Policy & Management
Brookdale Community College
National Assn. for Industry-
Education Cooperation
Los Angeles Unified School
2 District
Ethnic Cultural Heritage
Program, Seattle, Wash.
Florida State University
Brandeis University
Southern Illinois Univ.
at Edwardsville
Use of PAS
75-83-Programmed Teacher Training Kits
75-84 -LaCronica
75-85-Spanish-English Bi-lingual Ed. in
the U.S.A.
75-86-Organizational Specialists in a
School District
75-87-Egypt: Past & Present
75-92-School-System-Based Job Placement
Services Program Manual
75-93-A Guide to Deal, A Dual Approach
to Learning
75-94 -Rainbow Activities
75-96-Population Dynamics in Eighth-
Grade American History
75-97-The Contemporary Jewish Experience
in America
73-30-Black Dialect Materials
Received
BCMA letter
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Responded to
BCMA letter Interview Product published by
Yes No
No No
Yes No
tº- - NO
NO NO . .
Yes Yes (2) (3) Prakken.(?)
Yes No
No No
Yes No
Yes No Selective Educational Equipment
No - - Southern Illinois University at
Edwardsville
He
H-



F-4
#
DEVELOPERS WHO USED PAS
e Received Responded to -
Developer Use of PAS BCMA letter BCMA letter Interview Product published by
Boston University 74-62-Mathematics for Junior High School Yes Yes Yes (4)
Tech. Ed. Res. Center, Waco 74-63-Laser Electro-Optics Technology Yes No No
Texas, 8 outhwest Center
74-64 -Career Counseling Series tº º tº- tº tº -
Jon Schaffarzick & David H. 74-65-Strategies for Curriculum Develop- No &_º º Yes (*) McCutchan Publishing Co.
Hampson, NIE ment
System Development Corp. 75-68-Facilities Handbook for Career No -- Yes (*)
- + Education
The Pennsylvania State U. 75-72-Effective Personal & Career Decision Yes Yes No Westinghouse Learning Corp.
Making
Concern, Inc. Wash., D.C. 75-74-A Citizen's Handbook for the º Yes Yes No
- Evaluation of Drinking Water
The Ohio State University 75-76-Performance-based Vocational Yes Yes tº G-
Center for Vocational Ed. Teacher Education Modules
Coastal Center, So. Carolina 75-77-Laney Assessment of Language De- Yes Yes No Mafex Associates, Inc.(3)
Dept. of Mental Retardation velopment, Language Curriculum for
the Pre-Schooler
Career Decision-Making Pro- 75-79-Career Decision-Making Program No tº --> No
gram Appalachia, Ed. Lab.
American Indian Curricula 75-80-Plains Indian Social Studies Yes No No
Development Program
Human Interaction Research 75-82-Women at Work: A Three-Part Yes Yes No Human Sciences Press
Institute
Counseling Service



I—xiv
º
Publishers who responded to certain PAS announcements
This list is incomplete because (1) no laboratories and only two centers
are represented, (2) not all the other developers responded to BCMA's
letter of inquiry, (3) not a 11 the developers who did respond to BCMA's
letter could supply this information.
PAS #
Addison-Wesley # 17, 43, 54, 57, 61
Aeger Corporation 43
Alexander Graham Bell Assoc. 55
A11yn & Bacon 13
American Book Company (Litton) 53
American Guidance Service, Inc. 13
American Library Association 12
Baker & Taylor (W.R. Grace) 43
Ballinger 57
Barron's Educational Service 54
Beckley-Cardy Company &# 13
(Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.)
Behavioral Research Laboratories 13
Benziger, Bruce & Glencoe (Macmillan) 61
Bingham Educational Services 55
Bobbs-Merrill (Howard Sams; ITT) 13
Borg Warner Educational Systems 61, 83
Bowmar Publishing Corp. (Thomson Ltd.) 13
Ö
Ca1 Industries 74
Capital Publishing 17
Center for Media Development 61
Changing Times-Education Service (Kiplinger) 44



I-XV
Communications Pattern Inc.
Communications Media Productions
Communication Skills
Continental Press
D'Antoni and Associates
Docent
D.C. Heath (Raytheon)
Davis Publications
Dell Publications (Doubleday)
Delmar Publications (Litton)
Doubleday & Company
Economy Company
Educational Development Corp.
Educational Progress Inc. (EDC)
Educational Assistance Institute
Educational Performance Assocs.
Educational Properties, Inc.
Educational Sciences Inc.
Educational Service Inc.
Encore
Encyclopaedia Britannica
ERIC
ESEA Title III/IWC
Esquire
PAS #
43 .
61, 77
13
74, 77
17
13, 56, 57
43
54
43
54
13
61
13, 61
43
13
43
13, 61
13
43
13, 44, 54, 55
07, 28
53
43



Fawcett Publications (CBS)
Fearon Publishers (Pitman)
Follett Publishers
Family Circle Magazine
Franklin Watts, Inc. (Grolier)
Fundamental Proposals
Fundamental Concepts Ltd.
General Learning (General Electric ; Time)
Ginn & Company (Xerox)
Grolier Educational Corp.
Home Life Magazine
Hammond
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
Harper & Row
Hayden Book Company
Hoffman Educational Systems
Holt Rinehart & Winston (CBS)
Houghton Mifflin
Hubbard Scientific Co.
Human Sciences
Ideal School Supply Co. (Westinghouse)
Instructional Industries, Inc.
Industrial Publications
Intext
PAS # I—xvi
54
13
13,
54
43
74
83,
54
43
13,
54
54
13,
17,
43
43
13,
43,
13
93
61
43,
43
17
54
93
54
43, 54
54
54
53, 54, 61
55, 61



Knowledge Aids
Learning Games
Learning Products Inc.
Lexington Books (Heath; Raytheon)
McCutchan
McDougal-Litte 11 Company
McGraw-Hill Book Company
McKnight Publishing
Macmillan
Mafex
Charles E. Merrill (Bell & Howell)
MIT Press
National Microfilm Association
National Textbook Company
New Century Education Corp.
National School. Development Council
Noble & Noble (Doubleday)
Nystrom (Carnation)
Parents Magazine
Penguin (Viking)
Plenum Press
Prentice-Ha 11
QED Productions
Pas # I—xvii
13
74
13
37
57
43
13, 43, 44, 53,
54 (Webster), 61
44
17, 54
61, 77
44, 55, 83
58
12
61
83
28
13
43
54
74
58
54
43, 55



Random House (RCA)
Raven Press
Reston (Prentice Hall)
Schocken
School Product News
Silver Burdett (Scott Foresman)
Science Research Associates (IBM)
Scott Foresman and Company
NAEE (Secondary School Curriculum Guide)
Stanwix House
Stenographic Machine Inc.
Teachers College Press
Teaching Resources Corp. (New York Times)
Thiokol
University of Miami Press
University Park Press
Van Nostrand Reinhold (Litton)
Vantage
Vocational Guidance Manuals
Walton Educational Book Corp.
Ward's Natural Science Establishment, Inc.
Western Tape
PAS #
54
58
54, 57, 83
74
74
54
13, 43, 54
13, 54
33
13
43
61, 77
13
43
74
77
74
93
43
61
43
43
I-xviii



Westinghouse Learning Corp.
Wiff 'n Proof Learning Games Assocs.
John Wiley & Sons
Woman's Day (Fawcett)
Xerox Education Group
(now Xerox Publishing Division)
Zweig Associates
PAS #
13, 43, 72
77
13, 31
54
44, 54
43



Analysis of Responses to Items 1-13
Item 1 – Did you receive inquiries from PAS distribution
and, if so, how many?
None 6
1–5 5
6–10 4
11–20 6
21—up 1.
Item 2 – Names of publishers who made inquiries
Sent 7
Can supply - 3
Not readily available 7
Seven developers who responded said names of publishers
who asked for more information were "not readily available."
Seven did send names. Total number of different publishers: 127.
A few followed up more than one product. -
Item 3 – Did your response lead to further inquiries?
NO r ll
1–3 3
4 or more w 7 º
Yes not specified
some -
Not via PAS
1–5 15
6 or more 3



I-xxi
Tor whatever reason, there was a sharp fall-off in
the number of companies that wished further information.
Only 45 asked for more information.
Publishers' lack of interest led a few developers
to pull back materials and attempt to make them more attractive.
Item 4 – Number of publishers who followed up.
No follow up 11
l 6
2 2
3 1.
5 1.
Some l
Item 5 - Were there negotiations?
NOne 11
Not commercial 2
1. 7
3 l
Yes – personal contact - 1
A large percentage of publishers chose not to follow
up after receiving the additional information sent (11). How-
ever, eight publishers did undertake negotiations. Other de-
velopers sought publishers through personal contact.



I-xxii
Small publishing houses, rather than large, tended
to negotiate for rights to publish.
At least three of the respondents who agreed to
publish have publication deadlines in future months.
Item 6 - Was agreement to publish reached?
None 12
Yes 12
Some agreements were reached with publishers who
had never seen a PAS.
Self publication 4
Item 7 – What publishers concluded agreements?
D. C. Heath
PAS #72-06 COPES, New York University
National School Development Council
PAS #73–28 Educational Cooperation
University of Tennessee
John Wiley & Sons
PAS #73–31 National Concrete Technology Curriculum
Portland Cement Association
Ohio University School Development
PAS #73–33 Man and Environment for Secondary Schools
National Assn. for Environmental Education
Center for Vocational Education
PAS #74–44 Career Education Curriculum Units
Ohio State University



I-xxiii
MIT PreSS
PAS #74–58 Neural Mechanisms of Learning
and Memory
University of California
Educational Progress Inc.
PAS #74–61 Project Math
University of Connecticut
Mafex
PAS #75–77 Laney Assessment of Language
Development
Coastal Center, South Carolina University
Prakken Publishers
PAS #75–92 School—System—Based Job Placement
Services Program Manual
National Association for Industry
Education Cooperation
Item 8 – Was dissemination successful?
Yes * 2
NO 3
Not published yet l
Limited 2
Not many replies to this question came in. Possibly
it is too early to be definite on this point. A number were
satisfied that their products were in good hands. Of those
most had made arrangements with other publishers independently
and often, it would seem, sometimes in advance of the circulation
of the pertinent Alert.



I-xxiv.
Item 9 - Cost of responding to publisher's inquiry
NOne l
No data 6
Little (under $200) 4
Time and dollar estimate -
not given 3
$500 – $1,000 3
$2,000 – $3,000 2
The reported costs of following up inquiries from
publishers ranged wildly from "none" to upwards of $3,000.
Many said that they couldn't resurrect the figures. Since
the data was not systematically kept, it is likely that most
costs ran much higher than the figures reported.
Item 10 – Were you able to have product marketed in another way?
By Developer 2
By ERIC l
NOne 5
Item 11 – Publisher arrangement independent of PAS
John Wiley & Sons
PAS #73–31 National Concrete Technology Curriculum
Portland Cement Association
Ohio University
PAS #73–33 Man and Environment for Secondary Schools
National Assn. for Environmental Education



I-XXV
OUSA
PAS #74–43 Learning Units in Career Education
Orange County Consortium
Center for Vocational Education
PAS #74–44 Career Education Curriculum Units
Ohio State University
D. C. Heath
PAS #74–56 The Future of Educational Telecommunications
Battelle-Columbus Laboratories
Item 12 – With what results?
Good 3
Fair . 4
POOr : l
No publishers 1.
Material incomplete 2
Center discontinued 1
At least 9 developers placed products with publishers
whom they contacted independently. Some developers received
inquiries unrelated to PAS and, in most cases, responded. But
they often negotiated with those who already knew of the project
and in whom they had confidence. In 7 instances, the results of
publishing outside the Alert inquiries ranged from "fair" to
"good."



I-xxvi
Item 13 — Did you rely solely on PAS2
Q
Yes 8
No 9
PAS & Personal Contact 4
Although 9 said they did not rely solely on PAS,
12. said that they relied on PAS or a combination of PAS
and personal contact.
Some observations
The Alerts, in the main, drew few and sometimes no
inquiries from publishers circularized. This may be attri-
buted to a number of factors: the newness of the process,
failure to distribute Alerts within the publishing staff, a
product pipeline fully filled, lack of capital for new ven-
tures, or other reasons. Perhaps the Alerts did not reach
the right staff person.
Copyright restrictions were mentioned occasionally.
Only 7 Alerts drew more than 11 inquiries. Rising
interest in certain areas (e.g. career education and the
handicapped) spurred curiosity and, hence, inquiries.
Some large publishers employ staff persons to watch
for opportunities and trends. Certain inquiries can be traced
to casual routine attention to announcements.



I-xxvii
Opinions and Suggestions – Items 14 and 15
Item 14 – What are your views of PAS as a procedure for
obtaining dissemination?
"greatly disappointed by the poor response,
apparently due to the nature of our materials."
72-06.
"The problem with COPES was that it produced
teacher's guides only, which is too thin a
market to interest commercial publishers, at
least so we were told." 72–06.
"Of some assistance, but not essential."
73–12.
"My opinion of the PAS as a procedure for
obtaining dissemination of products is that
it is probably a useful first step in esta-
blishing contact with publishers, although
it wasn't in our case. It assures me, be—
cause it is distributed to so many educational
publishers, that I am covering the field when
I use it. I don't have time to prepare a de—
tailed mailing list of educational publishers
and keep it updated, so I think PAS is probably
good in this respect." 73–17; 74–57.
"We made contact with several publishers. Two
were interested until they ran into the complexi-
ties of copyright." - 73–28.
"Looking back, perhaps the chart on the second
page of the announcement was detrimental to the
marketing of this document. It was, I think,
confusing, too small in print, and not entirely
understandable. The actual document is not set
up in this format at all. While the content is
the same, the organization of the material is
different." (note: we assume this refers to the
Product Data Form). 73–29 .



I-xxviii
"PAS, as a procedure for obtaining dissemination
avenues, is highly useful because of its ability
to reach publishers (small and large) throughout
the nation." 7 4-43.
"The Publishers Alert Service is not a dis–
semination process. It is only an announcement
procedure to help make commercial publishers
aware of newly developed products."
74-44.
"PAS seems to attract only the small publishers.
Need personalized contacts with the larger shops."
74–50.
"One publisher told us that the RFP demands, which
were developed by the New Jersey State Department
of Education, were too great for publishers to agree
to during a recession period." 74–53.
"Excellent." 75–72.
"We felt that it was a very valuable service."
7 5–7 4.
"The Publishers Alert Service is very worthwhile
and helpful as a procedure for obtaining dissemina-
tion of development products." 75–77.
"My appraisal of the PAS system after having been
through it in 1975 is, to say the least, mixed.
It is my suspicion that the PAS works quite well
in many cases, and provides a valuable boost for
the authors involved. In our case, it did not work
effectively: the process was slow, cumbersome, and
yielded nothing of practical value." 75-82.



I-xxix
"PAS certainly did an adequate job for me
because I did receive inquiries from pub-
lishers." 75–83.
"PAS is probably an important procedure
for dissemination of information to
publishers. 75–85.
"Very helpful." 75–93.
"I think it is a useful service." 75–97.
"PAS was helpful, but not enough." 74–55.
"Provided me with , some expertise/knowledge
of potential publishers. I do believe that
PAS's newness to both private and public sec-
tor, as well as copyright regulations govern-
ing newly-developed products under federal
grants, hindered its potential usefulness.
In my opinion, curriculum developers, as well
as publishers, used for the most part trial
and error approaches based on 'Who's on first."
As we have all gained experience, it might be
possible to really provide coordinated dis-
semination plans linking together private (pub-
1isher) and public sectors in the future."
73–13.
Item 15 — Recommendations for alternate means of accomplishing
desirable dissemination of products.
"Permit project directors to negotiate directly
with commercial and non-commercial publishers
without going through PAS or Government Print-
ing Office." 73–12.



I-xxx
"Staff support for two years needed to
pfovide organized coordinated approach
for dissemination and instructional im–
plementation namely, research to practice.
In a very real sense, such support is cru-
cial if the developer is to provide not only
direction but also evaluative criteria for
these efforts." 73–13.
"We need to 1ínk together the private and
public sectors to provide adequate dis-
semination and instructional implementation
of products produced if we are to utilize
research information for programs improvement
and student achievement gains." 73—13.
"Curriculum research developers in related
areas with validated programs, materials,
and in-service training models for influenc—
ing adoption, adaptation and implementation
should be organized in a coordinated systemic
approach. Many times publishers and developers
can provide reinforcing activities while at dif–
ferent state and regional and national meetings
or replication sites." 73–13.
"Contracts/grants for dissemination, and in-
structional implementation for staff support
for diffusion/replication, etc. should be or—
ganized, coordinated, particularly in special
education, including physical education, to
maximize impact." 73–13.
"Two products accepted by publishers within
the past year-and-a-half; . . in both cases,
personal contact and an 'in' with the publi–
shers were the reasons for publication."
73–17.



I-xxxi
"Target to audiences based on the knowledge
of the user and do this through channels
that are accepted in the field related to
the development effort." 73–28.
"The only way that material can be distri-
buted is by permitting copyright, so that
there is some method for distribution."
73–33.
"An incentive plan whereby publishers of
such educational products would be given
a tax credit or low interest loans. An
information system should be developed to
aid publishers in the notification of poten-
tial buyers." 74–43.
"If the publishers are to select products,
they generally prefer to be involved from
the very beginning. It would, perhaps, be
desirable to have one central agency co-
ordinate contacts with commercial publishers
to overcome the piecemeal, hit-and-miss con-
tact procedures now employed by product de-
velopers." 74-44.
"It seems to me that the National Institute
of Education should seriously consider some
kind of publishing venture supported by the
federal government for the purpose of dis-
seminating innovative materials where com-
mercial publishers are unwilling to take the
risk." 74–53.



I-xxxii
"Outside of commercial publication... experience
with OE National Diffusion Network. I think the
NDN, given strong leadership and a lot more money
than it currently gets, could be extremely effec-
tive for national dissemination. The model is
simple and sound and should be fully tried, in-
stead of writing it off with token funding while
trying to develop some other massive dissemination
plan." 74–57.
"While the PAS was extremely helpful in locating
a publisher, we did in fact have a select group
of publishers in mind when we entered the services."
74-61.
"Author contact of publisher." 75–72.
"Our failure to obtain a publisher for our manual
was probably due to the fact that the material was
neither technical enough to be of help to professionals
nor non-technical enough to be of use for the layman or
to the schools. We are presently working on a less
technical manual and will try again to find a publisher.'
75-74.
"I also was surprised that NIE did not provide users
of the PAS with a written description of this service,
telling how long it took, what the steps were, etc.
A one-page note with some basic, factual information
would, I think, be very helpful." 75–82.
"The service could be expanded to include greater
detail and discussion of the 'product, ' potential
markets, availability of competitive products, etc."
75–85.



I-xxxiii
". . . believes in PAS and also has a very high
opinion of Bachrach, who was most helpful in
the wording of the agreement between NAIEC
and the chosen publishers. Says that red
tape surrounding the contract is almost as
difficult to wade through as a deal with the
Office of Government Contracts." 75–92.
"Perhaps meeting with publishers' representa-
tives at a Project Director's Meeting would
help." 7.5–93.
"I recommend that the USOE fund direct publi–
cation of materials developed. I feel this
would be the most effective means of disseminat-
ing the products." 7.5–96.
"No suggestions." 75–97.



Nature of products of "other developers", audience aimed at, media used
The following analysis of products described in PAS announcements sent out by 54 other developers and two centers shows,
for each product, the subject-area and grade-level, the audience aimed at, the components, and the media used.
cas-
- HANDBOOK FILM
PAS & TITLE ... DEVELOPER AREA LEVEL AUDIENCE BOOK GUIDE LESSONS, , STRIPS FILMS SETTES. MODULE OTHER
72-06 COPES New York University Sci. Ed. K-6 Teachers Teacher - In O In O In O . In O In O
Guides
72-07 A Technology for Developing American Inst. for Ed. Research Univ. Grad. Students 5
Instructional Materials Research -
73-12 A microform Handbook for Com- |American Assn. of Com- Index Guide Comm. & Jr.Col. Handbook In O In O In O In O In O Micro-
munity & Junior Colleges munity & Jr.Colleges w & Admin. film
73-13 I CAN Michigan State Univ. Phys. Ed. K-6 Planners Workshop
Handicapped Guide
73-17 Teams-Games Handbook Johns Hopkins Univ. Motivation Sec.Sch. Sec. Sch. Handbook I\O {\O In O In O In O
7-12 Tchrs&Stdnts
73-28 Educational Cooperation - University of Tennessee Admin. Top Ed. Administra - Book Tl O In O In O ºn O In O In O
- tor 8
73-29 Man and Environment Miami-Dade Community Ecology College Students Handbook In O In O In O TAO In O
College -
73 -31 National Concrete Tech. Portland Cement Assn. Tech. Inst, College Tchrs&Stdnts Inst. Guide Text- Il O Il O In O ºl O
Curriculum Comm. Coll book
73-33 Man and Environment for National Association for |Ecology Sec.Sch. Tchrs&Stants Guide Out -
Secondary Schools Environmental Education line 20 no In O In O In O
74-43 Learning Units in Career Orange County Consortium | Career Ed. K-14 Teachers 80 Units In O TMO TWO In O
Education slide
- ..] tapes
74-44 Career Education Curr. Units |Ohio state University Career Ed. El . Sec. Teachers Teachers More
- Guides 3 in prep, no In O In O TMO
i



74-53
74 -54
74 - 50
74-55
74 - 56.
74-57
74-58
74-61
TITLE
Nature of products of "other developers", audience aimed at, media used
Laboratory
MOPPET
HANDBOOK FILM CAS- -
DEVELOPER AREA LEVEL AUDIENCE BOOK GUIDE LESSONS STRIPS FILMS_SETTES MODULE_OTHER
Guidelines for Establishing & North Carolina State Univ. Adult Ed. Adult Adm. & Super- Book 80 Units In O In O In O In O
Operating an Adult Learning visors Guide
-Y
Indiana Avenue School Elem. Curr. Elem. Teachers Book Games In O In O In O In O
600p Card Sts.
Manual
While You're At It Nassau Bă. of Cooperative | Pre-Schl. Pre-Schl, Parents In O In O In O In O
Educational Service
Evaluation Training Program |American Institutes for In-service K-12 | Teachers 15 pamph-
Research Education lets
Systems O.N.E. University of Utah Handicapped Elem. Teachers/
Hearing Parents Booklet 9 with no In O
•º cass. -
The Future of Educational Battelle-Columbus Labs. Communica - || Adult Policy Makers' Book [\O In O In O In O
Telecommunication tion in Ed. Froad.
Rainy Days and Mondays Johns Hopkins Univ. Preventing Adult Adm/Teachers/ Book In O In O In O In O
Absenteeism Parents
Neural Mechanisms of Univ. of California Psychology Adult Professors / Antholl- In O In O In O In O
Learning & Memory Prof. Educators ogy
Project Math Univ. of Connecticut Math K-6 Teachers of Manual 2100Guides no In O In O no | Transp.
- Handicapped Act. Sheets & Cards
Children
Curric . Mat.
;



Nature of products of "other developers", audience aimed at, media used
FILM
* HANDBOOK CAS-
PAS # TITLE DEVELOPER AREA LEVEL AUDIENCE BOOK GUIDE LESSONS STRIPS FILMS SETTES MODULE OTHER
Y - - gº
75-72 Effective Personal & Career | Pennsylvania State Univ. Career Ed. HS Sr. Students Ref. Called TB) no In O In O In O.
decision Making t Comm.Col. Book really
* 159pp Ref.
75-74 A Citizen's Handbook for the Concern, Inc. Ecology Citizens / Citizens / | Ref. \l O In O In O In O
Evaluation of Drinking Water High Sch/ |High Sch/ | Book
College College
75-77 Laney Assessment of Language | Coastal Center, South Teachers, 1-3 Chron Teachers Loose - Curr. In O In O In O In O
Development Carolina University Language Age Handicapped leaf 400 pp
Develop. Manual
75-82 Women at Work Human Interaction Res. Counseling Adult Counselors | Book 3 In O In O In O In O
Inst. |Source
Book
75-83 Programmed Teacher Training Exemplary Center for Read- ||Language Elem. Teachers 20 kits In O In O Il O In O
Kits ing Inst. Arts
75-85 Spanish-English Bilingual Systems & Evaluation in Bilingual Adult Teachers / Anthol- In O in O In O In O
Education in the U.S.A. Education Supervisors |ogy Bk
133 pp
Resource
75-92 School-System-Based Job National Association for Personnel Adult School Manual In O In O In O In O
Placement Services Program Industry Education Services in Admin.
- Cooperation Education Training
Personnel
i



Nature of products of "other developers", audience aimed at, media used
HANDBOOK , FILM CAS -
PAS # TITLE DEVELOPER — AREA LEVEL AUDIENCE BOOK GUIDE LESSONS STRIPS FILMS SETTES MODULE OTHER
75-93 A Guide to Deal, The Dual Los Angeles Unified School ; Handicap - . Adult Teachers/ Guide In O In O In O In O
Approach to Learning District Special Education ped Young | Supervisors/ 250 pp
Division Children Parents
75-96 Population Dynamics in Florida State University Social 8th Gr. Teachers of 7 Units no Il O In O In O
8th Grade American History * Studies American 50pp
- 4. ..History
75-97 The Contemporary Jewish Brandeis University Social Elem. Teachers 2 Elem. & 5 Blue - | Slides
Experience in America Studies Sec. Sec. prints | Tapes 5 Posters
Supervi- Student 12Games
SOI. S booklets
F
>:
X.
:
He
He



I-xxxviii
Evaluation practices of developers
Commercial publishers of instructional materials, especially
those preparing products for classroom use, commonly evaluate products
in advance of final stages. Evaluations include classroom testing and
gathering teacher and supervisor opinions. Frequently products undergo
changes to eliminate weaknesses.
How much evaluations influence decisions to purchase is hard
to determine. Salesmen, however, often include evidence from evaluations
in their sales presentations. -
Therefore, a publisher looking at an NIE product grant will
respect evidence from evaluation if it appears in a PAS.
Most PAS announcements tell about pilot studies and other
evaluations undertaken.
The accompanying chart presents in tabular form, information
received from developers about the kind of evaluation undertaken for
products.
No definite evaluation pattern appears.
These points can be made :
1. Because almost no projects led to published classroom
materials, the testing of children was neither possible nor relevant.
2. Teacher guides, the most common product, do not lend
themselves to evaluation.
3. Many developers invited RFP's before the project was com-
pleted, and so evaluation was not feasible.
4. Evaluation, when undertaken, reached limited numbers of
teachers and students. Pilot studies were more common. These do not
require large numbers of students.
5. Often the project did not lend itself to evaluation: i.e. ,
an anthology or an adult trade book.
6. Sometimes the product was the outgrowth of a long process
of study, and development was funded.
7. We found almost no evaluation of the market for a product
in advance of development.
8. We found little or no correlation between publishers accept-
ance of products and evaluation. Publishers, however, were more inclined
to seek contracts for those projects that were an outgrowth of sustained
work in new demand areas.



06
012
13
17
19
27
29
31
33
41
43
44
50
51
53
TABULATION OF EVALUATION PRACTICES
£, Partial or
No Report Yes None Some Not Needed Limited Very Little
X
X
X X
In prep . seems outgrowth
of sustained experiment X
X
X
21 classrooms
X X
X
X X
apparently
X
X
X
X
X X
with changes
X
Widely used-
in prep. '74
X X
No details-
Pacemaker Award
i



54
55
56
57
58
61
62
72
74
76
77
82
83
92
93
96
97
Partial or
No Report Yes None Some Not Needed Limited Very Little
º
X X
X
In prep .
X
X
X
X
5 yr. study
X
In process
X
X ...t
X *
X X
Several schools in
several states
X
3 states-intensive
X
X
X
22 classrooms
g



RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION,
FEDERALLY—FUNDED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
AGENCIES, AND COMMERCIAL PUBLISHERS
F | NAL RE PORT
An introduction, six reports,
and three appendices, covering
Tasks I through VI, prepared
for the
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION
under -
Contract No. 400–76–0086
B C M A A S S O C is t e S, l n C.
February 25, 1977 52 Vanderbilt Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10017
Telephone (212) 683-8262



TASK II







TASK II
AN ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES TO PAS



TABLE OF CONTENIS
... troduction . • • * * tº gº tº © © © © tº © • © tº º © Cº. • © º e Gº i-vi
Task I: An analysis of the current PAS effort . . . . . . . . . I.1 — I 21
Appendix to Task I Report: Special study of the use of
PAS by developers other than the laboratories
and centers - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . I i – I xl
Task II: An analysis and evaluation of the alternatives
to PAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II 1 - II 6
Appendix to Task II Report: Examples of alternatives
to PAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II i - II Xxxi
Task III: Analysis of special problems associated with *.
"thin market" products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III 1 - III 2.0
Task IV: Analysis of the potential role publishers could
perform in a consultant- or working arrangement
with the Institute in regard to new development
activities. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV 1 - IV 14
Appendix to Task IV Report: Reports of counselling -
sessions with NIE staff members . . . . . . . . . . . IV i - IV vi
Task V: Review of consumer interest and issues that
should modify or constrain any of the previous
policy recommendations. tº e O º © © © º © © o e O º º V l º- V ll
Task VI: Prepare a final summary of all of the recommen—
dations and activities required in the foregoing
sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI 1 - VI 7
Prepared by BCMA Associates, Inc. for the National Institute
of Education under Contract No. 400–76-0086.
O February 25, 1977



TASK II
AN ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES TO PAS
Two unacceptable alternatives
A first alternative to PAS is discussed at length in the
Task I report -- improving the mechanism as it existed until January
1976, when PAS was suspended. In BCMA's opinion, PAS would have
functioned better in achieving its announced aims if the recommenda-
tions discussed in the body of the report, and summarized in the
final pages, had been followed.
A second alternative would be to eliminate an announce-
ment system altogether and to require grantees and contractors to
accept the full burdens of private-sector authorship -- i.e. to re-
quire them, as a condition of their funding, to develop their own
lists of potential publishers and to establish necessary contracts
with no guidance of any kind from NIE.
In BCMA's view, neither of these two alternatives is
acceptable. The first is unacceptable because PAS in its present
form was based in part on mistaken assumptions. The second is un-
acceptable because it places an unfair burden on developers and makes
no attempt to be "fair and equitable" to "all interested parties."
Four acceptable alternatives
A third alternative, relatively inexpensive and easy for
NIE (but not for developers), would be simply to provide developers with
a comprehensive mailing list of potential publishers, annotated ac-
cording to publisher capabilities and interests. Provisions also
would have to be made to update the list periodically, probably every
three months. Developers, as part of their contracts, would be re-
quired to announce all their potentially publishable products to a 11
publishers (or to all publishers in a selected category or categories)
at least twice -- once when the product is first defined, and again
when it is far enough along for the developer to be able to send a
potential publisher, as a minimum, "an outline and sample chapter" --
i.e. enough of the product so that the publisher could form his own
judgment about the quality of the authorship and the scope of the project.
Developers also would be required to obtain NIE advance approval of their
announcements, and to keep NIE informed specifically about publisher
responses.



II-2
This alternative, though possibly difficult to monitor,
has considerable appeal, even though it could create a kind of -
promotion-writing competition among developers, some of whom probably
would be more successful than others in describing their products in
attractive terms and getting publisher responses. Publishers, however,
tend to take a caveat emptor view of what comes in over their transoms
and are sophisticated (some would say cynical) about authors' claims.
One possible draw-back is that it might encourage the
creation of a small empire of announcement writers and analyzers, a
small mountain of correspondence and files, too many developer/publisher
visits and phone calls, and a corresponding increase of correspondence
and file activity in NTE. Another draw-back is the additional expense it
would mean for developers, each one of which would have to spend some
money and time building up mailing expertise to do the job correctly.
Perhaps the advantages of additional product exposure and possibly better
eventual dissemination would outweigh any disadvantages. -
A fourth alternative (a variation of the third) would be to
modify the present PAS structure drastically. First, require each de-
veloper to submit a brief announcement describing his product as soon as
it can be defined. Second, engage an outside contractor to revise and
send it to all publishers or selected categories of publishers according
to the wishes (approved by NIE) of the developer. Third, require the
developer to prepare another announcement when , he has reached the "outline
and sample chapter" stage. Fourth, have the outside contractor revise
this copy and send the announcement to all publishers or selected cate-
gories of publishers, as before. If the first and second announcements
produce no results (i.e. no publishers preparing bid proposals), the de-
veloper would be required to send out still a third (and final) announce-
ment. This alternative would (1) give NIE complete control of the an-
nouncement mechanism (since all steps would be subject to NIE approval),
(2) give every developer the advantage of a separate announcement (i.e.
the description of his product would not appear along with a number of
other product descriptions, some of them "competitive," as would be the
case in a newsletter), and (3) give virtually full assurance that "all
interested parties" would receive notification.
A fifth alternative, which appeals to many developers and
publishers and also to SDC, is to create a special newsletter devoted
exclusively to news about NTE-funded, potentially-publishable develop-
ment projects. Developers would be required to...send NIE, or an outside
contractor, regular bulletins about all their products (from the award
of the grant to the completion of a prototype). Or the outside contrac-
tor would be required to keep in regular touch with all developers and



II–3
to obtain progress bulletins from them on a regular basis. The news items
would be arranged in pre-determined publishing categories, so that publi–
shers could quickly scan areas of interest. Clear instructions would be
given about whom to phone or write for further information.
The purpose of the newsletter would be made instantly ap-
parent in the title and sub-title of each issue -- i.e. , an announcement
mechanism designed to acquaint all potential publishers with products be-
ing developed with government funds. Recipients would be encouraged to
add names, and all developers would be on the mailing list along with pub-
lishers. The framework would be formal, but informality would be encouraged
in the announcement items.
Commentary on alternatives three, four, and five (see examples, Appendix,
pages IIi = IIiii)
Alternatives three, four, and five all rest on the preparation
and maintenance of a comprehensive mailing list of educational publishers
and producers, with appropriate selection capabilities.
Of the alternatives to the present PAS system presented so far,
the fifth -- the newsletter —- seems to BCMA the best, at least from the
standpoint of getting the most information into the hands of potential pub-
lishers in attention-getting form. It certainly would be read by publishers
and also by developers. It could be modified quickly in response to sug-
gestions by developers and publishers. It would satisfy NIE's obligation to
get the word about new products around to "all interested parties" early,
and "in a fair and equitable manner." Although it would require hiring an
outside contractor, or setting up a section within NIE at a cost roughly
equivalent to the cost of PAS (perhaps somewhat higher), it possibly would
be less costly to developers than the $1,000 per PAS announcement estimated
in the Task I report.
Two additional alternatives (see examples, Appendix, pages IIiv - IIvi)
A sixth alternative, probably the least expensive and the
easiest of all, also should be considered seriously by NIE -- "announce-
ments of record" in trade journals or newsletters read regularly by pub-
lishers. If such a procedure were followed, NIE would first have to de-
cide which trade publications should be used and then would have to make
sure that an announcement of this decision was communicated widely through-
out the publishing industry. Obviously, the final decision about publica-
tions would have to be made in conjunction with a committee of representa-
tive publishers, or by taking a poll by mail, but it probably would include
one or more of the following: Publishers Weekly; Educational Marketer; and
EDUCATION U.S. A. All three are read regularly by commercial publishers,
all three carry special features regularly, and all three have circulations
in the high thousands. Among the three, Publishers Weekly is probably read
by the widest range of publishers, but Educational Marketer has become al-
most a "must" for educational publishers. Announcements in both these pub-
lications would achieve something close to saturation coverage, provided
the "rules" were made abundantly clear.



II-4
The announcements would be another special, regular feature. The O
feature items could be gathered by NIE, or by an outside contractor,
and turned over to the publications. Or the publications themselves
could be engaged as contractors to gather the information regularly
and present it according to a pre-determined policy. This alternative
has the advantage of combining the trade publications' normal interest
in getting news items with the publishers' normal interest in keeping
up with what's going on. Also, such announcements would perhaps be
read by more people than would individual announcements or a special
newsletter. Trade publications that have been paid for by publishers
tend to be routed around among several readers, and many individuals
in publishing companies have their own subscriptions.
PAS-plus
A seventh alternative involves a combination of either
three, four, five, or six and a special extra effort to assist
developers working on major programs designed for per-pupil use to
find suitable publishers. This special extra effort would involve an
outside contractor thoroughly familiar with the educational publish-
ing industry, and with major curriculum trends. The outside contractor
would (1) counsel the developer concerning the timing and nature of his
approach to selected publishers, (2) assist the developer to prepare
a written presentation in terms familiar to publishers, describing
his program, (3) approach publishers on the developer's behalf, and
(4) assist both developer and publisher in contract negotiations as
needed.
This seventh alternative could be called PAS-plus, since it
is BCMA's conviction, made clear in both the Task T and Task II reports,
that a systematic announcement mechanism of some kind for all potentially-
publishable products developed with government funds should be a part of
NIE's planning for the future. (see page II—ix of Appendix to Task II)
Assumptions underlying all recommended alternatives
Three acceptable alternatives, as previously noted, rest on
the creation and maintenance of a complete mailing list with appropraite
selection capabilities. And all recommendations are based on the as-
sumption that personal contacts between developers and publishers should
be encouraged, and that PAS (or any alternative) is nothing more than an
announcement -- important in the process of finding suitable publishers,
but limited in what it can accomplish. All the recommended alternatives
also are based on the assumption that a full, clear explanation of
exactly what the announcement mechanism is and exactly how it works
should be made readily available to a 11 developers and publishers.


II - 5
A special word about mailing lists
Mailing lists are discussed generally throughout the
Task I report and specifically on pages I-16 - I-18. If separate
announcements for each potentially-publishable product are continued,
it probably would be advisable at least to consider sending each
announcement only to selected categories of publishers. If, however,
a newsletter is decided upon, it certainly should go to everyone.
Readers could be counted on to make their own selections according to
their publishing interests. Generally speaking, selectivity in mailing
lists is expensive to develop and even more expensive to maintain. In
BCMA's opinion, the extra expense of sending mailings to publishers
who are not interested in particular products is outweighed by the
fact that, if selectivity is attempted, undoubtedly a few potential
publishers will not receive mailings. In any event, specific recom-
mendations about setting up a mailing list are, because of the complexi-
ties involved, beyond the scope of these reports.
In summary
The alternatives to PAS as now structured are, as BCMA sees
them, the following:
1. Improve the PAS mechanism as it existed till January 1976 along
the lines suggested in the Task I report.
2. Forgo an announcement mechanism and place the burden of finding
publishers entirely on the shoulders of developers.
(note: neither of these alternatives is, in BCMA's opinion,
acceptable, though the first certainly is preferable to the
second.)
3. Provide developers with a comprehensive mailing list with appro-
priate selection criteria and maintenance provisions, and require
them to use it according to certain regulations.
4. Announce all government-funded projects through a special newsletter
distributed regularly to a comprehensive list of educational publishers.
5. Modify the present PAS structure drastically by requiring all de-
velopers to announce all products earlier, and at least twice, in
simpler, less formal bulletins distributed to the same mailing list
as in alternatives three and four.
6. Announce all government-funded projects "for the record" in widely-
read trade publications acceptable to a consensus of representative
publishers.



II-6 O
7. Employ either three, four, five, or six along with a special
extra effort to assist developers of major's programs designed
for per-pupil use.
The Appendix to this Task. II report includes examples
of alternatives three, four, five, and six, along with information
about an actual "special extra effort" similar to that described
in alternative seven.
* - es - -


APPENDIX II
TASK II







Appendix
to
Task II Report
Rough-draft examples of Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6 to
PAS discussed in Task II Report , along with a finished
example of a seventh alternative called PAS-plus.
Contract No , 400-76-0086



TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i-vi
Task I: An analysis of the current PAS effort . . . . . . . . . . I 1 - I 21
Appendix to Task I Report: Special study of the use of
PAS by developers other than the laboratories tº
and centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I i - I Xl
º
Task II: An analysis and evaluation of the alternatives
to PAS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - II 1 - II 6
Appendix to Task II Report: Examples of alternatives
to PAS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - II i - II Xxxi
Task III: Analysis of special problems associated with
"thin market" products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III 1 - III 2.0
Task IV: Analysis of the potential role publishers could
perform in a consultant or working arrangement
with the Institute in regard to new development
activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV 1 - IV 14
Appendix to Task IV Report: Reports of counselling
sessions with NIE staff members . . . . . . . . . . . . IV i – IV vi
Task V: Review of consumer interest and issues that
should Inodify or constrain any of the previous
policy recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W 1 - V ll
Task VI: Prepare a final summary of all of the recommen—
dations and activities required in the foregoing
sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI 1 - VI 7
Prepared by BCMA Associates, Inc. for the National Institute
of Education under Contract No. 400–76–0086.
February 25, 1977



Rough-draft Example - Alternative No. 3 – Task Force II Report II—i
O. First announcement prepared by developer and distributed by developer to
comprehensive mailing list supplied by NIE
tº sº ºne º ºs º sºme sº º sme me tº emis sº sº tº º ºſmº ºme ºm º ºn a º ºs ºme º sm º ºs sº tº ºme * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * me ºra, sº as me ºn as tº ºme
NIE PREVIEW: EDUCATIONAL MATERLALS, PROGRAMS, AND SPECIAL STUDIES
XYZ INSTITUTE March 1, 1977
Supplementary metric education workbooks for grades K-6
The XYZ Institute has just received a grant from the United States
Office of Education to develop a series of seven metric education workbooks for
pupils in kindergarten through grade six. These workbooks, which will be written
by a specially selected team of experienced teachers and textbook writers, will
be designed to supplement any elementary school mathematics program. They will
give special attention to the fact that children learning metrics will nevertheless
live in a world that, for many years to come, will continue to use terms and
measurements from previous systems.
A comprehensive teachers' guidebook, along with separate manuals for
each of the seven workbooks, will be prepared along with the pupils' materials.
Publishers wishing to learn more about this program, which is scheduled
for completion in complete prototype form no later than March 1978, are invited to
call or write XYZ Institute for further information. Inquiries should be directed
to : -
O Dr. AAAA. B. CCCCCC
XYZ Institute
etc. & etc.
This announcement is sent to you in compliance with the requirement
that all educational materials, programs, and special studies being
developed with the aid of grants from the United States Office of
Education, and administered by the National Institute of Education,
must be announced and described to all companies in the private
sector that may wish to submit publication proposals on a competitive
basis. Interested companies should communicate directly with the
developer for further information.


Rough-draft Example - Alternative No. 4 - Task II Report II—ii
- complete revision of PAS announcement mechanism
s
- first announcement prepared by developer, and edited and distributed by
outside contractor }
NIE PREVIEW SERVICE
EDUCATIONAL MATERIALs, PROGRAMS, AND SPECIAL STUDIES
United States Department of Health
Education, and Welfare
National Institute of Education
NPS 1-77 & March 1 1977
GHI BOCES
Career Education: What It Is, How To Do It
GHI BOCES, working with a team of experienced educators and writers
(many of them previously employed in private industry), is now preparing a series
of how-to-do-it professional booklets aimed at teachers and administrators
responsible for developing career education programs in public and independent
schools O ?, O
The four booklets in the series, averaging about 200 pages in length,
will cover four grade-level areas: K-3; middle grades; lower high school grades;
upper high school grades. They are scheduled to be completed in early 1978.
Those interested in learning more about this program with a view
toward possible publication and marketing should communicate with:
Ms. Josephine Doe
GHI Bureau of Cooperative Educational Services
etc. & etc.
This announcement is sent to you in compliance with the re-
quirement that all educational materials, programs, and
special studies being developed with the aid of grants from
the United States Office of Education, and administered by
the National Institute of Education, must be announced and
described to all companies in the private sector that may
wish to submit publication proposals on a competitive basis.
Interested companies should communicate directly with the
developer for further information.


Rough-draft Example - Alternative No. 5 – Task Force II Report II—iii
-- newsletter distributed by NIE, or by contractor, to comprehensive mailing
list of educational materials companies
NIE PREVIEW NEWSLETTER
EDUCATIONAL MATERIALs, PROGRAMS, AND SPECIAL STUDIES
Vol. 1, No. 1
Afro-American Education
The ABC Center for Urban
Education has just been awarded
a grant by the United States
Office of Education to develop
a program of sound films trips
for use in the middle grades
to describe the history and
geography of the African kingdoms
where the ancestors of millions
of U.S. citizens were born.
Interested publishers and
producers should direct their
inquiries to: Dr. PPPP D. QQQQ,
ABC Center for Urban Education,
etc. & etc.
Algebra
The DFE Consortium announces
that its program of four guide-
books for helping teachers to
introduce the basic principles
of algebra to pupils in the early
grades (K-3) is now complete in
manuscript form. Publishing
proposals are being entertained,
with a deadline date of May 16,
1977. Further information may
be obtained from Dr. etc. , etc.
tº gº tº º - March 1, 1977
Bilingual Education
IJK BOCES has just completed etc. & etc.
LMNOP Foreign Language Institute
announces that etc. & etc.
BILINGCULT INC. calls the attention
of interested publishers and producers
to the fact etc. & etc.
Biology
The FGH Institute wishes to announce
that etc. & etc.
This newsletter is being distributed in compliance with the requirement
that all educational materials, programs, and special studies being
developed with the aid of grants from the United States Office of
Education, and administered by the National Institute of Education,
must be announced and described to all companies in the private
sector that may wish to submit publication proposals on a competitive
- basis. - Interested companies should communicate directly with the
developer for further information.



Rough-Draft Example - Alternative No. 6 – Task II Report – "for-the-record"
announcement in Publishers Weekly - pasted over section of page 46, 11/29/76
issue, and used with permission.
Positions Open
MASS MARKET Paperback house lo-
cated in Bergen County, NJ, has excel-
lent career opportunity available. Ex-
}ºem: necessary in all phases of in-
ventory and shipping control. Excellent
company benefits. Please send ré-
sumé/letter in strict confidence stating
. requirements to Box JF. An
equal opportunity employer m/f.
NATL SALESMGR. College publish-
ing division in large corporation has an
immediate opening for a national sales
manager. Position requires an aggres-
sive, high goal achiever who will quick-
ly be responsible for the expansion of
an already established entry level
share of the community college mar-
ket. Manager will be directly respon-
sible for the coordination and imple-
mentation of the 1977 marketing cam-
paign. Minimum requirements, for
candidates include solid professional
experience in publishing, particularly
in selling to community colleges and
other post secondary schools. Region-
al sales managers who have managed
at least 5 sales representations will re-
ceive priority attention. Salary com-
petitive with industry. An affirmative
action, equal opportunity employer
with excellent benefits and opportunity
for growth. Send résumé including re-
alistic statement regarding willingness
to relocate. Box GD.
Need ga. nat'l contacts for coll. & post-
grad markets. Sm. kläg. of medical &
allied health areas helpful. HADLE
AGENCY, 501 Madison Ave.
SALES MGR. NATL. Fee paid
|sºooo soooo. Require experience
in training and supervising a direct
field sales force, creating and devel-
oping promot’l and adv. literature.
Should have exc. sales exp. in indiv.
reading and math and standardized
testing programs. (Reloc.). HADLE
AGENCY, 501 Madison Ave.
SALES MKTG MGR. Major British
educational publisher entering -U.S.
asap. Box JE.
SALES PROMO MGR. Fee paid to
$20,000. Need bkgd. in d/m, sales aids,
incentive program. Will supervise,
write & j mail campaigns, etc.,
control gets for several publica-
tions. HADLE AGENCY, 501 Madi-
son Ave., 753–7578. -
Positions Wanted
ART DIRECTOR/Designer. 13 yrs.
solid exp. Pratt grad. Energetic, articu-
late, compatible. Long-term N.Y.C.
Box HL-
COMMISSION LINES: So. Calif. 14
yrs. exp. Excellent established rap-
John Bellas, 4041 via Marina
market needs sales/marketing manager.
EXPERIENCED TEXT/Trade book
representative seeks temporary Christ-
mas and second semester heavy period
sales work, full or part-time, with one
or more trade, college or wholesaler
stores in greater Boston area. Knowl-
edge of new books and of publishers.
Will pick up orders from local distribu-
tion. Box JB.
MANAGER, buyer, retail books, 16
years' experience 8th Street Book-
shop, New York, seeks responsible po-
sition in privately owned shop, muse-
um or college bookstore; or opportu-
nity in acquisitions, jº.
field. Will relocate. Replies to: Conrad
Brenner, G.P.O. Box 1460, New York,
N.Y. 1000l.
PROMOTION DIRECTOR. Wide-
function agency/publisher blºgd. Ex-
perience directing copy writers, de-
signers, media, traffic, production for
major text/trade firms. A “celebrity”
direct-mail person, with a refreshing
head for budget, due dates, competi-
tion, bottom line. Copy/marketing suc-
cess reflected in award portfolio, name
references. Mid $20's. Box JP.
RECEIVABLES sky high? Turning tº
slow as molasses in January? Selling
every Tom, Dick & Cary? Top flight C
& C mgr.; degree pro; years in publish-
ing. Box JH.
| SALEs MANAGER for educational
SALES MGR. Fee paid $20,000++.
and professional books in computer
science and business. Must have expe-
rience in selling technical books in the
Fº and/or educational mar-
ets. Will consider an experienced
field sales person. Heavy travel at
times. Salary commensurate with expe-
rience plus incentive. We are a small,
well known publisher in the computer
science field. Send résumé and salary
history in complete confidence to: Da- |:
vid Richerson, Director, Petrocelli/
Charter Publishers Inc., 641 Lexington
Ave., New York, N.Y. 10022.
TRADE SALES/Marketing Manager.
currently employed ‘s
prestigious New York house seeks
new challenge. 15 years’ experience;
thorough, effective. Can show positive
results international or domestic-mar-
kets. Box CR." -
YOUR QUALITY adult & juv. lines,
cloth or paper, wanted by pro. to sell
to whlse. & retail trade accts. in Calif.
& Ariz. 21 years' broad experience, es-
tablished rapport, backed wºolid sales
efforts. Box J.J.
For Sale
WILL $5,000 CASH buy 70,000 used
paperbacks in very good condition: As-
sorted categories, no more than 3 per
title, under 6 years old (negotiable).
Box HH.
Special Notices
BUTTERICK PUBLISHING an-
nounces a new trade discount schedule
including STOP effective January 1,
1977, the Butterick Publishing trade
discount schedule for combined cloth
*: ºperback. new and backlist titles
WI :
1 cop 20%
2 copies 40%
10 copies 42%
25 copies 44%
50 copies 46%
100 copies 48%
150 or more copies 50%
Additional 5% discount for all titles or-
‘lered pre-publication except for
STQP. STOP: 35% + 50g per copy.
Address for orders: Butterick Publish-
ing, P.O. Box 1914, Altoona, PA
16603. All sales are net 30 days. Ship-
ments are F.O.B. plant or warehouse
and delivery charges, sales and use tax-
es, shall be for the account of the cus-
tonner. Returns are accepted after 60
Jays but before 18 months from date of
InVOIce.
|Angeles, CA 90004.
ACCURATE Phototypesetting: 40
styles, unlimited mixing. Accents, liga-
tures. RC r. Economy, speed,
uality. l for typebook. Journal
raphics (212)732-8552.
ATTENTION: PUBLISHING Com-
panies. Understaffed? Overworked?
The Free-lance Group, Inc. provides a
unique service, that of a freelance
clearinghouse, staffed by the largest
source of proſessional freelance work-
ers of any kind who work for us. Copy
editors, writers, artists, proofreaders,
etc., are all available for part-time as-
signments. Increase your efficiency!
Cut down on needless overhead! Call
for details: (212) 354-8615.
BOOK SHIPPING. Complete service.
Large or small runs. Mr. Beckman
(212) 875-1414.
FREEDMEN'S ORGANIZATION: A
typesetting company specializing in
scholarly technical, foreign language,
and difficult books. Send for brochure
and price list. 3311 Beverly Blvd., Los
mall-medium is
XYZ Institute.
SUPPLEMENTARY METRIC EDUCATION PROGRAM. º.
A USOE grant has just
been awarded to the XYZ Institute to de-
velop a series of supplementary workbooks.
in metric education designed to accompany|
any K-6 mathematics program.
wishing to learn more about this program,
with a view toward publication following
call or write:
. Institutes etc. etc.
~sº-º-º-º-º-º-"
• *-* —--— s—- - -— — — — —-
a competitive bidding process, should
Ms. Rosalind Roe, XYZ
Companies
HARPER & -ROW will offer to those
dealers who are essentially catalog
houses, promoting and selling books
through direct-mail catalogs, a dis-
count of 46% from the publisher's sug-
gested list price, such allowance to be
in lieu of other advertising allowances
and to apply only to titles currently
being cataloged. The catalog advertis-
ing allowance so offered may not ex-
ceed the total cost of that portion of
the advertising which relates specifical-
ly to Harper & Row titles. Harper &
Row must approve in advance titles to
be cataloged and will require proof of
expenditure, tear-sheets, etc. Ac-
counts wishing to avail themselves of
this alternate advertising allowance
should write or call the appropriate
sales office.
Services
Total Order Fulfillment
and Distribution Service
Price Changes º.
FRANKLIN WATTS, TN.C. announc--
es the following #. increases effec-
tive January 1, 1977: . . g
Ant & Bee Books $2.95
Franklin Watts Biographies $5.90
Blacks in America Series $4.47
Colonial Americans Series $4.47
Concise Guides $4.47
Career Concise Guides $4.47
First Books $4.47
First Steps to Math $4.47
Focus Books $4.47 *
World Focus Books $4.47
The Human Body Series $4.47
Ideas About/Learning About Series
$4.47
Impact Books $4.90
Instant Reference Books, regular
editions $2.95 -
Let’s Find Out Books $4.47.
Military Histories $4.90
Minorities in America Series $4.47
Picture Life Books $4.47 -
Read About Books $4.47
Mss for Sale
, Marina del Rey, CA 90291.
COPY EDITOR. Exp. all stages
zines & books. Supervised free
scientious expert. Box J.M.
LCREATIVE PRESS Releases on any
ers. Full-time/freelance. Able, con- ||
subject for overworkedº de-
partments and small publishers.
rienced writer freelancing, offers origi-
mal and interesting oach. Samples
on request. Also available for media
tours, national or limited, including ra-
dio-TV and of the book page inter-
views. Box GP.
(201) #41-1773
Modern warehouse facilities combined with professional and experi-
enced personnel to handle your order fulfillment. Permanent location for
your product providing efficiency in picking, packing and shipping.
In addition to the basic services we provide shrink packaging: a unique
way of shipping your paperbacks. Savings in postage! º
Mass mailing: automatic equipment reducing time and cost per unit.
... We welcome the opportunity of quoting rates for our complete service or . .
any of our programs to accommodate your specific requirements.
We are experienced in both domestic and international markets.
For further information contact:
INTERNATIONAL BOOK SERVICE, INC..
58 Grant Avenue. Ca
rteret, N.J. O7008
(212) 349-3593
-*.
I AM LOOKING for a publisher for a
very charmingly written biography of
one of the most interesting Beatles,
George Harrison. It includes a detailed
analysis of his musical and vocal pro-
ductions, many previously unknown
details from his private life, hundreds]. '
of pictures; many taken by the author.
The author met George Harrison per-
sonally, was invited to his residence in
Henley (approx. 50 km from London)
and had a good look at his Dil in Friar
Park, took a lot of photographs (about
70), many of them show the author
English and German. Box JL.
II-iv-
l







Rough-draft Example - Alternative No. 6 - Task II Report
- "for-the-record" announcement in The Educational Marketer II-v
- pasted over section of page 9 of 12/1/76 issue, and used with permission
individualized program at their own pace. The course, which costs $85, is based on
rials and ideas originating at the Education Resources Information Clearinghouse (ERIC)
*:::::::::. Resources at Stanford University. - • .
A recent Gallup poll indicates that two-thirds of Americans believe that high school
students should be required to pass a standard nationwide exam in order to qualify for a
high school diploma. Another 31% were against such a test with the remaining lift un- .
decided. A similar pool in 1958 showed that 50% of the public supported such a . . . .
standardized test, with 39% opposed and the remaining ll? undecided. Those most likely
to favor the standardized exam were those with just a grade-school education (76%) and
those with high school educations (69%). There were few discernible differences of
opinion based on sex, race or geographical region, although those in the 18–29 age group
were less likely to support such an exam than were their elders: some 7.1% of those
over 50 years of age supported the test. . . . . . . . . . . -
*
, -- i.
Praeger Publishers has moved from lll Fourth Ave., New York to 200 Park Ave., New York,
NY loClf. t . . . . . . . .
will be available from the Agency for Instructional Television in January. The series
was produced by the Maryland State Dept. of Education, and includes 75 reading motivation
lessons...AIT is also reading a new classroom TV sereis in political science, "It's All Up
To You," for the l877–78 school year. The Cooperative Educational Service Agency (CESA)
l3 of Waupun, WI has produced the series in cooperation with WHA-TV, Madison, and the
Wisconsin Dept. of Public Instruction. - ... " " . . . . . . . . . . .
A
ategies for Educational Marketers," a collection of highlights from two l975 national
marketing seminars, is a complete tape library which sells for $179.50. The "Bull Marketing
in a Bare $ Market" portion is $121.50 while "Mail Order Marketing" is $85.00. Available
from AMP, lT07 L St., N.W., Suite 515, Washington, DC 20036 (202–296–1710). ... •
tº: on the Association of Media Producers cassettes on educational marketing. • *
Federal agencies allocated $1.5 billion to institutions of higher education during FY l975,
according to a report from the National Science Foundation, which calls this about the
same level of support as the previous year but an 8% decline when converted to constant
1972 dollars. DHEW accounted for the largest amount, $3.2 billion or 70% of the total,
according to NSF, which says it supplied the second largest amount, $1.9l million or ll; of
the total. Other sponsoring federal agencies included the Agriculture and Defense Depart-
ments, Energy Research and Development Administration and the National Aeronautics, and
Space Administration. - - - - ---- -
Nearly two-thirds of the $1.5 billion obligated to universities and colleges by federal
agencies went to loo leading institutions, with l6% going to the first ten. Largest obli–
gations went to the University of Washington ($80.6 million) and the Mass. Institute of
Technology ($80.3 million). Survey results are presented in Science Resources Studies
Highlights, (NSF-76–327), available from NSF's Div. of Science Resources Studies, 1800
* - • *
* * > --, ... " --—- - - ----, --,
- … . . . . . . .T-ºri.
-------- ... --> - - - - - - - . . .” * ----,
SUPPLEMENTARY METRIC EDUCATION PROGRAM, XYZ Institute. A USOE. grant has just been
awarded to the XYZ Institute to develop a series of supplementary workbooks in metric
education designed to accompany any K-6 mathematics program. Companies wishing to
learn more about this program, with a view toward publication following a competitive
bidding process, should call or write: Ms. Rosalind Roe, XYZ Institute, etc. & etc.




Rough-Draft Example - Alternative No. 6 – Task II Repo 1 L
- "for-the-record" announcement in EDUCATION U.S.A. º
- Pasted over section of page 95 of 11/22/76 issue, and used with permission
federalfronts
*
II-vi
|
OVACY REGS DOING OKAY SO FAR
Despite some problems with the "Buckley Amendment," its establishment of fair
information practices is working at the elementary and secondary level, according
to the chairman of the Privacy Protection Study Commission. Opening the second
hearing, held in Washington, D.C., last week, chairman David Linowes said testimony
from elementary and secondary school witnesses at the first hearing in Los Angeles
last month indicated that precollege institutions "are able and willing" to adjust
to the regulations of the privacy amendment. Linowes said there were still four
areas of concern: 1) the amendment and the regulations are confusing and sometimes
ambiguous; 2) the restrictions on the flow of information between schools and 1aw
enforcement officials should be reconsidered; 3) the additional "though not debil-
itating" administrative burdens; and 4) the possibility of less protection for stu-
dents helping with research activities in schools.
Higher education institutions, however, told the commission that the privacy
regulations are creating more problems than they are solving. In addition to more
recordkeeping, witnesses said faculty members were reluctant to be candid about
students when writing references for graduate work or employment. One matter that
came before the commission in Los Angeles-—the controversial survey form being used
to develop an integration plan--apparently was considered of peripheral interest.
Linowes did not mention the controversy in his summary of the West Coast hearing,
and John Barker, public affairs director for the commission, said the survey itself
is "not really connected to the privacy issue, but we are interested in the uses
t individuals make of the information they collect through these surveys."
while, on another privacy matter, nine New York City principals turned up in
court with a rather ingenious argument against that city's racial and ethnic survey.
They simply pleaded the Fifth Amendment, contending that the survey results could
incriminate them by proving that discrimination had occurred. -
—a
y E. The U.S. Supreme Court said last week it will take on two hot issues--big city
desegregation and affirmative action/reverse descrimination. The first action re-
vives the Detroit busing case, but this time the question is: Can a federal court
order an improved curriculum for the city's poor schools and require the state to
pay half the cost? The state of Michigan says the court overstepped its bounds and
has "usurped the powers of the state legislature." The high court also said it
would consider the use of racial quotas for admission to the U. of California at
Davis medical school. A well-qualified white applicant was rejected, and the Cali-
fornia Supreme Court ruled he was a victim of discrimination. Many civil rights
federal register alert
Nov. 5––Rule changes on guaranteed
student loans. Feb. 7 is last day
to apply for metric ed grants.
Nov. 10––Proposed rules on vocational
education. HEW wants comments on its
citizen participation task force.
ov. 15--Jan. 12 is last day to apply
for desegregation grants and emer-
gency school aid.
if ollowing a competitive bidding process
activists believe the university has a
weak case and should abandon it.
IN BRIEF: SUPPLEMENTARY METRIC
EDUCATION PROGRAM. XYZ Institute. A
USOE grant has just been awarded to
, the XYZ Institute to develop a series
of supplementary workbooks designed to
a c company any K-6 mathematics program.
Companies wishing to learn more about this
program, with a view toward ::::::::::O
I should call or write: Ms. Rosalind Roe,
XYZ Institute , etc. & etc.
EDUCATION U.S.A. 74%. - - 95





II-vii.
Example (in final form, as prepared and used by BCMA for LRDC) of
the kind of written presentation described in Alternative 7, Task II
Report, preceded by a review of procedures and results with this pro-
ject to date.
PAS-plus
As a seventh acceptable alternative to PAS, BCMA suggests
in the Task II Report a combination of either three, four, five, or
six and a special extra effort to assist developers of major programs
to find suitable publishers. We have called this alternative PAS-plus.
An important part of this recommended "special extra effort"
is a written presentation, in 1anguage familiar to educational publi–
shers, describing the program in enough detail to enable a publisher
to decide whether he wishes to visit the developer to explore publica-
tion possibilities. <
The "Memorandum to School Publishers" is an example of such
a written presentation. It describes the New Primary Grades Reading
System developed at the Learning Research and Development Center of the
University of Pittsburgh by Dr. Isabel Beck and other LRDC staff members,
and supported by the Center's research specialists. The presentation was
prepared in draft by BCMA, submitted to Dr. Beck for review, and submitted
in its final revised form at various times from July through November 1976
by BCMA to 12 different educational publishers, each with sufficient in-
terest in the program to review the memorandum and discuss it with the
appropriate editors. In every case the memorandum was sent only after a
representative from BCMA had talked at length with a high-level execu-
tive of the company concerned during the course of a personal visit made
for the purpose.
Two of the publishers requested sample materials. One of those
two arranged to visit LRDC and, following this visit, expressed a definite
interest in the possibility of publishing the program. A final decision
is still pending. Ten publishers have definitely turned it down, and orie
other publisher has not yet been heard from.
The situation in this case was complicated to some extent by
the fact that LRDC had come close to completing a publishing agreement
with a major company in 1974. The negotiations were terminated by the
company, however, because of major corporate changes not anticipated
when the negotiations were begun. This particular company was the first
to be approached by BCMA. They had high praise for the program but were
not in a position to reconsider their previous decision.



finding a publisher for a major program of this nature is
difficult for several reasons, all of which were discussed with
LRDC. The number of publishers with the resources to undertake
such a program is 11mited, and most of them already have elementary
reading programs. Declining enrollments, continuing budget crises,
and the "back-to-basics" trend have created a depressed marketing
climate in which schools are unable and/or unwilling to purchase
costly, innovative programs. Because of the adoption requirements
in many states and cities, publishers are reluctant to consider K-3
programs in the absence of materials for grades 4–6.
II-viii



Memorandum for School Publishers
Concerning the New Primary Grades Reading System
July 26, 1976



II—ix
MEMORANDUM TO SCHOOL PUBLISHERS
The Learning Research and Development Center
of the University of Pittsburgh, one of the federally-
funded centers administered by the National Institute
of Education , has engaged BCMA As sociates , Inc. to
as sist in find ing a commercial publisher for LRDC 's
New Primary Grades Reading System (NRS). During the
past several weeks we have been meeting with the dire c-
to r s of LRDC and various staff members to be come a c-
quainted with NRS. These discussions and our study of
the materials have convinced us that the program de-
serves the serious at tention of educational publishers.
Research , Development, and Field-Testing
In prep a ration since 1972, and now complete
in prototype form (except for a teacher-training com—
ponent in the initial development stage), NRS was de-
veloped by Dr. Isabel Beck with the as sistance of se—
veral other staff members , and supported by the Center's
research specialists. It rests on a firm foundation of
recent learning the ory, and has at tracted the favorable
at tention of authorities in reading, psychology, and
curriculum.



II—x O
During the past three years NRS has been
field- tested in the primary grades of representative
element a ry schools in the Pittsburgh area. Among
these are the Kelly and Turner Schools in the Wilkins-
burg School District, a district recently reorganized
to a chieve racial balance in the schools. The ex-
perience in the se two schools was so encouraging that
al Wilkinsburg district-wide committee , after reviewing
about 20 published reading programs and studying nine
of them in depth a long with NRS, unanimous ly decided to
a dopt NRS for use in a 11 primary grades , beginning in
September 1976. Further details about this remarkable
success story appear in Attachment #1, "The Wilkinsburg
Experience."
NRS also will be field – tested in several
schools in Akron, Ohio, starting in September. By that
time the program will be in use in approximately 50 dif-
ferent classrooms, representing a wide range of pupil
backgrounds (from inner-city to suburban) and classroom
organizations.



II—xi
The results of standardized tests admini-
stered in several different classes to children who
have used NRS show levels of reading a chievement con–
sider a b ly above -- some times dramatically above — —
1evels a chieved by pupils in the same schools using
well-known published reading programs. One phase of
this testing is discussed at some length in "The
Wilkins burg Experience" (Attachment #1).
Major Goals of NRS
NRS is a basic system for teaching a 11 the
reading skills traditionally in cluded in the first
three years of reading instruction. Among the se skills
are reading readiness skills such as left-to-right se—
quencing, locational skills, and following directions.
The program the refore does not require any special de-
gree of reading readiness and has been used effectively
beginning in kindergarten.
Originally conceived with the needs of inner-
city children up permos t , NRS in its final pro to type
form provides for a full range of children's aptitudes



II—xii
and abilities. It is now designed to enable all chil—
dren, regardless of socio-economic background or in-
tellectual cap a city, to a chieve success in reading up
to the limit of their capabilities. Meeting the needs
of every child learning to read has be come the over-
riding goal of the program. And field–testing has shown
that it works just as well with gifted children as it
does with slower pupils.
Another major goal of Dr. Isab el Beck and her
staff is to wean children away from a formal reading
program as so on as possible and to prep are them to read
independently in the various subject-matter are as they
will encounter in grade three and above.
A Basic Program for A11 Pupils
To attain its major goals NRS blends indivi-
dualized and group 1 earning techniques and provides a
great wealth and variety of materials and alternative
teaching strategies. Under the guidance and monitor-
ing of the teacher, each child proceeds at his own
p a c e till he completes the program, spending an average
of about 45 to 60 minutes per school day on reading a c-
tivities. Some children finish the program as early as O



II—xiii
the end of grade two, where as others may not complete
it until the end of grade four. At tachment #2 indi-
cates the distribution following completion of the
first and second grades of pupils who have used the
program so far in Wilkinsburg.
NRS is the refore divided in to 14 levels ,
not in to grades , with each level divided in to ap —
proximately 10 less on s. A typical first-grade class —
room will be s to c ked with materials for Levels 1–8,
second grade with Levels 3-12, and third grade with
Levels 6–14.
NRS uses a combination code-breaking / com—
prehension approach to beginning reading , employing
a mixture of synthetic and analytic phonics. Level 1
presents an initial teaching / learning sequence de-
signed to give children a useful reper toire of sound /
symbol correspondences as so on as possible. Then
children are taught to use a systematic "blending"
technique that enables them to slide sounds together
in to words. This "blending" technique is an impor—
tant "invention" of the NRS developers.



II—xiv.
NRS uses a variety of word – at tack skills :
symbol / sound correspondence, blending, similar and
contrasting word patterns, and whole words. But
these decoding techniques do not be come ends in
themselves. The program begins at once to help
children to build a recognition vocabulary and to
develop comprehension skills. Emph as is on comp re-
hension in creases as children progress. By Level 5,
there is approximately a 50-50 split between compre-
hension and de coding, and by Level 12 it is approxi-
mately 75-25.
A Basic Program Utilizing Many Components
The 14 levels of NRS include a variety of
printed , audio, and manipulative components. The
"core" or "prescriptive" portion of these components
includes "blending" booklets (Level 1 only), pupils'
workbooks, audio casset tes, and group-story readers.
Here all the basic reading skills are presented se-
quentially and cumulatively from Level 1 through
Level 14. The "choice" or optional portion includes
read-alone story booklets, games, flip-a-word booklets



II—xv
and crossword puzzles. These "choice" materials, using
a variety of learning techniques , help children to main-
tain and strengthen their reading skills as they go from
level to level. (After they complete a less on , children
may either advance to the next less on or , by their OWI).
choice or at the suggestion of the teacher, read more
widely in the less on they have completed before advanc-
ing to the next one . )
NRS provides step-by-step guidance to teachers
in separate teachers' manuals (Levels 1-3), scope and
sequence books (Levels 4–14), teachers' editions of the
blending booklets and group-story readers, special
teachers' pages in the pupils' workbooks, progress
check booklets (Levels l and 2) , and alternative teach-
ing strategies booklet (Level 1).
The equipment items include c as set te players
and storage containers for the c as set tes.
A chart showing the distribution of the
various component groups among the different levels is
included as Attachment # 3.



Q
One- to-One Interaction
During the first two levels , the teacher
maintains contact with all the children in small
groups and monitors their learning directly. Start-
ing in Level 3, however, children receive their in-
struction in dependently through audio casset tes, for
which they have been carefully prepared by cassette
familiarization less.ons in Levels l and 2. Children
operate their cassette players independently, do the
workbook pages on their own, and make their own s e-
lection of additional reading activities from the
many choices available.
The teacher circulates among the children
as they work, helping them as needed and administer-
ing progress checks (averaging two per less on). This
"traveling teacher" concept is a particularly impor-
tant feature of NRS. It requires the teacher to in-
teract systematically with all the children and as sess
their needs individually. The teacher also conducts
group reading sessions with the group-story readers at
specified in tervals (usually every fifth less on) and
{
helps direct the choice of materials and activities
when a child is asked to recycle through parts of a
}
less on or less ons.



II—xvii
Mrs. Betty Fleming, Wilkinsburg reading
co or d in a to r , in a recent in terview with us , s a id
that the one-to-one interaction NRS fosters b e-
tween pupils and teachers is perhaps the most strik-
ing feature of the program, which she called "ex-
citing." As a result, pupils relate to teachers
wherever they are in the program – and also to
class room visitors. Mrs. Fleming commented parti-
cularly on how children using NRS always seem to
be eager and able to talk to visitors about what
they are doing in reading .
- - *- - - - - - --
*-- " ----------
* *-
Class room Management and Main tenance
The teacher-guidance materials provide
a "total management system" that shows teachers
specifically and clearly how to manage the dif-
fe rent NRS components efficiently and effectively ,
The many different types of school and class room
organizations found in the United States are pro-
Nothing is left to chance.
vided for .
management and main tenance by a carefully- thought-
out coding scheme that enables children to return



materials readily to their proper storage places,
thus easing housekeeping burdens for the teacher.
This feature, combined with the self-directing,
self- choice nature of the entire program, helps
pupils to a chieve an extraordinary degree of self-
management skill – another striking character is tic
of NRS, a c cording to Mrs. Fleming .
A System for All Class rooms
Although it is an individualized program,
NRS never the less has been used success fully in both
self- contained and open class rooms. In Wilkins burg
the parents have a choice between "modern conven-
tional" and open class rooms; NRS works equally well
in both .
Among the many different components in the
NRS system, the only consumable items are the pupils'
workbooks, the booklets used to record each child's
choice of activities throughout the first two levels,
and the crossword puzzles (Levels 12, 13, 14). All
the other materials can be used for several years.
Also, since the program provides for individualized
instruction, many of the items (the audio c as set tes,
II—xviii



II—xix
the c as set te players , the read – a lone story booklets,
and the games) can be used by two or more pupils dur-
ing the same year.
The exact number of items required in a
particular class room and the number that can be kept
in a centra 1 s to rage unit will , of course , vary con-
siderably with the nature of particular schools and
class room Organizations , and the progress children
are making through the various levels.
The Publisher's Input
The per-pupil cost of NRS in its present
form considerably exceeds normal primary-school budget
limits , both for initial installation and annual main-
tenance. Much of this high cost can be at tributed to
the fact that all the items except the cas set t e players
are now being manufactured lo cally in very limited manu-
facturing runs. Furthermore, in the field tests thus
far, LRDC always has had funds available to provide NRS
components in optimum quantities.
NRS staff members are keenly aware of this
problem. They already have made some p r eliminary e s -
timates of how to reduce per-pupil costs by using many



II-xx
Q
of the components with two or more children during a
school year -- particularly the audio casset tes, the
group-story booklets, the read-alone booklets, and
the games. In addition, some items possibly could
be combined with other items, and some made avail-
able for supplementary use if school budgets permit.
The audio c as set tes in their pro to type de-
sign, for example, are recorded on one side only.
Using both sides would halve their number. Also,
after children have a chieved some degree of reading
in dependence – a t the end of Level 7 or 8, perhaps –
the introduction of new letter / sound correspondences,
words, and comprehension formats now on the audio
cas set t e s p ossibly could be provided in an alterna-
tive printed form.
In any event, Dr. Isab el Beck and her as so-
c i a tes especially look forward to working with an ex-
perienced commercial publisher on the question of packag-
ing configurations, and component group ings and consoli-
dations , to meet different school and class room situa-
tions. They are convinced, as is BCMA, that sat is f a c-
tory ways can be found to reduce per-pupil costs to



II-xxl
commercially – a cc ep table limits. In addition , they
seek the advice of a publisher to make certain the
group stories and the read-alone stories (key ele-
ments in the program, a long with the pupils ' work-
books and the audio ca's set tes) will appeal to the
wides t possible range of pupils ' in terests and a p-
titudes in our plura 1 is tic society.
In te rested publishers will , of course ,
want to v is it LRDC for full d is cus sions with Dr.
Isabel Beck and her staff, and with LRDC 's co-
directors, Dr. Robert Glaser and Dr. William Cooley.
Dr. Beck also will make arrangements for publishers
to see NRS in a ction in the Wilkins burg schools , and
to talk with Wilkins burg teachers.
In BCMA's opinion, The New Primary Grades
Reading System (NRS) should be made widely available
through commercial educational publishing channels.
We would be pleased to discuss the program further
with in te rested publishers. For additional in forma –
tion, or to schedule v is its to LRDC , please feel free
to phone or write Emers on Brown or Camer on Mo seley at
BCMA Associates , In c. , 52 V and erbilt Avenue , New York,
New York 10017. Phone : (212) 683–826 2.



ATTACHMENT #1 II-xxii
The Wilkinsburg Experience – A Story of Reading Success
What began as a modes t cooperative venture
between a small school district contiguous to the
city of Pittsburgh with an urban population and •
Pittsburgh research and development center that
has developed an individualized primary grades
reading program has blossoned into a district-wide
pilot program. After the school district , Wilkins —
burg, experienced a change in administration, the
new super intendent was concerned about the reading
a chievement of primary grade pupils . He was eager
to try out new approaches to reading instruction
that would improve the teaching of reading. At
the same time the research and development center,
LRDC of the University of Pittsburgh, was eager to
try its new program in the "real world," that is ,
in a school setting that had had no previous affilia-
tion with LRDC. For tuitously, the two interested
parties met. Here's a chronicle of what happened :
In September of 1974, the New Primary Grades
Reading System (NRS) was installed in the three first
grades of Kelly School, one of the four elementary
schools in the Wilkinsburg school district. The program
operated there for the entire school year. End-of-year achieve- O
ment testing on the Stanford Achievement Test revealed that the NRS



II—xxiii
first-grade students scored significantly better on
reading-related sub tests than did a comparis on group
of first-graders from the previous year who had used
a conventional b as a 1 reading series. Just as impor–
tant , questionnaires addressed to the teachers and
impromptu conversations revealed that teachers and
students were enthusiastic about the program. Both
teachers and pupils began to spread positive comments
about NRS throughout the school and the community. In
September of 1975 the Wilkinsburg staff extended the use
of the program to the second grades of Kelly School, thus
enabling those students who had begun NRs in first grade
to continue it in the second grade. In addition, the
pupils enrolling in the first grade in 1975 began their
reading in struction with NRS. -
Since the staff of the school district had launched
other innovative ideas in the 1975–76 school year, in-
cluding open class rooms, the parents of students in the
elementary grades had the option of enrolling their chil-
dren in "open" class rooms or "modern conventional" class-
rooms. Because it was felt that NRS would lend its elf
well to implementation in both struations, the Wilkins –
burg staff invited LRDC to extend the use of NRS to an



II-xxiv.
"open" first-grade classroom in another Wilkinsburg
school, the Turner school. Thus, in its second year
in the school district, the staff extended the use
of the program from three classrooms to seven (3 first
grades at Kelly, 3 second grades at Kelly, and 1 first
grade at Turner).
A number of incidents occurred during the 1975–76
school year to increase NRS's appeal to the district.
In October of 1973, the school district conducted its
own program of standardized a chievement testing . The
students who had used NRS in first grade did phenomen-
ally well as compared to students in the district who
had used conventional reading programs ; in fact, the
NRS students' reading a chievement was characterized in
a local newspaper article as a "mind-boggling miracle."
Everyone who saw the results was impressed, but cautious.
"Can this be replicated?" became the of t-repeated ques-
tion in the district.
In addition to great test results, some very inter-
esting grassroots occurrences to ok place in the Kelly
School. As word of NRS 's potential for helping students
to a chieve reading' success spread through the school, the



II-XXV
kindergarten teachers be came in te rested in involving
their most "ready" students in reading in struction.
To facilitate this involvement, the teachers arranged
for kindergartners to feed into the first grades for
reading instruction. At the other end of the elemen-
tary grades scale, some in termediate teachers began
to wonder if some of their students who were experiencing
difficulty in learning to read would benefit by using
NRS. To test this hypothes is , the in termediate grades
teachers worked out an arrangement with the second grade
teachers to enable their slower learners to feed in to
the second grade rooms for reading instruction. This
spontaneous flow was initiated by teachers and admini-
strators in the district. As an outcome of the ex-
perience in the Kelly School, teachers and parents
began to sing NRS's praises through out the district.
During the winter and spring of 1976, the Wil—
kinsburg district was preparing to select a new reading
program for district-wide use in its elementary schools.
A 20-member textbook committee composed of teachers,
principals, reading specialists, and other administra-
tors met repeatedly to explore reading programs on the
O market for elementary school pupils. The committee ex-



– 5 — II-xxvi.
amined approximately 20 reading series and selected
9 of those to study in depth. One of the programs
under conside ration was NRS, even though it was
currently being produced in-house by LRDC and was
not available commercially. Committee members each
rated the 9 programs using a point system; NRS was
unanimously the first choice. For use after pupils
completed NRS, the committee adopted a comb in a tion
of a recently published conventional series and
Scholastic Individualized . Reading Program.
what's so great about this reading program that
caused the textbook committee to reach a unanimous decision ?
We 11, to paraphrase the reading coordinator in the dis-
trict, not only does the NRS program allow the students
to develop reading skills at their own optimal rates,
but the management system of the program frees the teacher
to really be come a professional; to be come aware of chil-
dren's individual personalities and of their in dividual
reading potential and problems and to S inter act with them
on that basis . It is no small fact that the reading co-
ordinator reported that of all visitors to the NRS class-
rooms, those most impressed are teachers, the audience
most difficult to impress since they're the ones most
knowledgeable about class room processes.



II-Xxvii
This " is more of an interim report of continuing
activities than a story with an ending . The relation-
ship between the Wilkinsburg school district and LRoc
continues as NRS will be implemented in all eleven
first grades , four second grades , and three third
grades in 1976-77 with further expansion planned for
the following year. since the story is n 't over , few
generalizations can or should be made at this point.
It can be cata, however, that this exemplary read-
ing program used more and more wide 1y in , a forward-
looking school district has thus far been beneficial
to both pupils and teachers in that district.



#
º
§
- End of Year Location in NRS of the 40 1974-75 First Graders
*5 who used NRS During the Entire Schoºl. Year
cº-, cº, - -3.3
tº .º.º.,...
Jº ſº.” §.3% : «H. &..": . . .
i
•
Class i.
level. & - • a *
H.essor, 38 t i.
8 fly c 1.
9 º i
\ }{} º i.
i. - #. tº e.
Level 6
H.&SSoºn t *
:
2
&;
tº *r- tº---------------., ---.
i
i -
s
..ºf •ks.
j.
Level 8 . . . . . . ; - . . . .
Lessor, i. . . . . . . . . . - l. - - i.
2 i.
9 1.
ić -- - - - º
i.evel 9 . . . . . . . . . . - . . " . e: w -
Lesson 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . & . .
s . . . . . . . . º †
lº . . . . . . . . - - - .
i.evei ió - -
Lesson 4 - • * - . . . - i.
. . . i{} - 2 - - - j.
*
*
* & --- *...* -- º . . . . . . . & . . . . . -
Mean - Level ºf s tesson 5 Mediari -- Level 7 g （.62s so
§§
#
§
fºsseſſ is iisted oral y if a student was ºiaced there at the end of the schoºl year
3 *
à
º,
r
Most lieve is have iſ lºssons each.
* : * > . F:a::1:...-->"º. - " "... ::: * ~ *:-: ****** *:..wº s , 2,": i_-º... "... , --, -ī-ar-rrºr: "...ºr-------e- - --- . . .







:
10
Frequency Distribution (by Level and Lesson)
ATTACHMENT
#2—A
of First Grade NRS. Students
II-xxix
*
Student actually completed Level 3, Lesson 11
(N = 42)
3 || 1 1 1. l 1
1. l 1.
l l
3 l 2
1 | 1 1.
1 1.
1 || 1 l
, T. 1 | 1
} | 3
| 1. l 2 l
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
LEVELS



ATTACHMENT #2–B
Frequency Distribution (by devel and Lesson)
of Second Grade NRS "tºº ºnts
(N = 42)
10 l l | i 1. : ºf 7 s
9 : l f
8 i i. i. 2
7 ; i. i 3.
%. 6 2 2
Ö #
Çſ) --"
3 5 - 1 2 1
*—
A. l
3 i i. 2
2 i 1 : i 2
| } —
j. * f : t
: :
5 6 7 § ; : {} }.}, i.2 #3
H.EVEi,S



ATTACHMENT # 3
Grade Distribution of Levels
Grade One
Grade Two
Grade Three
Pupils Corebooks
Teacher's Manual
Scope and Sequence Book . .
Cassettes
Read-Alones
Group Stories
Flip-a-Word Booklets
Crossword Puzzles
Games
II-xxxi
Levels Required for Each Grade According to Normal Distribution
Beginning at level 4, the Scope and Sequence Books are manuals for the teacher.
2 3 4 6 8 9 : 10 11 12, 13 14.
| | ; t - !
l | .. - i
| |
ſ t
—u— T
| |
| |
l l *-
|
l
| t
i |
- { !
NRS Components According to Levels - i |
| | º
| | |
X X X X x x x . . . x X X X X X
- . 4.
X X | - i
º
..! | - ; | . : t | -
X X X X X x x x ' ' x X x
- -- ** * * * - - - *- - w -- —- • - -------, - - - -
| l | º : 4
! - ſ i , .
| - . . . . . . . - - - • - . . [...
X X X X X X , , X x . . . x x x * x º * :
- - - + . . - r ... .º. * - l - - - 4
| | | | . . . .
| : | - | | - - ; . . . t
X X X X X X X x . . x . . . x X X
! . . t - - - - - - - - - - * -
X X X X X X x X x X X x
| :
X X X X X X x X X X
- - |- t -- ~~~
t X X , X
X X x x x x x x x . . . x X



TASK III








TASK iſ
AN ANALYSIS OF SPECIAL PROBLEMS
ASSOCTATED WITH "THIN MARKET'' PRODUCTS



Introduction . . . . .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
- go gº
I - VI.
ge o o e © e º 9. G sº so º o º e s º cy -
Task I: An analysis of the current PAS effort . . . . . . . . I.1 - I 21
Appendix to Task I Report: Special study of the use of
PAS by developers other than the laboratories -
and centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I i - I ki
Task II: An analysis and evaluation of the alternatives
to PAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II 1 - II 6
Appendix to Task II Report: Examples of alternatives
to PAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II i - II XXXi
Task III: Analysis of special problems associated with
"thin market" products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III 1 - III 2.0
Task IV: Analysis of the potential role publishers could
perform in a consultant or working arrangeInent
with the Institute in regard to new development
activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV 1 - TV 1.4
Appendix to Task TV Report: Reports of counselling
sessions with NIE staff members . . . . . . . . . . . IV i – IV vi
Task V: Review of consumer interest and issues that
should Inodify or constrain any of the previous
policy recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V 1 - V ll
Task VI: Prepare a final summary of all of the recommen—
dations and activities required in the foregoing
sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI 1 - VI 7
Prepared by BCMA Associates, Inc. for the National Institute
of Education under Contract No. 400–7 6–0086.
February 25, 1977






TASK #II
ANANALYSIS OF SPECIAL PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH "THIN MARKET" PRODUCTs
- & • -
In this analysis of special problems related to "thin market”
products, the ambiguity of the term "thin market" products complicates
the analysis. According to the Copyright Guidelines, "Thin Market
‘Materials are those for which a limited market and, consequently, in-
substantial revenues, are anticipated." In subsequent sections, the
Copyright Guidelines outline the procedures to be followed concerning
the publication of "thin market" materials. . 8 . *
In a letter to Fred S. Rosenau, Richard E. Schultz, Director
of SWRL made this comment:- "The 'thin market' rubric has been used to
cover such a broad set of conditions it currently lacks meaning.”
In contrast, Robert Scanlon, Director of Research for Better
Schools, makes this comment about "thin market" materials: "The products
that have been viewed as 'thin market' are those products for which we
have difficulty in attracting a publisher. In our cases specifically,
these products, for the most part, have been training materials that have
been developed for school administrators. The products we have built for
classroom use - that is s reading, mathematics, science, social studies,
and some of our humanizing learning products - have not had difficulty
attracting publishers, even though the publishers have told us in the
humanizing learning field that they are 'thin market'."
As a guideline on our way to a definition of "thin market"
products, we divided the one-hundred one Publishers Alert announcements
into two groups: one group includes all the products for which the
developers had entered into agreements with publishers, or were in the
process of negotiating agreements, or are being made available by the
developers or some institution; the other group includes the products
to which the response of publishers was negative.
Although the diversity of the products in each group defied
classifying them into categories, the products among the group that
secured publishers included several of growing interest to the edu-
cational community and apparently of growing interest to publishers.
Among such products are instructional materials for children with
special disabilities, such as "Hearing Impaired Children," or for pupils
whose first language is not English.
The group also included a "Handbook for Parent School Community .
Involvement Program." This handbook, focusing on the needs of migrant
children, was developed by the Southwest Educational Laboratory with
the cooperation of the Texas Education Agency, which printed and dise
tributed the handbook. - .




III – 2
The second group of products for which the developers have
not found a publisher is a mixed bag, except it did include a number
of publications developed for in-service training of administrators
and teachers.
As a further step in our analysis of the problems associated
with "thin market" products, we asked the director of publications at
CEMREL and the director of marketing in Northwest Regional Educational
Laboratory to mark in their catalogs all titles they regarded as "thin
market" products.
Although they marked a wide range of products and an illuminat-
ing one, the titles of common agreement were the research reports, the
technical papers, reports of surveys, and monographs. Apparently, from
these reports, and from our analysis of the catalogs, the research
reports do not reach a wide audience, especially of administrators and
teachers.
Another "thin market" can probably be referred to as demographic,
because the number of children who need special materials such as "Alaskan
Readers," may be too few in number to provide the per pupil expenditure
required to produce the materials commercially.
Special Considerations Associated with Curriculum Materials
From the point of view of commercial publishers, materials for O
bi-lingual education seem to fall into the "thin market" category. As
reported in the February 7th issue of Education U.S.A., "Commercia1 pub-
lishers have hesitated to develop materials for such a limited market,
says the USOE report." *
For many years, publishers have, without success, surveyed the
school population of pupils who require special materials, such as the
handicapped, in the hopes of finding a solution to the publishing problem.
To supply materials for the demographic thin markets is a problem of which
educational publishers are aware, but to which they have usually been unable
to respond. (It is a problem for NIE associated with thin market products.)
In this analysis we finally came to the conclusion that the best
approach to the "thin market" syndrome is to organize the problems around
three categories of products and publications: Those developed for class-
room use, usually on a per pupil basis; those developed for other educational
purposes, such as in-service teacher training; and those developed as
research and technical reports.
For purposes of communication, we shall refer to those materials
for classroom use, usually on a per pupil basis, as curriculum materials.
The Ginn-SWRL Communications series, the LRDC New Primary Grades Reading
System, now being made available to publishers, and Aesthetic Education
Program, being developed by CEMREL, Inc., are examples of curriculum
materials. In this analysis we shall refer to the publishers who spe- O
cialize in publishing materials for classroom use, used on a per pupil basis,
as curriculum publishers. For a list of representative curriculum publishers,
see page 20. The list includes the publishers BCMA interviewed for
this study.



III – 3
The second group of publications which seem to be largely in-
tended for use by members of the educational profession, we shall refer
to as professional publications et al. Although professional publica-
tions et al may not cover all other educational publications or products,
perhaps it can serve as a generic term for them.
Generally speaking, the publishers of professional books et al.
form a different group from the publishers of curriculum materials, as
we shall explain in the section starting on page 10, "Special Problems
Associated with Publications Other Than Curriculum Materials." However,
there is considerable overlapping between the two. There is one impor-
tant difference, however: the boards of education in the districts and
states select and adopt the curriculum materials for classroom use; pro-
fessional educators, including classroom teachers and school librarians,
select the professional publications et al, and purchase them out of spe-
cial budget funds provided for such purposes, or out of their own pockets .
A third group of publications which are usually published for re-
porting research, we shall refer to as research reports and articles. Al-
though these reports and articles may not in themselves present a "thin
market" problem, they have implications for the distribution and utiliza-
tion of innovative curriculum materials, including those that are being
developed under the sponsorship of NIE.
Selection and Adoption of Curriculum Materials
Although the R&D labs and centers have placed many of their
curriculum programs with publishers for their curriculum materials,
there are several considerations that have implication for problems
associated with "thin market" products. One problem concerning curri-
culum materials developed with federal funds is to make them available
to publishers within the constraints the publishers meet when they sub-
mit materials to state and district selection and adoption committees.
Curriculum materials that fail to attract a publisher may be "non-market"
rather than "thin market." One consideration curriculum publishers give
to R&D curriculum materials is the per pupil unit price of the product.
Per pupil expenditures for curriculum materials
The over-riding element in the economics of educational pub-
lishing is the average per capita expenditure for textbooks and other
instructional materials. According to the 1975 industry statistics of
the Association of American Publishers, the average per capita elhi ex-
penditure for textbooks was $12.40. Although the dollar expenditure for
textbooks has consistently increased, it has not varied perceptively from
one percent of the budget since the industry began to collect statistics.
The figure does not include expenditures for other media, which is esti-
mated at about $7.00 to $8.00 per pupil.



III — 4
For example, the Texas Education Agency has consistently followed
the policy of supplying a textbook to each pupil for each course in which
he is enrolled and a teacher's edition for each teacher. Only recently
did the agency make an exception to permit the adoption of Kindergarten
Systems and Elementary Textbooks and Systems. However, in our interviews
with the Director of the Textbook Division, he stated the situation in
these words: "The problem is, Texas may not be able to afford systems.
Texas, because of inflation, can hardly keep its head above water merely
to supply textbooks." - -
State textbook adoption regulations help to explain why edu-
cational publishers often include in a multimedia program composed of
many correlated components a textbook for each pupil. In states that
adopt textbooks, the districts have the opportunity to adopt the correlated
materials. In the open territories where the districts adopt the in-
structional materials, including textbooks, the boards of education have
the option of adopting the complete program, including a 11 components, or
a basic textbook program only. If the district adopts the textbook one
year, they are likely to add the correlated materials, which may include
audio-visual components, simulation games, and other components, later.
Although the explanation of adoption practices of the states
and districts may seem a diversion from our discussion of the problems
associated with "thin market" products, it may have implications for
NIE and the developers. Products composed of many multi-media components
that do not include a printed material for each grade, usually a textbook,
may face difficulties in finding the right publisher, in spite of the best
efforts of the developers and careful consideration by publishers. By
taking into consideration the conventional textbook adoption wisdom of
states and districts, the developers, in our opinion, will enhance their
opportunity of negotiating an agreement with the right publisher without
any sacrifice of their learning goals.
It would also be to the mutual advantage of NIE and the
curriculum publishers for NIE to conduct a study of per
pupil expenditures as compared with expenditures required
to bring into the classroom teaching materials that will
increase learning effectiveness. Learning materials that
will maximize success and minimize failure have the pos-
sibility of reducing rather than increasing school budgets.
- – In today's climate of "back-to-basics", which is an in-
novation roadblock, and budget reductions, such a study
is not only appropriate but imperative. For NIE's con-
sideration we suggest such a study.
Selection and adoption conventional wisdom
Among the problems associated with development decisions that
may spell the difference between a "thin market" or "no-market" curriculum
product and a mass market one is the selection and adoption conventional
wisdom that, formally or informally, often forms the guidelines for the
selection and adoption committees.



III – 5
Although "thin market" is perceived by developers to describe
those products that do not reach contract stage with a publisher, the
term may be ill-advised. The problem may be that the materials do not
meet the state and district adoption regulations. -
For curriculum materials for a particular subject, the adoption
regulations often specify that the curriculum materials be complete when
they are submitted. A program with gaps--perhaps one of the books in a
series is yet to be published--is often at a disadvantage. The same may
hold true of curriculum materials, especially a series, that the R&D centers
and laboratories or other developers submit to publishers. . .
If the goal of the developer is to produce a product that will
create a new course such as a "Human Behavior" course for the elementary
grades, the possibility of getting it published, or adopted widely if
published, is extremely unlikely, as we have found from our experience in
trying to find a publisher for products that add a course to the curriculum,
especially in the elementary grades. For these products the market is
indeed thin, as many publishers as well as developers have 1earned from
experience. Although such products may have a high educational priority,
they serve their purpose best as goals for the future. However, within
the courses that constitute the curriculum, innovations: are not only
possible, but often welcomed, especially if the educational climate is
right. -
Another provision frequently included in the adoption directives
for elementary textbooks is the call for a Kindergarten through Six series •
Although the district may introduce the K-3 part of the series the first
year of the adoption, the committees recommending programs for adoption
usually prefer to examine the complete series of each entry before reach-
ing a decision. Also, the fact that the series is in print reassures the
committee that the material will be available on schedule. For developers
seeking a publisher, the K-6 requirements have implications because a
K-3 program may, so far as commercial publishers are concerned, never see
the light of the publishing day. A request for a proposal for the series
at the K-3 stage might lead to a publishing agreement with advantages to
both parties • .
In the light of the implications the district and state adoption
procedures have for developers, we recommend that NIE and the directors
of the laboratories and centers, and other developers, acquaint themselves
thoroughly with these procedures. -
As sources for the information there are several possibilities.
A conference between developers, NIE officials, including project officers,
and the several marketing directors of curriculum publishers that publish
for a nation-wide market is one possibility. We suggest marketing
directors because they are more likely to have a nation-wide outlook
than state textbook directors or district school administrators. Another



III – 6
possibility is a handbook describing the selection and adoption pro-
cedures, especially if the handbook is prepared by authors with
nation-wide adoption experience who approach the subject pragmatically.
It would be advisable to include in the handbook the state adoption
schedule, because these schedules influence the time tables of the
publishers. Also, the handbook, to remain useful, should be kept up
to date. -
Since the regulations are not set in concrete, the concern
of NIE and the developers in state and district adoption regulations and
customs might lead to a study that would bring about changes and im—
provements in selection and adoption regulations long overdue; for
example, the adoption of instructional materials of many components of
which printed materials, especially textbooks, are only one part.
To provide NIE with this information, it seems likely the
educational publishers that specialize in publishing materials for
adoption would be an excellent source of information.
Development, dissemination, distribution
From the publishers we interviewed, the thread that ran through
the conversations of several about the problems of publishing innovative
materials developed by Federal Agencies is the need to close the gap
between recent scholarly and educational research and the practitioners',
including the classroom teachers', knowledge of it. As an example of
closing the research gap, the publishers often cited the teachers'
institutes the NSF held to "instruct teachers about the content and
method of the new math and the new science". Not only did NSF fund the
institutes and workshops, they also paid the teachers to attend.
When the new math and the new science began to roll from the
presses and its components from the producers, there was a nation-
wide audience of teachers and administrators ready to examine the
optional programs and to choose the one to adopt that they decided
would best fit their needs.
To develop innovative materials and even to place them with
a publisher is not enough without the effort on the part of the developers
to disseminate the research concepts and the new knowledge that can be
applied to new products to improve learning. From our interviews with
publishers, we have included comments that seem to us fairly representative:
"NIE should take a leaf from NSF's book and
build in market readiness, especially during this
period of 'back-to-basics. '"
"Publishers and R&D agencies have to deal with
the quality of the teaching profession. When
}



III – 7
NSF sponsored a curriculum innovative product, they
also sponsored teacher education programs and paid
teachers to attend them. From the teacher-education
the teachers developed an interest in the products.
With NIE-sponsored R&D projects, the teacher
education depends on the publisher. Without a teacher
education program that creates a climate for change,
the possibility for securing publishers may be doubtful."
"The developers take the materials through the
development stage and drop them in the laps of
publishers without either making teachers aware
of them and the research theory behind them, or
preparing teachers to use them."
"The big mistake the labs and centers made," he feels,
"is 'not going after teaching time.'" (i.e. funding the
released time of teachers so that they could try new
things.) He was impressed to learn what CEMREL has
done for AEP along these lines.
he suggests, "they would serve their purposes best
by holding teacher education workshops, particu-
1arly holding workshops to change attitudes; by de-
veloping materials to the place they reflect the
research, but not in final form; by holding summer
institutes patterned after those held by NSF; by
carrying out research useful to the educational -
community, such as a basic word list; and by pattern-
ing their development after SMSG." -
| ... "As to the role of federally-financed R&D agencies,"
NIE and NSF
Among the publishers we found considerable confusion about the
identities of the NIE and the NSF. Between the two they made a dis-
tinction, but not a difference. Often the criticisms made of NIE as a
federally funded agency for R&D actually were based on their past
experinece with NSF. Often they assumed that NIE and NSF followed the
same publishing policies. The publishers, however, whose experience
went back to the announcement of PSES by NSF were the most likely to
equate NIE with NSF. The comment the publishers made about teachers'
institutes, for example, is a reflection of their experience with NSF.
It would be to NIE's advantage, we believe, if the goals of NIE could
be identified, and perhaps contrasted with those of NSF. It does not
seem to us the publishers are aware of the full range of NIE's efforts.
S. They are likely to think of NIE on the basis of the products submitted
Oººº; proposals, or the reports of AAP-NIE conferences they have
participated in or whose reports they have read. -




III – 8
Phasing out published products
Since the current educational climate does not seem to be
conducive to innovative curriculum materials, we suggest for your con-
sideration that R&D centers and labs retain the products (as long as they
have inventory for the experimental editions) that have had a nega-
tive response from publishers, but mark them in their catalogs or bulletins
as experimental or developmental editions. By marking them as experimental
editions, they may attract teachers who would like to try them out in their
classrooms. Also, with more extensive developmental use and a climate
more conducive to innovative materials, the publishers may have second
thoughts. By marketing them as experimental or developmental editions,
they are less likely to become dated. To educate teachers about innovative
materials requires time.
When a product is phased out, it may be to the advantage of NIE
to have an analysis made of the reasons why it did not attract a publisher.
Was it a product that was produced ahead of its time? Was it a product
produced for a market with excellent products already available? Was class-
room management a problem? Did it not succeed because of high production
and revision costs? Were publishers already over-committed to new and
revised products?
A1so, it does seem that an institution devoted to research and
development should not expect success from all products. From failures
they may learn more than from successes.
Commercial publishers also publish products that do not succeed
in the educational market place. When a title or a series does not succeed,
the publisher faces the decision of revising the title or series or of
phasing it out--a procedure which may involve writing off a considerable
inventory. Since each decision has to be based on a different set of
conditions, there is no formula that can be applied to all cases. For
many such cases, however, it may be to the publisher's advantage to
phase out the program and take his losses, and turn his attention to more
promising ventures.
"The strategy of innovation"
In their book, The Theory of Learning, Ernest R. Hilgard and
Gordon H. Bower, in the closing pages, include two topics that have
implications:
"In something as complex as a school system, we need at a high
level a special research strategy which may be called the Strategy of in-
novation. The best of equipment may lie idle, the best of resources remain
unused, the best of techniques sabotaged, unless there is care in introduc-
ing the new methods or new materials to all concerned. Once the basic-scienc
principles have been established and the applications validated in practice O
schoolrooms, their more widespread adoption is by no means guaranteed, nor ,
if the adoption is forced, is there assurance that the desired results will


III - 9
be forthcoming. Abstractly, the steps of innovation are clear enough: pro-
vide (a) a sound research-based program, validated in tryout; (b) the program
packaged in such a way that it is available, as in good textbooks, supplemen-
tary readings in the form of pamphlets, films, programs for teaching machiness .
and guides for the teacher; (c) testing materials by which it can be ascer- -
tained if the objectives of the program have indeed been realized, with ap-
Propriate normative data on these evaluative instruments; (d) in service
training of the teacher to overcome the teacher's resistance to new methods
and materials and to gain his enthusiastic acceptance of the program as some-
thing valuable, as well as to train him in its use; and (e) support for the
Program from the community, school boards, parents, and others concerned with
the schools. - - -
"We have not done very well in appraising carefully our strategies
of innovation. We have sometimes gone Overboard for the novel and untried,
just to keep up with the Joneses ("we have teaching machines, too"); at other
times we have been very resistant. Commercialism and vested interests enter
in unpleasant ways, sometimes supported, unfortunately, by factions of the
educational profession itself. Here, then, is a task calling for wisdom and
sensitivity. The psychological contributions to the task may come more from
social psychology than from the psychology of learning, for the processes are
those of social control and attitude change; but unless there is serious con-
cern about the appropriate ways in which to bring about innovation, schools
are likely to be the victims of whims, rather than the heirs of the best tra-
dition we can establish through cooperative effort.
* There are some specific suggestions that might be given considera-
tion. It would be desirable, for example, for every school system, of what-
ever size, to have somewhere within it a school building, or at least a set
of schoolrooms, devoted to in-service training of teachers and to innovation;
these are ongoing matters important at the community level and cannot be left
to teacher-training colleges or universities. Both children and teachers
could be rotated through these rooms in order to try out innovations before
there is firm commitment to them. A few teaching terminals for computer-
assisted instruction or some closed-circuit television projectors could be
tried out without investing in them for a whole school system; teachers
could have a voice in saying whether or not they wanted the new devices, or
in selecting among various possibilities. Usually no harm would be done in
waiting for a while if teachers were not ready, for methods imposed on teachers
are unlikely to prove successful. Some of the innovations to be tried out
might be those of successful 10cal teachers themselves, here given the oppor-
tunity to show their colleagues how they do it in their own classrooms. Mem-
bers of the school board and representatives of the parents could be brought in
also to observe such testing. The principles of tryout before acceptance, of
choice by those who are to use the method, seem to be sound ones. If the new
methods are indeed good, they will find acceptance-



III – 10
"In order to build a sound connection between the experimental
studies of learning and the classroom, we need a series of steps, for applied
science consists of more than applying principles to practice. The main point
is that in the research and development phases a collaboration is called for
between psychologist, subject-matter specialist, and teacher; beyond this,
careful consideration must be given to techniques of innovation. If we achieve
success in integrating these phases, we will move toward that improvement Of
education which will be satisfying to us all.
tº The history of research on the technology of education suggests that
the approach through multitudinous small research projects does not yield sa–
tisfactory consequences. For example, the thousands of small studies that have
been done on the teaching of reading have yielded remarkably little in the way
of sound knowledge (Chall, 1967). What is apparently needed are large-scale
programs which will do for teaching and learning what large-scale testing en-
terprises, such as the Educational Testing Service, have done for evaluation.
Educational measurements have been improved through basic studies in statis-
tics, theory of scaling, factor analysis, and so on; at the same time, the
arranging of materials and the determination of norms have proceeded only be-
cause the applied aspects were taken as seriously as the basic-science aspects.
Until recently, little of this kind of effort has gone into the problems of
providing better teaching materials and tested instructional methods. We now
have a number of experiences of large-scale cooperative efforts in producing
better teaching materials through the collaboration of subject-matter experts,
learning specialists, and teachers. The U.S. Office of Education has seen fit
to establish large research and development centers in universities, and sub-
stantially financed regional laboratories. More recently, a National In-
stitute of Education has been established by the federal government. The
prior large-scale experience in the military establishments shows that re-
sults do not come either quickly or cheaply, and there appears to be no al—
ternative to carefully conceived massive attacks on the learning problems
involved in instruction."
Special Problems Associated with Publications
Other Than Curriculum Materials
For the purposes of this analysis, we have divided Task III into
three sections, largely to indicate the difference between educational pub-
lishers, of instructional materials for per pupil use and educational
publishers of other types of educational materials. The "other publishers",
as we have designated them, include those who specialize in standardized
tests; those who specialize in other-than-print instructional materials
(motion picture films, filmstrips and slides, audio-tapes, multi-media kits,
educational games and toys for school use, etc.); those who specialize in
scholarly works, such as research monographs; those who specialize in
teacher education; those who specialize in adult or continuing education.
These publishers, we should add, may be divisions of a larger company or
they may be independent companies. O



The publishers of greatest concern to us in this section
we have identified as publishers of professional books and others
including supplementary materials. It is this group that has the
largest representation in the list of NIE publishers in print and in
production, and also of publications to which publishers responded
negatively. Among these publishers are those who, with financial
assistance, publish scholarly works, such as monographs of limited
circulation but of importance to the advancement of knowledge.
One main difference between the curriculum publishers and
professional publications et al that has implications -
for the analysis is the way they market their instructional materials.
The curriculum materials publishers, for example, usually have a nation-
wide field staff of sales representatives who call systematically on
the administrators and teachers, who, in turn, examine and adopt in-
structional materials for their constituency. This field staff, com-
bined with consultants, forms a communication network between teachers
and administrators, on the one hand, who examine and select instructional
materials, and, on the other hand, the editors and production specialists
who develop them. Of the estimated 1,500 publishers of educational ma—
terials in the United States (see page iii of Introduction), probably
not more than one hundred are engaged in publishing and marketing
curriculum instructional materials. While these publishers differ in
size from large to medium to small, almost all, certainly the major
ones, maintain field staffs to market their materials.
For NIE the publishers have the capability to publish and
market curriculum materials developed under their sponsorship, in-
cluding those for demographic "thin markets.".
The publishers of professional publications et al., other than
curriculum publishers, as we have classified them, are more likely to
depend on marketing by direct mail promotion combined with space adver-
tising and by other means that may not require their own sales staff.
Fot the "other publishers," the product the curriculum publishers consider
"thin market" may be the market for which they publish.
An educational publisher's index
For the benefit of the NIE staff, for the labs and centers,
and for other developers, we recommend that NIE develop and up-date
regularly an "Index of Publishers of Educational Meterials," classi-
fied according to function. The curriculum publishers obviously would
be one classification. Publishers of professional books for educators
would be another classification. Publishers of trade and vocational
books and technical books would be another. This index would be a
useful guide to developers at several stages. With it they could seek
the advice of the right publisher about a product under consideration
for development. With it they could target their reports of progress



III – 12
as they develop the product. With it they would also have a targeted
mailing list and a targeted list to use in selecting a publisher
through personal interviews. -
For this index, the information should include the names
of the publisher or the department, A large company, such as
McGraw-Hill, for example, may have several divisions or educational
publishing departments. Each should be listed separately. For each
publisher there should also be a brief description of the types of
publications in which they specialize.
For the curriculum educational publishers that produce a high
percentage of the instructional materials revenue, the identity and
description of the companies is readily available; but for the "other
publishers," as we use the term, the information will be more difficult
to secure. NIE could begin by requesting catalogs from each publisher
who responded to a PAS. The request should be accompanied by a letter
of inquiry about the publisher's major publishing interests. The letter
should also seek the advice of the publisher about products they would
recommend for development. The index should assist the developers in
finding the right publisher for the products they have under develop-
ment, including those classified as "thin market".
Publishers for in-service teacher materials
The information about publishers and the advice the developers
might receive from them should, in our opinion, reduce the margin of
unpublished products considerably - the products the developers often
refer to as "thin market". The unpublished products for in-service
teachers and administrators education is a case in point. Of the fifty
products announced by PAS that remain unpublished, about one-third,
according to our analysis of the Alerts, are directed toward in-
service staff training. Although the developers did not secure
publishers for these products, there would seem to be a market for
them among America's 14,000 school districts, and also a need for
them if the products reflect development excellence.
For the curriculum publishers, however, the in-service products
are definitely "thin market." Even if published, they would be marketed
almost entirely through catalogs. For the publishers of professional
publications, especially those that specialize in teacher education
materials, the products, or at least some of them, would seem to qualify
for publication, unless in-service education materials are not needed.
Since most of the products were developed by "other developers" who do
not have the promotional capabilities of the labs and centers, apparently
these products, regardless of their merits, currently have made whatever
contribution to educational improvement they are likely to make.
A



III — 13
Because of the "thin market" implications of the in-service
teacher products, we recommend them to NIE as a case study for analysis,
with a view to re-submitting them for publication. This analysis might
involve a review of the in-service instructional materials by three or
more specialists engaged in in-service teacher education who are potential
consumers . . The reviews should reveal whether the reviewers would use
them if they were made available commercially or otherwise. The reviews
should also reveal whether or not the specialist in in-service training
recommends in-service teacher materials for development. If the reviewers
are eager for in-service training materials but the products do not meet
their approval, what materials do they want and how would they participate
in developing them? In-service training as an NIE activity has a high
priority among developers and consumers, but apparently a low publishing
priority - why? - - &
- If the analysis is positive, and positive means that if the
materia1s are produced the evaluators would purchase them for their use,
then we would recommend that either NIE or the developers submit, or in many
cases co-submit, the products to publishers selected because they focus
their efforts on such materials; and invite them to make a proposal to
publish, including suggestions for revisions as well as a financial
arrangement. If NIE submits the products to the publishers,
O. further suggest that they offer them as a group, especially if some
have been screened out by the evaluation task force. The task force,
incidentally, will serve its purpose best if it is representative of
the districts . -
The Laser-Optics Technology, PAS #74-63, is an example of a
product that seems to us a future publishing possibility for classes,
perhaps of small enrollment, in junior colleges, technical institutes,
and for publishers specializing in home study courses. A telephone call
to a technical publisher revealed that a laser electro-optics publication
is on his future list. It is a growth course. Technical, trade, and
vocational books, because of limited enrollment in the courses, are almost
always printed in small runs, sometimes by multi-lith.
Because of the economics of publishing, publications for many
trade and vocational courses are limited in number and often out of date.
For trade and vocational books there may be a need for instructional
materials not fully met by commercial publishers. On the basis of the
number of students enrolled, many publications for technical, trade,
and vocational courses fall into the "thin market" category, but pub-
1ishers that specialize in this "thin market" have developed techniques
to publish them profitably.
This case study illustrates the need for the index, so
developers can identify the publishers most likely to be interested
O” their product.



III – 14
Publishing monographs, conference reports, research reports, et al.
In addition to the instructional materials we have described,
there are publications for professional development, especially research
reports, monographs, conference reports, and progress reports of
development projects such as CEMREL's Elements of Mathematics Pilot Study
Report: First Year Comparison.
Although the diversity of the educational materials as described
in the unpublished group is a mixed bag, they have several common
characteristics: they are for professional use, often on a one-to-one
basis; many of them, especially research papers, do not lend themselves
to commercial publication; some of them lend themselves to commercial
publication only by some type of production cost sharing; and all of them
published commercially are likely to be marketed by direct mail, perhaps
combined with space advertising. Since we have no generic term to describe
this miscellany of educational publications, we sha 11 refer to them as
"professional publications and others".
For the publishers of curriculum materials, the professional
publications, as well as in-service teacher training materials, are
considered as "thin market" products. Their interest in publishing any
of the publications would likely depend entirely on the contribution they
might make to the sale of a per pupil program to which research reports
are related. The curriculum publisher, under such circumstances, would
publish them as promotional materials.
Publishing some "thin market" publications with financial assistance
Educational publishers who specialize in publications to be
marketed by direct mail and space advertising or by distributors are also
confronted by the economics of publishing. To keep their business viable,
they must, on the basis of their judgement, publish those materials at
a price that returns their non-recurring costs, covers production and
royalties, and provides a sufficient gross margin for operating costs
and, hopefully, a profit.
For the advancement of education, there are, no doubt, many
publications developed by NIE sponsorship that need to be published,
but probably will not produce the revenue to make them attractive to
publishers without financial assistance from NIE, or some other agency.
This financial assistance that may have implications for NIE can take
several forms depending on the terms of the agreement.
Among some of the possibilities are these: a no-royalty
agreement; a sliding scale royalty; a commitment by the developer or
agency to purchase a specified number of copies of the publications to
be distributed by them, with the publisher retaining the publishing
and marketing rights. This procedure is often used to make scholarly
books available to the small number of readers concerned with the subject.



III – 15
For an educational conference, one way to assure the publication of
the scholarly papers focused on the conference topics is for the sponsor
to purchase copies for distribution, perhaps to the participants in the
conference, with the publication marketed to other readers by the pub-
1isher. (In making this proposal, NIE should consider only those scholarly
publications that otherwise would not be published except possibly by
the developer.) The proposal to provide financial assistance, we believe,
would encourage publishers of scholarly works to submit proposals.
In general, the publishing arrangements will call for financial
assistance adequate to cover manufacturing costs. A royalty arrangement
makes it possible for the developer to recoup his financial contribution
if the publication sells sufficient copies to exceed the breakeven point.
Once in a while, a title will do just that, but not often. -
For NIE, this proposal might have the advantage of making
scholarly works available to the Washington staff and to directors and
their associates in the labs and centers and perhaps to others. It
should serve as a means of cross-fertilization which, according to our
observations, would be to the benefit of all concerned.
As to the response the members of Congress, or educational
publishers, or educators are likely to make to professional materials
Cº. with federal funds and published with financial assistance
f NIE, or some other federal agency, we can offer only our observations.
As a rule, research grants that underwrite studies which produce the
highly academic specialized work include an amount adequate to pay for
producing the publications which report the results of the studies.
Foundations and councils also often enter into agreements with terms
similar to those we have outlined with a publisher of academic or scholarly
publications. For many foundations and learned councils the only way
they can make their studies or conference papers available for the
advancement of knowledge is under publishing arrangements similar to
those we have outlined. To implement this suggestion, we suggest to
NIE that they interview several publishers of subsidized scholarly works
and present their publishing problems for their consideration. These
interviews may disclose that many of NIE's scholarly works can be pub-
1ished without a subsidy as well as with a subsidy. -
Although the directions for Task III specifically indicated
that this report should exclude proposals to subsidize the "publication"
of "thin market" materials, it seems to us that this report would be
incomplete without suggesting financial assistance as one option. Later
in this analysis, we shall report the experience of the labs and centers
in publishing "thin market" reports and studies. It will be an informative
exercise, we believe, to compare the various options. - -
Also, 1earned societies and educational associations and
O” might provide financial assistance to publish works that will



III – 16
improve education. If these professional books are not made available,
after NIE has sponsored their development, it is likely to create far
more criticism, it seems to us, than publishing them with a subsidy that
offers the opportunity for recovery of costs.
Research Reports and Research Articles
As a means of making their products and publications, especially
research reports, available to consumers and for cross-fertilization, many of the
labs and centers issue catalogs or bulletins. These catalogs and bulletins usually
include entries for the products available from a publisher, products under de-
velopment, and research reports, collected conference papers, reprints from
scholarly journals, monographs, and other research-oriented publications.
Not only do the catalogs inform consumers about products and publications
available for purchase, they also document fully the extent and depth
of the work of the laboratory or center.
A Consolidated Catalog
Although these catalogs may serve an important marketing and
public relations purpose, they may not be reaching a nation-wide audience
of administrators and teachers. Also, it seems to us unlikely that many
administrators or teachers have the time to examine a11 of the available
catalogs and bulletins in search of information about publications,
especially research reports, of interest to them. For this reason we
suggest for your consideration the possibility of collating in one
consolidated catalog with instructions for ordering announcements of
products, publications and especially research reports of all the R&D
laboratories and centers and perhaps other developers as well. Although
NIE now publishes a Catalog, the one we have in mind would be focussed
on the research and evaluation reports. It would serve not only to report
research but also to keep consumers informed about progress of products
under development. *
Also if theconsolidated catalog could be sent without cost to a
selected mailing list that would include administrators and curriculum
coordinators or supervisors, it would acquaint them with the research and
development being carried on by the labs and centers. Also the catalog
would provide linkage between the laboratory and center R&D and the
practitioners. This linkage, it seems to us, will assist NIE with its
problems associated with "thin market" products.
Also, the NIE would send it without cost to a selected mailing
list that would include administrators and curriculum coordinators or
supervisors to acquaint them with the research and development being
carried on by the labs and centers. The catalog would provide linkage
between the laboratory and center R&D and the practitioner. This linkage,
it seems to us, will assist NIE with its problems associated with "thin
market" products. -


III – 17
Research reports
Although the research and other reports and publications may
fulfill the goal of cross-fertilization among the research and develop-
ment community and also provide reports of research progress, they
seem likely to us to reach an audience limited largely to specialists.
To inform administrators and teachers, in fact the whole edu-
cational community, including the educational publishers, about the
research involved in product development and to extend knowledge about
education, we suggest for NIE's consideration a research and development
news1etter to be mailed on request periodically by NIE to a selected
mailing list of school administrators, curriculum coordinators and super-
visors, and teachers. -
This newsletter would not include research reports, which seem
to us usually to be written for research specialists; but it would include
a brief summary on research reports and publications. These reports should
indicate to the readers where they can secure the full report by request-
ing it.
Although the NIE Research and Development Newsletter will
contain reviews of basic research publications, it will also help to
keep practitioners informed about product research. That NIE has
informed the administrators and teachers on a continuing basis about the
research underlying their products and the evaluation of those products
by teachers using them during development, is a fact not likely to be lost
on publishers. The two suggestions proposed in this section, it seems
to us, will have implications for helping to solve the problems associated
with thin markets.
In Summary,
One of the problems associated with "thin market" products is
the definition of the term itself. Also, products considered to be "thin
market" by publishers of instructional materials to be adopted by states
and districts for per pupil use may be the main products for the publishers
of instructional materials for professional or supplementary use. Also,
"thin market" products may be interpreted as those which did not attract a
publisher. As defined in "Copyright Guidelines," "thin market" materials
are those for which a limited market and, consequently, insubstantial re-
venues are anticipated.
To provide an analysis of special problems associated with "thin
market" products as defined in various contexts, we have organized the ana-
lysis around three headings:" instructional materials for per pupil use;
professional publications and others, including supplementary publications;
O” on research and other technical publications. -
*4
§


III – 18
Among the Special Considerations Associated with Curriculum
Materials that have "thin market" implications are these:
.* Per pupil expenditures for elhi textbooks set limits
on the unit price of instructional materials. For
the consideration of NIE, we suggest a study of per
pupil expenditures and learning effectiveness.
* When submitted for selection and adoption, curricu-
lum instructional materials are likely to succeed
best when they conform to the formal and informal
selection and adoption guidelines of the district
and state boards of education.
* To provide a favorable climate for the selection and
adoption of innovative materials, teachers benefit
from teacher education in the learning theory and
content underlying the materials themselves. Teachers'
institutes and workshops are one way to introduce teachers
to new learning theories and recent research.
In our interviews, the publishers' comments were often in-
fluenced by their experience with the NSF in its new math and new
science programs.
In educational R&D, not all products should be expected to
meet with immediate success. Also, it should be anticipated that some
will not succeed at all. When NIE or the developer decides to phase
out a product that did not attract a publisher, we suggest an analysis
be made of the reasons.
The "Strategy of Innovation," quoted from the Theory of
Learning by Ernest R. Hilgard and Gordon H. Bower, may have implica-
tions for problems associated with "thin market" products, including
the development of a "strategy of innovation."
Publications considered "thin market" by curriculum publi–
shers for their list of products may form the basis of the lists of
other educational publishers.
To provide the developers and the Project Officers with the
information that will assist them in finding the right publisher for
their product, we suggest to NIE that they develop an annotated publi-
shers' index for ready reference. To keep the index up to date, it will
be necessary to revise it frequently, perhaps annually.
To move the in-service teacher training materials from de-
veloper to consumer, we suggest a reassessment of the products by prac-
titioners, and a resubmission to publishers of those they recommend.



III - 19
The reassessments, especially if the practitioners indicate they would
use the revised materials if available, might, we believe, influence
publishers to reconsider them for publication. With over 14,000 dis-
tricts, in-service teacher training is not a "thin market."
Since laser-optic-technology seems to be a growth course,
we suggest it be submitted to publishers of technical books. Publi-
cations for trade, vocational education, and technical education are
usually printed in small runs.
For some scholarly publications that are "thin market" because
the audience is usually insufficient to provide the revenue required to
Make them a viable commercial product without financial assistance, we
suggest to NIE and the developers that they explore the terms for the
publication of such works by providing financial assistance if necessary.
To provide wider circulation of the R&D research and evaluation
reports, we propose two possibilities to NIE and the R&D labs and centers:
first, we suggest an R&D Laboratory and Center Consolidated Catalog to be
mailed on request, or perhaps to a mailing list of curriculum coordinators
and school administrators; and, second, we suggest a news letter to be
mailed to administrators, curriculum coordinators, and teacher educators.
This news letter would review research reports, monographs, and other re-
search-oriented publications. These reviews, it seems to us, would increase
considerably the linkage between the practitioners and NIE R&D.



III – 20
Publishers of Curriculum Materials for Per Pupil Use Interviewed by BCMA
For This Report
Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., School Division
Allyn & Bacon, Inc., Elhi Division
American Book Company, Division of Litton Educational Publishing Company
Benziger, Bruce & Glencoe, Inc., subsidiary of Macmillan, Inc. -
Encyclopaedia Britannica Educational Corporation, affiliate of
Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.
Follett Corporation educational publications
Ginn and Company (Xerox Educational Group)
Harper & Row, Publishers School Department
Houghton Mifflin Company Educational Division
Imperial Learning Corporation
Macmillan Publishing Company School Division
Mafex Associates, Inc.
McDougal—Littel Company
McKnight Publishing Company
Rand McNally & Company Educational Division
Random House Educational Division
Science Research Associates, Inc., a subsidiary of IBM
Silver Burdett Company (wholly-owned subsidiary of Scott Foresman & Co.)
Steck—Vaughn Company, Division of Intext
Webster Division, McGraw-Hill Book & Education Services Group



Catalogs and Bulletins of R&D Centers and Laboratories
Included in BCMA Study
As a basis for reporting the R&D Laboratory and Center
catalog and direct mail Imarketing of products and publica-
tions especially "thin market materials," such as product re-
ports, we have included in this section a brief description
of the catalogs and bulletins issued by the R&D Laboratories
and Centers we visited. This review should have implications
for the questions raised in the Scope of Work: Should "thin
market materials" be marketed as an entity? -
CEMREL, Inc.
As a means of distributing CEMREL products and publica-
tions, including "thin market" reports and publications, the
director and staff of CEMREL, Inc. created the CEMREL Insti-
tute. Essentially, CEMREL Institute is the disseminating and
Inarketing arm of CEMREL, Inc.
"Publications," the CEMREL Institute catalog and the
supplement to the catalog published later, is organized into
sections to correlate with CEMREL's development and service
activities. Each section includes a description of the pro-
ducts including those published commercially along with cor-
related research reports. Both the catalog and the supplement
contain order forms with titles and prices. As we have men-
tioned, the catalogs include all products and publications --
those published commercially, those under development and those
published by the CEMREL Institute. It also includes entries
for research and evaluation reports, scholarly papers, mono-
graphs and Other publications.
Since the distribution of "thin market" publications was
one of the reasons for 1aunching the CEMREL Institute, we asked
the director of publications to check the items she considered
thin ſharket. In general, the list included practically all of
the reports, research reports, and technical papers. These
publications seem to us to fit the definition of thin market
materials as defined in the Copyright Guidelines. According
to the definition, "Thin Market Materials are those for which
a limited market and , consequentially, in substantial revenues
are anticipated."



In fact, as the sales analysis of CEMREL Institute pub-
lications indicates, approximately 45 to 60 copies is the
average range of units of the 39 "thin market" items marketed
by the CEMREL Institute during 1974. (This excludes a two-cent
item that sold 1756 units – a thin, thin item.)
From the point of view of the economics of publishing, dis-
tribution may not make economic sense. From the point of view
of the dissemination of research knowledge, they may constitute
NIE's single most important contribution to the improvement of
learning.
In the list of thin market materials we have not included
two volumes: School. Before Six, Volume I and Volume II, by
Laurel Hodgóen, etal, because it does not seem, with their per
copy sale in 1974 of approximately 1,000 copies, and their con-
tinuing sales record of approximately 1, 200 for the first ten
months of 1976, to be a thin market material. When submitted
to publishers it was tentatively accepted, but finally declined.
Without a commercial publisher, the CEMREL Institute, with ap-
proval of Morton Bachrach, became the publisher of 1ast resort.
As the publisher, the CEMREL Institute's promotion of the titles
corresponded to the promotion they would have received had they
been published commercially.
From these two volumes the CEMREL Institute derived ap-
proximately 63% of its revenue. Although School. Before Six is
listed in the catalog, the publications director relied mainly
on mail campaigns to attract orders. To reach the prospective
purchasers, the director used targeted mailing lists. To each
entry on the mailing list the director mailed a descriptive bro–
chure, accompanied by a letter and a return order card.
For this report we have gone into considerable detail to
describe the CEMREL Institute because it represents the way one
R&D Laboratory is approaching several problems related to dis-
semination: the distribution of research reports and technical
studies, including the marketing of professional books as a pub-
lisher of last resort; the marketing of some products for which
CEMREL, Inc. did not find a publisher, the annºuncement of pro-
ducts published commercially by educational publishers and the
Inarketing of development publications for evaluation.



In Our conclusions and recommendations, perhaps we can
draw some implications from the experience of the CEMREL
Institute that may have relevance to the marketing of "thin
Inarket materials," including professional publications which
educational publishers do not consider commercially viable.
Center for the Study of Evaluation (CSE)
CSE publishes a number of monographs in the public domain.
Apparently these are thin market materials as defined in the
Copyright Guidelines. One of the mechanisms for promoting
these is the CSE News, which has a circulation of 10,000. Ap-
parently, anyone who requests it can be put on the Inailing list
to receive the newsletter. *”
As to thin Inarket materials, it was suggested by a CSE
staff member they would serve their purpose best if the govern-
ment Inade them available on request without cost, a point of
view that may make economic sense as well as educational sense
if the costs of order fulfillment are considered.
Education Development Center (EDC)/Social Studies Program
Although not an NIE-sponsored R&D Laboratory or Center,
the EDC's marketing plan may have some relevance to this re-
port. As the title indicates, EDC is engaged in development
rather than research. The materials they develop are based
on applied research. In their catalog, EDC lists 20 commer-
cially published programs. The publishers include D. C. Heath,
Houghton—Mifflin, Macmillan, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Curricu-
lum Development Association, Inc., the publishers of Man: A
Course of Study, funded by NSF and the Ford Foundation.
EDC also markets some of its own programs. According to
the report of our EDC interviews, "EDC markets some of the
materials it develops through catalogs, exhibits, and a small
sales staff who have the title of Regional Field Coordinators."
Apparently they do not include on their list "thin market
materials" as defined in the Guidelines. Their research is
focused on their programs.



Learning Research and Development Center (LRDC)
Under the title of Publications, LRDC includes these
entries with descriptions: Reprints – 1964–1970; Working
Papers – 1965–1970; Technical Reports – 1966–1970; Publi–
cations – 1970–1971–1972–1973–1974–1975–1976. The descrip-
tions of the entries themselves are highly informative.
Cost per copy is included in the description of each pub-
lication. The requests for titles are to be directed to
Information Services, Learning Research and Development
Center, 3939 O'Hara Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260.
Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive
Learning (IGE)
Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive
Learning publishes IGE NEWS three times during the school
year. The Spring Volume 7, Number 3, 1976 issue includes
entries for, and brief descriptions of IGE developed products
and materials: IGE Curriculum Products; IGE Materials from
the R&D Center; and IGE Materials from the Sears Project.
ERIC
The catalog also includes publications available from
ERIC. All entries, it seems to us, are "thin market materials
as defined in Copyright Guidelines.
WW
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NWREL)
As a part of their marketing efforts including the "thin
market materials," NWREL issues a catalog listing their pro-
ducts and services. The catalog seems to be well-organized
and highly informative.
At our request, the Director of the Office of Dissemina-
tion marked each entry that he identifies as thin market.
This list, it seems from our observation, reflects NWREL's
experience. Although the entries seem to correspond to the
thin market materials guidelines, as the director says: "The
identification of what is or is not a 'thin market' product is
neither clear nor consistent in its application."



The director also states the issue which it seems to us
NIE faces. A commercial publisher generally defines thin
market "as any product that does not meet a desired level of
sales and resulting revenues. Accordingly, this does not
allow much opportunity for negotiations with publishers when
the author, or developers, in our case, is presenting a pro-
duct he views as needed in the field, yet is not of marketing
magnitude that encourages publisher participation." (Although
the Director of Dissemination states the issue, publishers
think of markets that have the potential for viable publishing
of a program. During our tenure in educational publishing, we
never heard the term "thin market.")
As an example of a product needed by the educational com–
munity concerned with bilingual education, he cites Oral
Language Tests for Bilingual Students. Although it was re-
jected for publication by over forty commercial houses, NWREL
published it without copyright and in 4-1/2 months sold over
1, 200 copies by direct mail campaigns. (Another option we have
suggested, however, is to subsidize publications that fulfill
educational needs but may not be commercially viable.)
In marketing Oral Language Tests for Bilingual Students,
this director carried out a mail campaign to the target mar-
kets, used press releases, journal reviews, and exhibits.
Of the items marked as thin market, most of them seem to
constitute instructional materials rather than research reports
and monographs. However, NWREL seems to have an instructional
Inaterials product orientation including instructional materials
for "thin markets" as indicated by their Alaskan Readers and
Indian Reading and Language Materials.
Research for Better Schools (RBS)
RBS distributes a publications catalog. In it they include
all their publications — those available from commercial publi–
shers, and those to be ordered directly from RBS, including re-
search reports, monographs, journal reprints, and other thin mar-
ket materials as defined in the Copyright Guidelines.
According to the director , RBS uses the Publications Catalog
as one way of making "specific training materials" perceived as
"thin market," available to users.



According to the director, the promotion and production
of their own products is self-supporting through a revolving
fund.
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL)
As we have reported when SEDL was unable to place its
products, especially those for migrant children and bilingual
education, they created a wholly-owned, for-profit, subsidiary,
The National Educational Laboratory Publishers (NELP). With
NELP they published a series of bilingual educational programs
for per-pupil use which commercial publishers considered thin
market.
During our interviews with the SEDL staff, One partici-
pant expressed the view that SEDL should publish a catalog
listing a 11 SEDL products including those published by NELP,
and other publishers.
The Research and Development Center for Teacher Education,
The University of Texas (UTR&D)
As a way of listing products and reports from the Research
and Development Center for Teacher Education, UTR&D issues a
catalog entitled Products for Personalizing Education. The most
recent catalog apparently is the 1973 edition.
The listing is organized into three sections: products,
report series, and general reports.
According to the listing, items in the products section are
generally staff training materials and curriculum-based modules
used in the Center's Personalized Teacher Education Program.
Under products there are 52 entries. Of these, five are published
commercia11y and the remainder by UTR&D.
The report series section includes titles from UTR&D: "R&D
report series of publications of major importance by Center staff
and affiliated investigators." (We assume these to be "thin mar-
ket materials." There are 93 entries.)



The general report section consisting of 279 entries "is
a comprehensive listing of all major remaining publications
of major importance by Center staff and affiliated investi-
gators.
"Since the center receives no funds for product dis-
Semination, we must make a small charge for printing, handling,
and postage." (BCMA underlining)
For dissemination UTR&D has an inner institution network
of 25 teacher training institutions.
R&D Laboratory (SWRL)
º
Since SWRL "sells nothing," it does not issue a catalog
but it does publish and distribute a bulletin entitled
Programmatic R&D in Education - SWRL Capabilities and Products.
The booklet contains four topics: SWRL Capabilities, SWRL Pro-
ducts; SWRL Product Relevant Research; and SWRL Documentation.
The concluding paragraph summarizes SWRL dissemination
procedures.
The nationwide use of SWRL products and documented R&D
capabilities has demonstrated that it is possible to reliably
attain instructional outcomes when the resources to conduct
effective instruction have been produced throug
research and development. SWRL's capabilities and experience
are transferred to the schools in the form of verified educa-
tional products; to the R&D community through distribution of
documents and journal articles, and through presentations at
professional societies; to colleges and universities through
presentations at professional meetings, seminars, and workshops;
and to publishers in the form of new and improved product ar-
chitectures.
This report on dissemination of reports and other publi-
cations seems to us to raise two questions: to what extent
does the entry of research reports, monographs, evaluation re-
ports, and professional books – all thin market – into catalogs



lead to their dissemination among the practitioners, the
administrators, curriculum coordinators and classroom
teachers?
Also, are the reports the best way to inform prac-
titioners about NIE research and NIE products?



TASK IV






TASK IV
ANALYSTS OF THE POTENTIAL ROLE PUBLISHERS could PERFORM IN A
CONSULTANT OR WORKING ARRANGEMENT WITH THE INSTITUTE IN REGARD
To NEW DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES



TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
Introduction º © ge . .e e e e e º © º C - - º e - e. -> e © . ſº e -> e i-vi
An analysis of the current PAS effort . . . . . . . . Il – I 21
Task I:
Appendix to Task I Report: Special study of the use of
PAS by developers other than the laboratories -
and centers - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I i - I Xl
Task II: An analysis and evaluation of the alternatives
to PAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II 1 - II 6
Appendix to Task II Report: Examples of alternatives -
to PAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II i - II XXXi
Task III: Analysis of special problems associated with
"thin market" products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III 1 - III 2.0-
Task IV: Analysis of the potential role publishers could
perform in a consultant or working arrangement
with the Institute in regard to new development
activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV 1 - IV 14
Appendix to Task IV Report: Reports of counsellin
sessions with NIE staff members . . . . . . . . . . . IV i – IV vi
Task V: Review of consumer interest and issues that
should modify or constrain any of the previous
policy recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W 1 - V ll
Task VI: Prepare a final summary of all of the recommen-
dations and activities required in the foregoing
sections sº e - *e e e º Gº © e º tº º º e º e e -> º e e -> VI l º VI 7
Prepared by BCMA Associates, Inc. for the National Institute
of Education under Contract No. 400–76-0086.
February 25, 1977



TASK IV
ANALYSIS OF THE POTENTIAL ROLE PUBLISHERS COULD PERFORM
IN A CONSULTANT OR WORKING ARRANGEMENT WITH THE INSTITUTE
IN REGARD TO NEW DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
Our analysis of the potential role publishers could perform
in a consultant or working arrangement with the Institute in regard
to new development activities is based largely on our interviews
with the publishers listed on page 14 of this report.
As the list indicates, it is representative of the diversity
of the publishing industry. However, the list is weighted toward
the publishers of instructional materials programs. It is from
these programs that the districts and state boards of education
adopt instructional materials for classroom use, usually on a per
pupil basis.
Perhaps more important than the list itself is the relation-
ship of the educational publishers with the directors of NIE, the
agencies of the federal government, the R&D labs and centers, and other
developers; and also with privately funded councils and commissions
engaged in the development of instructional materials for elhi per
pupil use. Almost every publisher we interviewed includes on his list
programs developed by the NSF, NIE, or OE.
As a result of the experience of the publishers and their con-
cerned interest about both the NIE programs and the role of federal
agencies financing and sponsoring educational materials, the interviews
often ranged far beyond the topics included in the Scope of Work. Also,
many of the executives we interviewed have served on committees of the
Elhi Division of the Association of American Publishers concerned with
the role of federally-funded educational research and development and
have attended and participated in NIE/AAP conferences.
To this statement we should add that in no way does this analysis
represent a report of the industry. It merely reflects the points of
view expressed to us by spokesmen for the publishers we interviewed.
Developer and Publisher Communication
Between the publishers and R&D labs and centers, as well as
other developers, there is extensive communication. Several educational
publishers make a point of visiting the labs and centers to learn about
the products under development and often to observe them in action. One
company with several divisions includes on its staff a research director,
one of whose assignments is to keep in touch with development programs



IV-2
and report them directly, with his recommendations, to the division
that would publish them -- the elhi division, the business education
division, the scholarly books division, the educational development
laboratories, and others. -
For another educational publishing company with many divisions,
the editorial director, when the labs and centers were first launched,
made it a practice to visit many of them to 1earn about their product
development in which he might have a publishing interest. When he
assumed more responsibilities, he assigned the R&D visits to a research
associate who spent 90% of his time in the field.
Another source of communication, of course, is the obvious
fact that both the developers and the publishers have been educated in
universities offering comparable programs and often have been associated
as teachers or administrators in similar institutions. They attend the
same professional conferences. Often they are personal and professional
friends. Under such circumstances, it is rather obvious that there is
an informal, nevertheless constant, communication network between
developers and publishers. Also, it seems rather apparent that each
group recruits staff from the other group. Both also are engaged in the
same worthy cause of developing instructional materials to improve
education.
But the communication network is a two-way street. The de-
velopers, especially those with the responsibility to place a product
with a publisher, have frequent contacts with publishers. We have just
received a letter from a director of dissemination reporting to us that
he has called on over thirty publishers to place a new product.
Early Agreement - A Mutual Interest
In our interview with developers and in 1etters we received
from other developers, we have been impressed by the efforts they make
to present these products to publishers personally. These calls are
often unproductive for a number of reasons; one of them being, as one
publisher said, "The products are too far down the road by the time we see
them." Developers and publishers seem to agree on the necessity for "early
-involvementſ of the publisher in the development of the product.
There is a difference, however, between the visits the pub-
1ishers make and those the developers make. The publisher visits the
R&D labs and centers to find out for himself what products the developers
have in the conceptual stage, in process, and ready for production.
Several of these calls over the past several years have led to negotiations
between the two for early agreements which did not materialize.



IV-3
The developers, on the other hand, as reported to us,
frequently call on the publishers to submit, if not a finished product,
at least one nearing completion, except possibly for format and packag-
ing. As one director said to us in about these words, "We have con-
centrated on development of our product without thinking about a pub-
lisher. Now that we are nearing the end of the development, we are
ready to place it with a publisher." Also, at this point, "We need a
publisher's assistance for packaging and pricing."
It was a series of experiences on the part of developers who
failed to find a publisher for products because they presented them to
publishers too late for them to benefit from their input, that led
both developers and publishers to the conclusion that the development
and marketing of a product is likely to succeed best with the early
involvement of the publisher with the developer.
To make certain there is no misunderstanding, we should add
that some publishers have doubts about government financed develop-
ment under any circumstances, and other publishers point to SMSC as the
model. Nevertheless, they seem to agree that if materials are to be
developed and funded by NIE, NSF, OE, or other federal agencies, there
should be an early involvement of the publishers in the product develop-
ment, even as early as the conceptual stage.
Some publishers also question early involvement because such
an arrangement may call for a heavy investment that they will have no
way to recover if the one or other of the two parties decides to phase
out the project because it fails to live up to expectations. For example,
if the evaluation of the product after classroom testing is negative,
both parties by mutual agreement might decide to phase out the program.
One of the benefits of educational R&D, however, is the capacity to field
test products during development to determine those that work best.
Perhaps developers, and educators are unaware that educational publishers
phase out programs of their own and take a loss during development if
it seems unlikely that such programs will succeed in the educational
marketplace. The possibility of such an eventuality is a calculated
risk for both the developer and the publisher.
Also, some developers have doubts about the early involvement
of publishers in product development because one of the benefits of a
government funded development is the freedom it gives them to innovate and
improve instructional materials without consideration of the commercial
motive. Early publisher involvement without interfering with the
developer's goals, perhaps even in improving them, is an issue we shall
comment on 1ater in this work. .



IV-4
Advantages of early agreement
If publisher and developer can reach an agreement early in the
development of the product, the following advantages may be realized:
1)
2)
3)
For the developers, it reduces the risk they will not
find a publisher after a heavy investment of money, time,
and effort in developing a product. An early agreement
also saves the time and effort of the developer in trying
to place a developed product. The time and effort of
developers in "marketing a product" with publishers is
in itself a heavy investment and sometimes non-productive.
For the publisher, an early agreement means he can include :
the project in his five-year plan. For educational pub-
lishers, five-year planning is essential for several reasons:
it requires about five years to take a publication from
idea to printed page; adoptions usually run in five-year
cycles, especially state adoptions. For publishers, timing
of publication dates may spell the difference between the
success, and considerably less than success, of a program.
To allocate resources and to schedule editorial and
production time also requires planning.
A five-year plan may include a five-year projection for
every title in production, in preparation, and in the con-
ceptual stage. A five-year plan includes planning for
staff. Publishers project their future revenue on programs
sometimes only in the conceptual stage. During our inter-
view with the manager Gf an elhi division of a large
publishing company, he made this comment, "To publishers,
publishing means development as well as marketing. A
publisher such as we are lays out five and ten-year plans
that make no provision for products developed by R&D
agencies. We have no way to plan for the possibility of
publishing an R&D program of which we are not awaré and
for which we will have to compete with other publishers."
For a publisher to include in his plans the possibility
of acquiring a product he does not even know about and
for which he will have to bid competitively, does not
make publishing sense, especially in these days of tight
budgets, a no-growth school population, and decrease in
federal funds for education.
One reason the developers may have faced difficulty in
finding a publisher for some of their curriculum products
probably can be traced to the fact that the publishers were
already fully committed, or perhaps in our current climate,
over committed.



IW-5
4)
Another reason for early agreement, and perhaps the over-
riding one, is the opportunity it gives the developer
to benefit both from the publisher's judgment about the
educational marketing and his knowledge about the con-
ventional wisdom of instructional materials adoptions.
It also provides them with technical assistance they may
not now have. This technical assistance includes
design and production. A comment by the commercial
producer/publisher of the Hawaii-English Program indicates
the importance of a professional director of production,
"If I had to go through it all again," he said, "I would
insist that HEP have a production person on its staff.
Even large developers need production capability. With
production capability, HEP could have saved many thousands
of dollars." An early agreement provides the developer
with design and production technical assistance at the
crucial point in the development of the product -- at the
beginning.
Although the role of developers may involve greater re-
sponsibilities than the role of authors, nevertheless,
developers also are authors. As authors they do not have
the opportunity to benefit from technical assistance of
editors -- this could be one reason that publications
the developers consider ready for publication may, as the
publishers discover, require considerable revision.
An early agreement would make it possible for the
publisher to provide the developer with editorial capa-
bility. With editorial assistance, the developers,
authors, and writers could seek the advice of editors
and thus have the benefit of editorial criticism and
editorial direction. At the completion of the develop-
ment, the materials would, therefore, be edited and
ready for production. -
There are two reasons why federally funded educational R&D
should utilize, but not try to match, the editorial
production and marketing capabilities of the educational
publishers in the private sector. First, they do not
have enough products under development to use an editorial
staff and production staff to advantage; second, and the
over-riding reason, it would place them in an unfair
competitive position, with their federal funding, with
the publishers in the private sector -- a fact that would
not long be overlooked by the private sector.



IV-6
5) With an early involvement of the publisher in the
development process of the labs and centers and other
developers, they can take advantage of the contribution
the marketing director and his staff can make to the
project from the beginning. A typical publishing staff
for a major educational publisher usually consists of a
marketing director; regional directors for each of the
regional offices; an advertising and promotion director
and staff; consultants who interpret the materials to
supervisors and teachers; project directors who often
advise the editors and interpret the product to the sales
staff and also to committees who select and adopt in-
structional materials; and the sales representatives who
represent their company and its products in a territory.
It is the sales representatives that often spot emerging
trends and report them to management and the editorial
staff while the development of a program is in process.
It was the sales staffs that spotted the "back-to-basics"
trend 10ng before it made newspaper headlines. With this
educational intelligence, publishers were prepared to meet
the demand for more emphasis on computations in math.
Because of the intelligence the marketing staff brings
to the development of a new product, educational pub-
1ishers generally opt for early involvement in federally
funded products development. Another advantage, however,
of an early agreement is that effective marketing begins
1ong before the product is ready for the marketplace.
In educational publishing, there is rarely a sharp division
between development and marketing. Between the two there
is a continuing interaction. They are the two faces of
the same coin.
No fixed point for early agreement
For an early agreement, there is no fixed point. As we have
mentioned, it could be as early as the conceptual stage, or perhaps at
the point where the product is ready for field testing. As the current
practice, the publishers should have equal opportunity to submit pro-
posals to publish. Perhaps the responses of the publishers to an early
announcement would indicate whether or not the developer considers it
to be to his advantage to enter into an agreement with a publisher at
that particular time. He would have the option to reach an agreement
or not, according to the proposal of the publisher.
Development without early agreement
Although both publishers and developers and general project
officers too have urged early agreement between publisher and developer,



IV-7
there certainly may be exceptions depending partly on the nature of
the product. If, for example, the product is a necessary phase in a
research project, a publisher may not be necessary, securing a pub-
lisher would have a low priority. A publisher reflects this point of
view with this comment: "NIE should emphasize the R. If R requires
instructional materials development OK, but materials should be a
means not an end." -
Also, there may be need for products to be developed to test
new approaches to teaching and learning which require research and
development without publisher involvement.
Agreement between developer and publisher
Since contracts reflect in their terms the interest of both
parties, each contract is different in detail from all others. As
consultants and publishers, we have participated in the preparation
of a number of publishing agreements between developers and publishers
at different stages of development. Where the two parties are eager to
negotiate an agreement, rarely is there a problem in reaching agree-
ment on terms. The NIE agreement between SWRL, Educational Research
and Development, and Ginn & Co. for the development, publishing and
marketing of the SWRL-Ginn language program provides a case study of a
successful "early involvement" agreement between developer and pub-
1isher.
The SWRL-Ginn collaboration suggests certain guidelines to
NIE for future exploration between developers and publishers.
Apparently, the agreement was a working partnership (contracts
between authors and publishers are essentially partnerships). For two
years, a Ginn editor was in residence as a member of SWRL's R&D de-
velopment task force. In addition, Ginn & Co. provided SWRL with
temporary duty editorial and production technical assistance.
According to the agreement, we were told by the Ginn editorial
director, SWRL was the supreme court in the event of differences of
opinion between the Ginn staff and the SWRL staff. This agreement pro-
tected SWRL's right to develop without intrusion of what might have been
interpreted as commercia1 motive.
Since the terms of contracts are confidential, with the terms
of no two contracts exactly alike, we did not inquire about financial
terms. Aside from this particular contract, and speaking generally, the
royalty rate will be related to the investment the publisher makes in
the development of the project. Royalty agreements, however, are the
business of the parties involved. There is, to the best of our knowledge,
no such thing as a standard royalty. -
º
When we discussed this, project with Ginn's president and
editorial director, they expressed the opinion that Ginn and Co. had
}



IW-8
benefited from their working relationship with SWRL. When we inter-
viewed the Director of SWRL Educational Research and Development, he
indicated that not only had the agreement with Ginn & Co. been to
SWRL's benefit, but that the negotiation of such agreements is a SWRL
policy. They all agreed, however, that the success of an early agreement
depends on the good will of the two parties. Also, the guidelines of
the agreement must be clear and explicit.
Explicit terms and mutual goals
As we have pointed out, the success of early agreement ventures
depends on the good will of the two parties; however, good will does not
take the place of an agreement with explicit terms. Among the terms
that need to be spelled out carefully are these:
Development Control - Since the goal of federally funded educational R&D
is to improve education through innovations in instructional materials,
the agreement should clearly state the goals of the project, the learning
theory upon which it is based, and the substantive content. Both parties
should clearly understand, and agree upon, the basic concepts of the
subject.
Editorial Control - Editorial responsibility should be clearly separated
from developmental responsibility. As usual in this analysis, editorial
control includes control of the quality of materials and format. For a
project to succeed, it must meet publishing standards. To quote from a
report of an interview with a highly regarded and unusually perceptive
president of a publishing company, the president "sees the possibility of
early involvement if the publisher has editorial control over the quality
of materials and format with a consensus on theory of learning before
signing a contract. Publishers won't give up quality control."
Royalty Rate - Often overlooked by authors is the fact that income depends
on the extent of the revenue more than on the rate of royalty. In a
co-publishing venture, the royalty rates will need to be negotiated
depending on the contribution each party makes to the project. A sliding
scale royalty may be the best arrangement for both parties.
Copyright - If copyright is negotiable, the number of years the instruce
tional materials have copyright protection can make an important dif-
ference to the publisher, especially if it seems necessary for the
publisher to revise the product toward the end of the copyright period.
Escape Clause - In the agreement contract, it may be to the advantage
of both parties to include an escape clause, the details to be worked
out by mutual consent.
As we have maintained, each contract is a separate agreement.
The suggestions we have made should be considered guidelines for the
consideration of all parties in the development of a formal agreement.



IV-9
Proposals from publishers
Up to this point, we have described early agreement between
developer and publisher when the developer initiates the project and
invites the publisher to submit proposals for the developer's consideration.
Several developers, however, suggested to us during our interviews that
they are eager for publishers to submit projects to them. (This arrange-
ment is not unusual. American Institute for Research, for example, has
developed several programs for publishers).
The director of the Far West Laboratory, Dr. John N. Hemphill,
reported to us during our interviews with him and his staff at Far West
that he would welcome a proposal from a publisher for a project to be
developed by Far West in collaboration with the publisher, if the project
seemed to them to measure up to their criteria and to be within their
guidelines. Although we did not discuss the financial arrangements, we
assume the publisher would include funding in the proposal or ask Far
West to submit a proposal of terms.
This type of collaboration may offer R&D labs and centers,
and other developers as well, an opportunity to provide instructional
materials research and development for which they are uniquely fitted.
For publishers who are eager to publish a new program to replace the
one that has reached the point where it is in the public domain, a lab
or center might include the staff with the experience to develop the new
program. Also, the staff could take advantage of the feedback from the
field.
The main theme of early involvement, however, is that the
publishers' development input is as important as their marketing
capabilities. Both developers and publishers have important input to
make.
Collaboration with right of first refusal
Another option for early involvement that we suggest for
exploration is an agreement between developer and publisher to combine
their efforts up to a certain point in the development process. At that
point, the publisher would have the right of first refusal before the
- developer would invite the other publishers who make up the industry to
submit proposals.
This option might involve the publishers only in the planning
stage, or in the production stage, at prototype stage, or in an advisory
capacity on the marketing of the product. It could be a lesser involve-
ment than an early agreement, but at this time could provide the developer
with the information he needs to make judgments with the benefit of pub-
1isher experience.



IW-10
For either an early agreement contract, or a right of first
refusal agreement, a 11 publishers in the industry, it seems to us, should
have the opportunity to submit a proposal without any "prior understand-
ing". As long as publishers have equal opportunities to secure agree-
ments to publish, they are likely to approve the procedure the NIE
develops to secure publishers for the products it sponsors.
Publishers in an Advisory Capacity
On an ad hoc basis, publishers have suggested to us during our
interviews certain topics of mutual interest on which the developers
might turn to them for advice. Although this advice could be sought in
several ways, interviews between developers and publishers are likely to
be the most productive, partly because the interviews would bring the two
together to share ideas about common interests. Among the topics pub-
lishers suggested to us by both their comments and questions are these:
1) Could NIE set up an advisory board of publishers, especially
to advise on cost effectiveness?
- 2) What is NIE's screening process for educational products?
Do not the publishers have an important screening input, especially
informative to developers, about the products the publishers have recently
made available or are preparing to publish in the different subjects for
examination and adoption? (Several developers in the R&D labs and centers
commented on the need for better screening before launching a new in-
structional materials program.) -
About screening a product, a major publisher remarked to us
during our conference with him and his staff, "NIE staff should consult
with publishers before launching projects. If NIE wishes, I will make
myself available for consultaions." .
3) An educational publisher asked us, "Could NIE take a
publisher's product opinion poll before embarking on a new project?"
(With the results of a product opinion poll, the developers would
be in a position to fight tomorrow's battles rather than yesterday's.)
- - - - - - 4), "NIE should identify grass roots needs at the practitioners'
level. Wouldn't it be possible for NIE to convene publishers to advise
their staff about needs? Perhaps not one conference, but a series of
regional conferences."
5) A president of a major company during an interview made this
suggestion: publishers and NIE staff could hold a two-day conference,
with publishers describing the publishing process, the economics of pub-
lishing, examination and adoption procedures, and local and state cur-
riculum constraints. (At the invitation of the National Council of
Teachers of English, the American Textbook Publishers Institute, held a
similar seminar for English teachers.) -



IV, 11
The president also suggested that publishers set up a con-
ference and invite developers to participate in it.
A similar conference of educational publishers of professional
and educational publications and others such as teachers aids, might
be devoted to the publishing and marketing of "thin market" and other
educational materials.
6) To quote another educational publishing executive, "NIE
should have the assistance of an advisory committee including publishing
representatives." This recommendation assumes NIE has sufficient product
in production or in preparation to justify such a committee, which it may
not have.
As we review the foregoing comments, it seems to us NIE has
available a considerable range of publishing expertise with mutuality
of interests if they wish to take advantage of it.
Publishers on Advisory Boards
Another option open to NIE and to the R&D labs and centers is
to include publishing executives on the advisory boards currently largely
composed of curriculum specialists.
Although the advisory boards include well-known scholars and
curriculum specialists, they do not to our knowledge include educational
publishers. -
- For your consideration we suggest that educational publishers
be added to the advisory boards, especially to the advisory boards of
the R&D laboratories and centers.
During a conversation we had with the director of publications
for an R&D laboratory who had been recruited from educational publishing,
the director remarked that the problem between the 1ab and centers and
the educational publishers is that there is no interface. If the director
has sized up the situation correctly, and we think she has, it seems to
us the recommendations in this analysis present a basis for a mutually
advantageous interface. !
Research - A Common Interest
Although there may be differences of opinion among publishers
about federally funded instructional materials development, publishers
seem committed to the need for basic educational research that will
benefit the entire educational community including the publishers. Not
only do the publishers need new research to apply to the development of
3.


IV-12
their products, they also need to have much old research brought up
to date such as word lists and the scope and sequence of elementary
social studies.
The educational timetable too would benefit from a basic
research. Although knowledge increases at a geometrical rate and scope
of our education has become global, the school time has remained
virtually unchanged since the United States was an agricultural society.
As a result, textbooks grow bigger and the schools do not add new courses
to the curriculum because the schedule does not provide time for them.
During our early interview, we took notes on the research topics
suggested to us by publishers until we learned that NIE had invited
publishers to submit a list of research topics for their consideration.
The type of research which publishers need but do not have re-
quires the resources and capabilities of a National Institute of Education.
Educational publishers pioneered in advocating educational research.
Summary and Recommendations
Between the developers, especially the directors of the R&D
laboratories and centers and their associates, and the publishers, there
is continuous communication.
Among the curriculum publishers generally and the directors of
the labs and centers and other developers, there seems to be virtually a
consensus about the benefits to both parties of an early publishing 2 * * *
agreement, even as early as the conceptual stage for many reasons, including
these:
º: The developer has a commitment from a publisher for his
product.
* Early agreement enables publishers to assist the de-
velopers in preparing a projection, usually for one year
and for five years.
* The developer has the benefit of the publisher's know-
ledge about adoption procedures and also of his pub-
lishing skills -- in editing, production, and design.
* . The developer benefits from the publisher's marketing
input. &
* The publisher has the opportunity to include the product
in his publishing plans.
Since the relationship between the developer and the publisher
should be in the nature of a partnership, it is mutually advantageous for
the two to share common goals with agreement on the basic principles
underlying the product, and with the conceptual and editorial goals
clearly spelled out.



IV-13
As alternative procedures to early agreement for developers
to benefit from publishers' knowledge and skills, we suggest these
possibilities: . .
* Collaboration between developer and publisher to an agreed
upon point in the development with publisher exercising right
of first refusal for further collaboration.
* For NIE or developer to engage consultants with educational
experience as advisors.
* Since several R&D laboratories have advisory boards that
include curriculum and subject-matter specialists, they
might include on their boards publishing specialists,
especially those with experience in managing an elhi
educational publishing firm or the elhi division of a
publishing firm. These specialists would be available to
the developers according to their wishes.
For the orientation of developers to educational publishing
and of publishers to the NIE research and development we suggest a
conference. For the conference, publishers would present the topics
concerned with publishing, and the members of the R&D staff would present
topics orienting publishers to NIE. As we have indicated, the purpose
of the conference is orientation. It is one way the publishers and the
research and development specialists can find out more about each other's
goals and procedures. Such a conference should help to close the infor-
mation gap.
Educational publishers are committed to research that will
benefit the educational community -- publishers included. From research
can come dependable information that all publishers can apply to the
improvement of instructional materials. -



IV-14
Commercial Publishers Interviewed by BCMA for This Report
ACI Media - Sage Publications
Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. - Science Research associates (IBM)
Allyn & Bacon, Inc. - Silver-Burdett Company (Scott Foresman)
American Book Company (Litton) Steck-Waughn (Intext)
Benziger Bruce & Glencoe (Macmillan) System Development Corp.
Bowmar Publishing (Thomson) - Viking Press (Penguin)
Citation Press (Scholastic) Webster Division, McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Doubleday Multimedia
Encyclopaedia Britannica Educ. Corp.
Fearon Publishers, Inc. (Pitman)
Follett Publishing Company O
Ginn and Company (Xerox)
Harper & Row, Publishers
Holt Rinehart & Winston (CBS)
Houghton Mifflin Company
imperial international Learning Corp.
Macmillan Publishing Co.
later Associates, Inc.
Materials for Today's Learning
McDougal-Littell Company
McGraw-Hill Book Company
McKnight Publishing Company
National Educational Laboratory Publishers
Rand McNally & Company
Random House School Division (RCA)



APPENDIX IV
TASK IV






Appendix to
Task IV Report
Counselling sessions between BCMA and selected NIE staff
members.
contract No. 400-76-0086



TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
Introduction tº * e . ... tº & * > dº tº - tº sº tº tº tº º e * } e * > º • e º tº * i-vi -
Task I: An analysis of the current PAS effort . . . . . . . . . . I. 1 — I 21
Appendix to Task I Report: Special study of the use of
PAS by developers other than the laboratories
and centers - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . I i – I xl
Task II: An analysis and evaluation of the alternatives
to PAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II 1 - II 6
* Appendix to Task II Report: Examples of alternatives
to PAS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . II i – II XXXi
Task III: Analysis of special problems associated with
"thin market" products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III 1 - III 2.0
O Task IV: Analysis of the potential role publishers could
perform in a consultant or working arrangement
with the Institute in regard to new development
activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV 1 – IV 14
Appendix to Task IV Report: Reports of counselling -
sessions with NIE staff Inembers . . . . . . . . . . . IV i – IV vi
Task V: Review of consumer interest and issues that
should modify or constrain any of the previous - -
policy recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W 1 – V ll
Task VI: Prepare a final summary of all of the recommen—
dations and activities required in the foregoing -
sections - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . VI 1 - VI 7
Prepared by BCMA Associates, Inc. for the National Institute
of Education under Contract No. 400–7 6–0086.
February 25, 1977


IV-i
Counselling sessions between BCMA and selected NIE staff members
Background
BCMA's proposal of April 23, 1976 contains this statement about
counselling sessions in the section on Task IV (pages 21-22):
In this Task the contractor is required to "counsel and
advise three to five Institute divisions with regard to a
single product they have under consideration for develop-
ment" and to provide written summaries. These sessions
are to be used as the basis for a Task 4 report that will
assess problems in the area of the early involvement in
development and propose possible solutions.
Following each counselling session, the BCMA representative
will write a report of the session, including those re-
commendations it seems advisable to make.
As the assignment progressed, we learned, upon inquiry, that
BCMA had misinterpreted the nature of these counselling sessions. We
had thought of them as advisory conferences with developers in the field
(i.e. laboratories, centers, other developers) rather than with NIE
project officers and their assistants, After this misunderstanding had
been straightened out, with the assistance of Dr. Richard Lallmang (who
was at that time BCMA's Project Officer) we set up conferences on
October 13-14, 1976 with various NIE groups. Reports of these counsel-
ling and discussion sessions follow:
1. Education and Work Group (October 13, 1976)
Albert D. Cunningham, Jr.
Norma McCord (from Anacostia Project, D.C. School System)
Lana Muraskin
George N. Sealey, Jr.
Discussion and counselling at this session focused mainly on
the Anacostia Project, designed to raise reading and mathematics skills
in the senior high schools, one junior high school, and eight elementary
schools in the Anacostia area, using regular teachers for remediation.
This is being accomplished through a combination of parent involvement,
teacher training in techniques, and management training.
For the most part, the instructional materials used are already
available commercially, but some have been specially developed for this



IV- i.i.
project. Members of the group expressed doubt that these locally-
developed materials would be useful elsewhere -- "They might sell only in
Anacostia" -- but BCMA pointed out that educational publishers are
always interested in materials for urban education and probably
would at least want to examine them. Why not submit some materials to
selected publishers?
It was mentioned that, in the main, new methods rather than
new materials are being developed in Anacostia, and that methods are
usually harder to transport to other locations than are materials.
BCMA agreed with this.
BCMA suggested that perhaps a book of general interest, or
more probably a professional "educator education" book, could be written
describing the new teaching, management, and parent involvement pro-
cedures, and pointed out again that urban education is an area of special
interest to educational publishers, and regarded as a growth area.
Note: During a conversation two months later with Dr. Sealey, BCMA was
told that NIE has been disappointed by the generally poor
quality of the materials that have emerged so far from the
Project, and that the materials have been returned to the
Project for further revision. Two or three of the items, how-
ever, have impressed Dr. Sealey favorably.
The balance of the session was devoted mainly to a brief dis-
cussion of Opportunities In Careers, Inc., a Philadelphia project funded
by NIE, Mr. Cunningham's special concern, and to general observations by
BCMA about the types of per-pupil materials, teacher-education, and pro-
fessional books, and special studies that could conceivably be of interest
to commercial publishers. Two points were stressed by BCMA: (1) the
large number and great variety of commercial publishers, many of which
are not concerned particularly about copyright protection, (2) the fact
that publishers are always on the look-out for materials to publish.
In conclusion, BCMA expressed a willingness to comment upon
potentially-publishable items brought to BCMA for review, and to suggest
publishers that might be interested.
2. Educational Equity Group (October 14, 1976)
Martin Milrod
Abdin Noboa
It was explained to BCMA that the Educational Equity Group was
concerned with "people whose special needs have been over-looked by pub-
lishers," with the activities of the Group divided into four sections --



IV-iii
multi-cultural and bi-lingual education; compensatory education; school
social relations; desegration studies. -
Discussion focused first on the proceedings of a conference
on bi-lingual education (published by Arowak) and a catalog of available
items (published by Educational Products Information Exchange). The
response to the latter has been good. A contract in response to the RFP
for a survey of multi-cultural assessment instruments has not yet been
awarded. What, if any, is the commercial potential in the catalogs,
reports, and studies resulting from the work of the Group? How should a
complete catalog of bi-lingual, bi-cultural items be published? Would a
commercial publisher be interested? Would the lengthy report to Congress
on compensatory education be of interest to publishers? What about the
"safe school study," concerning the incidence of violence in public schools,
and a study of "what really goes on in newly-desegregated school settings "
based on experience in six classroom sites?
BCMA expressed the opinion that, of the projects listed above,
the desegregation study would probably be of the most interest to a wide
range of publishers. The quality and clarity of the writing, as well as .
the content, would be an important factor (as they would be in all cases).
It was noted by the Group representatives that the quality of writing in
most reports and studies leaves much to be desired.
Another type of discussion was how free the Group would be to
approach commercial publishers. Would they always have to go first
through the Joint Committee on Printing and Government Printing Office?
The complexity and technicality of the rules and regulations were noted.
It was suggested that BCMA might wish to get acquainted with Richard
Werksman, a lawyer, and Timothy McCarthy, a public relations specialist,
both of whom are fully familiar with JCP/GPO procedures.
A special situation was mentioned -- the updating and revision,
aided by government funds, of a definitive work that had been published
commercially in its original edition (mentioned again to BCMA during a
later visit, along with a comment about the implications for NIE of the
new copyright law).
BCMA made these points:
1. It is possible, and in fact probable, that some reports and special
studies resulting from the Group's work should have wider dis--
semination through commercial channels than they would receive using
GP0 distribution,
2. The GPO catalogs, however, are read by publishers as well as by
interested individuals, and occasionally some item, despite its
public domain status, will be picked out and published commercially,



IV- iv
3. Copyright protection is not necessarily essential in some types of
commercial publishing. y -
4. There is a kind of adversary relationship between commercial publishers
and GPO, based on the belief that in some cases GPO is competing un-
fairly with commercial publishers.
5. OE-NIE has an obligation to make commercial publishers aware of po-
tentially-publishable products being developed with government funds
and to enable them to bid competitively for publication rights if they
are interested.
The members of the Group appeared to feel that experienced pub-
lishers could be of assistance to NIE in providing advisory and counsel-
ling service about publication procedures.
3. Learning Division (October 13-14, 1976)
Ned Chalker
Monte Penney
Thomas G. Sticht
BCMA spoke first with Ned Chalker alone, then with Ned Chalker
and Thomas Sticht together, and later alone with Monte Penney.
Since no specific projects were about to be launched, discussions
turned around this general question: What should NIE's role be in research
and development that might or might not lead to the production of materials
of interest to commercial publishers?
Should NIE's role be "big R and big D" or "big R and little d" or
"big R and no d"? Or should the government stay out of educational R & D
entirely? -
There ensued a discussion of whether or not, and/or at what point,
a developer should establish contacts with potential commercial publishers
before the product is finished. The opinion was expressed that too-early
contact with a marketing-oriented publisher could be unnecessarily in-
hibiting. On the other hand, finding a publisher after the product (es-
pecially a multi-grade, multi-component product) has jelled too much causes
even serious problems. The Aesthetic Education Program developed by
CEMREL was mentioned by BCMA as a case in point. -
Ö -
BCMA expressed the opinion that government-funded developers
should be working on products and programs to meet clearly established
needs that had not been adequately filled by commercial companies, or on
desirable new curriculum areas (again the Aesthetic Education Program was
cited) that no commercial company could be expected to establish on its own • O



O - IV-V.
BCMA noted that the successful NSF-funded products all were aimed at
established courses - biology, physics, earth science, elementary science -
that needed to be improved, but the teacher-training involved was beyond
the capacity of publishers. Also, certain substantive changes in content
would not have been accepted without the NSF imprimatur.
BCMA noted that developer/publisher relations are fundamentally
author/publisher relations, and that the best educational materials are
usually the result of a sound, give-and- take, intellectually rigorous
exchange of ideas among authors, editors, production people, and marketing
persons familiar with the practicalities of school purchasing procedures.
Relationships like this between the laboratories and centers (and some other
developers) and publishers have been developing during the past few years
in an atmosphere of growing mutual respect and understanding.
BCMA stressed the fact that publishers are unanimously agreed
that basic educational research is an appropriate function for NIE to
arrange and administer (far beyond their capacities, obviously) and also
emphasized that publishers do respond to the results of studies based on
practical as well as scholarly research, if the studies are appropriately
brought to the attention of school people. Publishers' reaction to the
Wesley report on the social studies was mentioned as a good example of
C’ response.
Publishers do a considerable amount of pioneering work on their
own initiative, but their capacity to do this is limited, and they get
little credit for it. The history of educational publishing is filled
with "prestige books" that failed miserably in the marketplace.
The newly-established Center for the Study of Reading at the
University of Illinois was mentioned. At the end of three years a pro-
fessional book for teachers on reading comprehension in the middle grades
should emerge, and should, like the Chall book a few years ago, have solid
commercial possibilities. Meanwhile, a series of papers that will be emerg-
ing from this new center are "potential best-sellers." BCMA said pub-
1ishers undoubtedly would be watching the work of the Center very closely.
Great interest was expressed in the work BCMA has done for CEMREL,
LRDC, and RBS, similar to the work done in the past for the privately-
funded Educational Research Council of America. (Note: a copy of the
Memorandum to School Publishers describing LRDC's New Primary Grades
Reading System later was sent to Monte Penney. See page II-ix of Appendix to Task II)
BCMA commented on the fact that one high-level consumer had
noted the dearth of teaching experiences among the staff members of a
1eading regional laboratory. It was indicated that the same seems to be
the case among NIE staff members, who also tend, as a group, not to be



IV-vi O
familiar with the educational publishing industry. Though very small in
dollar volume compared with really large corporations, the industry
consists of literally hundreds of independently-minded companies and
thousands of decision-making individuals. It is indeed complex.
4. A final word
The discussions during the above sessions, and the counselling
given by BCMA, were limited by the fact that the number of "new products
now under consideration for development" is very limited at the present.
time. Most of the suggestions made by BCMA were therefore of a general
Inature.










TASK W
REVIEW OF CONSUMER INTEREST AND
ISSUES THAT SHOULD MODIFY OR CONSTRAIN
ANY OF THE PREVIOUS POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS



TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction tº º • . * --> -> tºo - º gº - -> • º . - - º º -> cº • • e
Task I:
Appendix
Task II:
Appendix
An analysis of the current PAS effort . . . . . . . .
to Task I Report: Special study of the use of
PAS by developers other than the laboratories
and centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
An analysis and evaluation of the alternatives
tC) PAS º • e º e • º e e • - e º gº cº - º º º • •
to Task II Report: Examples of alternatives
to PAS º • • -> º e e cº • tº e e - e a <> º º º º º e
Task III:
Task IV:
Appendix
Analysis of special problems associated with
"thin market" products - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Analysis of the potential role publishers could
perform in a consultant or working arrangement
with the Institute in regard to new development
activities - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
to Task IV Report: Reports of counselling
sessions with NIE staff members . . . . . . . . . .
Pages,
i-vi.
I.1 — I 21
I i – I xl.
II 1 — II 6
II i – II xxxi
III 1 - III 20
IV 1 — IV 14
IV i – IV vi .
Task V:
Review of consumer interest and issues that
should modify or constrain any of the previous
policy recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
V 1 – V ll
Task VI:
Prepare a final summary of all of the recommen—
dations and activities required in the foregoing
- sections º • •e gº * > º º ( > º º cº º tº tº dº • * - • * >
VI 1 - VI 7
Prepared by BCMA Associates, Inc. for the National Institute
of Education under Contract No. 400–76–0086.
February 25, 1977



TASK V
REVIEW OF CONSUMER INTEREST AND ISSUES THAT SHOULD MODIFY
OR CONSTRAIN ANY OF THE PREVIOUS POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Definition of "consumer"
"Consumers" is defined in BCMA's proposal as "top school
administrators, curriculum directors, selected teachers, professors of
education, and officials in professional organizations." The proposal
notes particularly that these consumers "include decision-makers who
direct the examination and selection of instructional materials."
Interview selection problems
BCMA originally proposed to interview 30 representative con-
Sumers; this was reduced, in the amended proposal, to 15. Because there
are literally tens of thousands of consumers from among whom a choice of
interviewees had to be made, this task posed some special problems of
selection. In the first place, most consumers have little or no know-
ledge of the complex relationships among NIE, developers , and publishers
that are the subject of BCMA's study. There seemed to be little point
in interviewing consumers to whom we would have to give considerable
background explanation of these relationships before we could even start
the interviews. In the second place, although the percentage of con-
Sumers with adequate knowledge of the subject is relatively small, the
actual numbers are enormous in comparison with the other categories --
developers and publishers. The interviewing target was by no means so
clear and limited as it was with the laboratories and centers, the
"other developers," and the educational publishers. In the third place,
even those consumers who have some knowledge in the area of BCMA's study,
do not all share a common body of experience in this area with NIE and
with each other, as do developers and publishers.
Compensating factors
Three things compensated more than adequately for these dif-
ficulties, however, and made this task attainable. First, five of BCMA's
Associates have been in constant touch with consumers for many years and
have had numerous informal discussions with them about the subject being
studied. Second, in several previous BCMA assignments the question of
whether or not non-profit agencies, including agencies partly or entirely
financed by government subsidies, should distribute materials themselves
or through commercial publishers has been the central part of the assign-
ment. Third, many of the developers and publishers we interviewed have
been consumers in the past, and in some cases will be consumers again in
the future. Many developers and publishing executives have been teachers
and supervisors. For example, one executive of a leading publishing firm



V-2
was formerly superintendent of schools of a major state. And, of course,
all the developers and publishers we interviewed keep in constant touch
with consumers.
For these reasons, then, the Task 5 report actually reflects
comments from hundreds upon hundreds of consumers over a period of several
years, not merely comments from the consumers interviewed for this par-
ticular study. It also reflects continuing informal analysis throughout
the assignment by five of BCMA's Associates of the extraordinarily complex .
relationships among NIE, developers, publishers, and consumers.
Authors are people, not institutions
Generally speaking, consumers expect to buy educational materials
designed for per-pupil use from commercial publishers. They further expect
that these materials will have been written by identifiable individual
authors -- teachers, supervisors, and subject-matter and education
specialists in colleges and universities. The more sophisticated consumers
are aware that much authorial work is done by in-house editors employed
by educational publishers, particularly in the case of complex, multi-
component, multi-grade programs designed for elementary schools. Even so,
they expect these programs to reflect the practical experience in the class-
room, the subject-matter knowledge, and the professional understanding of
teaching methods of individuals in the education profession. Many consumers
do not react well to an educational program that has been developed by a
faceless institutional staff, no matter how prestigious the institution
may be. Authors, to them, should be people, not regional laboratories
or research and development centers. This reaction cropped up in one form
or another throughout our interviews, and not only in our interviews with
consumers. Publishers, for example, tended to talk about the people they
knew and had worked with among the developers. Developers talked about
individuals they knew and had worked with in publishing houses. The
institution was , in a sense, of secondary importance.
How much actual effect this reaction has had on whether or not
materials are adopted in a particular school situation is , of course,
impossible to quantify. Our feeling is that it has probably had some
effect, but not a great effect. Educational materials developed in a
laboratory or center and offered for sale by a commercial publisher are
evaluated in much the same way as are any other materials. That is ,
the consumers involved in the adoption decision make the best attempt they
can to decide on the grounds of quality, local needs, preferences,
adoption criteria, and price.
NIE and developers, however, should be well aware that, generally
speaking, educational consumers prefer to buy materials that are developed
by people (i.e. individual educators with known academic connections) rather



than by impersonal institutions. The products of government-funded
developers are more likely to receive favorable attention when the in-
dividual authorship is made plain.
Adoption regulations
A11 consumers involved in decisions about the purchase of in-
structional materials must make these decisions in conformance with local
and/or state regulations and restrictions of considerable complexity.
Although exceptions sometimes can be made, usually for experimental or
pilot projects, all instructional materials, no matter who the developer
may be, must comply with these regulations and restrictions before their
purchase will be approved by the school superintendent and ultimately
the school board of education. Obviously, quality, durability, course-of-
study applicability, availability of teachers' guides, consultant service,
and price are of major importance, but most adoption committees also must
pay especially close attention to such matters as balanced ethnic and
socio-econometric representation, avoidance of sexual and social stereo-
types, treatment of minority groups, treatment of sex and violence, atti-
tudes toward free enterprise, management, labor, government philosophy,
and political parties, treatment of science and religion, and so on.
Products and programs developed with the aid of government funds must pass
all these tests on the same basis as any other materials being considered
for adoption. One requirement still prevalent in most state and large-
city adoptions is that textbooks must be offered in a clothbound version
before they can be officially adopted. Though instructional materials may
be conceived and developed with boldness, most adoptions are made con-
servatively.
Some feel the federal government should keep out
Our experiences over a period of many years and our interviews
during the past six months make it quite plain that many consumers deeply
resent the involvement of the federal government in any way in the
development of educational materials. This does not necessarily mean
that they will refuse to consider such materials or to recommend them
for adoption, but merely that, for both cognitive and affective reasons,
they believe that educational materials should be developed entirely in
the private sector, not by government-funded agencies. This feeling is
tied in to some extent with states' rights. It is not an accident that
it runs highest in the Southeast and Southwest, the areas of the country
where state adoptions are most common. In those areas, particularly, any-
thing involving "the Feds" is automatically suspect.
One of the members of the BCMA project team working on this
assignment recalls vividly an inquisitorial session that took place in a
southern state some years ago concerning the adoption of a textbook pub-
lished by his company that had been developed with National Science Founda-
tion funds. He and one of his associates (the local manager) were summoned



W-4
(no other word quite fits) to a meeling or textbook purchasing directors
representing several southeastern and southwestern states to discuss
NSF's and the company's role in developing this particular textbook.
With a tape recorder going, these company representatives were
asked how much they had been dictated to by the developer as the book
was being created. The textbook directors were incensed to learn that
the contract had stated that all decisions about content would be made by
the developers, even though the publisher's representatives explained that,
despite this restrictive clause, the company's editors had still managed
to have some influence on the content. The representatives also explained
that their company had decided to make a bid on the project, because,
whatever the personal feelings of individuals in the company might be
about the propriety and merits of government-funded educational materials
development, the company's executives had unanimously agreed the book
would be a good one, and they wanted to publish it.
They further explained, that despite the problems involved in
negotiating (with a kind of "corporate author") a contract that required
NSF (and ultimately federal government) approval, the relationship between
developer and publisher was basically not much different from other author-
publisher relationships. The company's editors were working with a group
of individual authors to produce the best textbook they could. And they
had, as it turned-out, done a superb job.
Could the company, the textbook directors asked, have produced
just as good a textbook on its own (finding its own authors, etc.) at
less expense and sold it for a lower price than the textbook under dis-
cussion? The answer -- probably yes, but the changes in teacher attitudes
that NSF hoped to bring about could not have been accomplished without
the summer institutes for teachers established with NSF funds. Moreover,
a textbook with such substantial content changes could not have been so
widely sold in the absence of the NSF imprimatur. These achievements were
for beyond the capability of their company, or indeed of any educational
publishing house.
The reaction of the group to these explanations could be summed
up as : "Your textbook will be considered for adoption on the same basis as
those published by other companies, but we're still against government
involvement in textbook development."
This attitude was duplicated almost exactly during the course of
one of our recent consumer interviews in one of the largest and most in-
fluential state-adoption states. The opinion was specifically expressed
that the only reason materials developed with government funds in a certain
specialized field (mandated by the state) had been adopted in that state
was that no other comparable materials were available. According to our



V-5
interviewees, the state board includes several members who are opposed
to the adoption of any programs developed with government funds, in-
cluding those marketed by commercial publishers, because they fear special
pleading adversely critical of free enterprise.
Costs and prices
Relatively few consumers have any basis on which to compare the
costs of developing a program in a regional laboratory with the costs of
developing a similar program within a publishing house, using authors in
the normal manner. Some consumers, however, do understand that the money
spent by 1aboratories and centers on extensive field testing in the de-
velopment and prototype stages of major programs is far beyond the
capacities of most commercial publishers, as are the sheer dimensions of
some of these programs, and some believe that this can add significant
value to the final product. In general, however, they are unwilling (or
unable because of budget restrictions) to pay premium prices in comparison
with other materials for any extra educational value that government-funded
development projects may possess. One state superintendent, in fact, told
us that school people in that state often asked why they had to pay any-
thing at all for materials that had been developed with government funds
(i.e. taxpayers' money). Presumably, the product should go directly and
without charge from the developer to any schools that want to use it.
Consumers who have worked with publishers as authors or advisors
tend, as a group, to have a better understanding of the role government-
funded developers can fill, and particularly to realize that developers
can improve their results by working with publishers before their programs
have taken final or near-final form.
Concerns about possible waste
Some consumers obviously feel, although their feelings usually
are not based on much evidence, that a lot of taxpayers' money has been
spent on educational research and development that had no discernible
results. One developer, who also considers himself (in his role of parent)
as a consumer, said, "It's my money they're wasting, you know." He was
referring to the fact that, in his opinion, many of the products that had
been developed in the laboratory with which he is connected never should
have been undertaken in the first place.
Are publishers only marketers ?
Some consumers appear to feel, along with some developers, that
a publisher's function is only marketing, and that the development of
instructional materials should be done by presumably objective, untainted,
not-for-profit agencies. One experienced school administrator, who has



worked extensively with both publishers and developers, said: "The
laboratories should do what they do best, development, and the publishers
should do what they do best, marketing." This same administrator, as
the interview progressed, however, observed that "one trouble with the
laboratories is that so many people in them haven't had real teaching
experience," and later on remarked that "the publishers' salesmen and
consultants know more about what's going on in the schools than anybody
else." -
Actual costs, relative sosts, and publishers' profits
Consumers, like others who become familiar with the amount of
government money that has been invested in educational materials develop-
ment, tend to think of large total amounts, rather than in relative terms.
When they are reminded that the several hundred millions of dollars spent
during the past two decades by the government on educational research and
development, while a large sum in itself, is relatively small in comparison,
let us say, with the annual amount spent on public schools -- some $70
billion in 1975 -- or with the cost to date of developing and building B-1
bomber prototypes, they agree. But they probably continue to be of the
same opinion still: *
Many consumers' attitudes toward costs reveal their lack of
awareness of what a tiny percentage of the nation's overall expenditures
on schools actually goes toward the purchase of instructional materials
of all kinds -- no more than 2%, or around $1.4 billion in 1975 (out of
about $70 billion). This lack of awareness accounts in part for their
feeling that educational publishing is big business, in which a lot of
companies are making a lot of money. The annual figures released by the
AAP are often a revelation to consumers in this category. It is hard
for them to believe that any one of several dozen major corporations has
greater sales annually than those of the entire instructional materials
industry. - º
A depressing climate in the schools
All consumers' attitudes reflect the present depressing climate
in the schools -- teacher strikes, budget troubles, declining enrollments,
more teacher applicants than jobs, general uncertainty about education in
general and the role of schools in particular, and the so-called "back-to-
basics" trend. In such a climate it is difficult for any educator, no
matter how forward-looking, to recommend the adoption of a program, no
matter how promising and how innovative, that is more expensive and more
complex than competing materials in the same area, especially if it will
require additional teacher training. "You know," said one school superin-
tendent, discussing budgets with us, "'back-to-basics' really means buying
clothbound textbooks. That's all we can afford."



Special areas get attention
In special areas, however, especially areas in which federal
and state subsidies are available, consumers are willing to consider in-
novative materials, even though they may be relatively more expensive and
place extra demands on teachers. These areas include early- learning, slow-
learner education, bi-lingual and bi-cultural education, special education
for the handicapped, inner-city education, ecology, consumer education, and
business education. Almost any materials in these areas, including materials
developed with government funds, will get attention, if only because of
community pressure to do something. In fact, the question is sometimes asked:
"Why doesn't the government do more?" A11 these areas of special interest
are, not surprisingly, regarded as growth areas by educational publishers.
Establishing new curriculum areas
None of the areas mentioned, however, can now be regarded as
new curriculum areas, with the possible exception of bi-lingual and bi-
cultural education. Consumers are familiar with them, and generally re- *
sponsive to the need to take positive action. Establishing an entirely
new area in the curriculum, and particularly in the elementary curriculum,
is, however, an entirely different matter, no matter how powerful the
intellectual and sociological arguments in its favor may be.
The history of FLES -- Foreign Languages in the Elementary School - -
is a case in point. Few consumers question the demonstrated fact that young
children can learn foreign languages more easily than can older children and
adults. Nor do they question the proposition that learning a foreign
language is beneficial in a variety of ways. What they do question is
how to squeeze FLES into a basic curriculum that already includes reading,
other language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science, and where
to find teachers capable of handling such a program. After an initial
flurry of enthusiasm, based on intellectually solid grounds, FLES floune
dered and eventually failed.
In this report we are certainly not arguing a case for FLES, nor
for any specific program, but we are saying that many thoughtful consumers
will agree on this kind of activity as acceptable for government-funded
developers -- establishing desirable new curriculum areas and developing
new curriculum materials that school publishers, no matter how large their
resources, energy, and enthusiasm, could not hope to achieve on their own.
Concerns about a national curriculum
|
/
One feeling that influences many consumers' attitudes is genuine
concern that continued encouragement of educational research and develop-
ment activities funded by the federal government eventually would lead to a
national curriculum. A few consumers, however, appear to regard such an


W-8
eventuality as possibly desirable, possibly because it would reduce their
decision-making load: -
Lack of awareness of NIE-developer efforts
º
All our talks with consumers left the impression with us that
very few, if any, are fully aware of the nature and dimensions of the
NIE-developer effort. What they know about it, if anything, is limited
almost entirely to their own personal experience. The state superintend-
ent mentioned above who said that school people ask why they have to pay
for materials developed with taxpayers' money also said that school people
in that state, although they are very much aware of the research and
development center in their own state, know virtually nothing about the
work of regional laboratories and centers and other developers elsewhere.
Consumers who are somewhat aware of the amount of money that
has been spent by the government on educational research and development,
and who come to the conclusion that it is too much, are generally not
aware -- few people outside of publishing are -- of how much "research
and development" in the preparation of manuscripts takes place in the
private sector, and how relatively large this output is compared with the
amount that finally gets published. It is probable that the ratio of
success to failure in getting published is no worse with federally-
financed developers than it is with private-sector authors. It is , in
fact, possibly somewhat better, Also there is no disgrace in trying and
failing. As one NIE staff member said, "The way I see it, developers
should take what seems to be a good idea and do the very best they can
with it. They'll never get anywhere if they worry too much about failing
and not getting published.”
NIE's mission not clearly defined
One reason why consumers are not fully aware of the nature and
dimensions of the NIE-developer effort is that NIE, although obviously
aware of the dimensions of its effort, has never been itself entirely
clear about what the nature of its research and development effort is and
should be, and therefore, has never been able to explain the nature of
the effort fully and clearly to anyone, including BCMA. Said one publisher
who also has been a teacher, and who a few years ago almost went to work in
NIE: "I feel that NIE is the offspring of a love affair that now seems
irrelevant. What was, and what is, NIE's charter? It has never been
explained."
The developer/school/publisher triangle
Consumers who, for one reason or another, have been in the middle
of developer-school-publisher relationships tend to have a good understanding



W-9
of the respective roles that can be played by each party in this triangle.
A principal, close to the work of one of the centers, observed to us that
a center can offer a "support system" that no commercial publisher can
hope to equal, and that their methods of developing programs can provide
evidence of workability "that school boards now are demanding." He also
said that it is easier for developers than it is for commercial publishers
to get schools to cooperate in testing new approaches and trying out new
materials, and that a lot of developer/school/publisher experimental work
can go on if it is handled properly. "We've never had any trouble in our
school, because we were careful to avoid too much publicity."
Field testing, learner verification, "validation"
Consumers quite naturally ask for evidence that instructional
materials being offered for their consideration really work. The extensive
field testing conducted by many of the laboratories and centers, if the
program withstands the test favorably, presumably would be the most con-
vincing argument of all in favor of the program. This is by no means
always the case, however, One publisher we interviewed, seeking to offer
field-testigg evidence comparable to that offered by laboratories and
centers, spent several hundred thousand dollars conducting an elaborate
field test and survey of a major new elementary school program in advance
of publication. The test seems to have been well conducted, and the results
were favorable -- so favorable that it was used as the leading sales argument
in the first major brochure advertising the program. But the argument, the
publisher told us, fell almost completely flat; most adoptions were won or
lost on other grounds entirely.
One publisher, who at various times has been a teacher, super-
visor, and university professor, remarked, in response to questions about
field-testing and learner-verification, that "It is simply impossible to
'validate' a major new elementary-school program before the first edition
is published. It can only be 'validated' after the first edition has been
used under varying classroom conditions in different kinds of sehools over
a period of several years. The second edition therefore could be presented
with some evidence that it has been 'validated'." Essentially the same
point was made by a major developer when he said that he had always felt
that arrangements should be made to test his laboratory's products and
programs in near-final form.
Sophisticated consumers are generally aware of the attitudes
represented in the preceding paragraphs, some to the point of con-
siderable skepticism about field-testing claims. Several asserted, along
with developers and publishers, that a very few well-chosen, well-managed
field-testing sites are far more reliable than an impressively large number
of sites over which proper controls simply cannot be exercised. Sophisticated
consumers, like developers and publishers, also are convinced of the validity
of the comment that "new things in education always work -- the first time."



W-10
The so-called "Hawthorne effect" can be very powerful indeed!
In summary
There clearly are so many consumer attitudes and shades of
attitudes that no "consumer point of view" can be presented in this report.
Developers as a group, on the other hand, have certain attitudes and
experiences in common, as do educational publishers. Although there are
many differences of opinion in these two groups, there is also a certain
uniformity -- far more so, certainly, than among consumers.
The following consumer attitudes, however, representing various
important segments of opinion, should be recognized by NIE in making its
plans for the future.
Consumers, as a group, know very little about what NIE and
developers have been doing for the past decade. They should know more,
and it is clearly NIE's responsibility to inform them properly in the future.
When consumers hear about hundreds of millions of dollars being
spent on educational research and development, they wonder who is doing
exactly what, and why, with this money that has been collected from tens
of millions of millions of taxpayers, including themselves.
Consumers prefer to adopt materials that are written by individual
authors or groups of authors who can be clearly identified, rather than
those developed by faceless institutions. -
Many consumers believe, on philosophical and emotional grounds,
that the development as well as the marketing of instructional materials
should be left entirely in the private sector.
Many, perhaps most, consumers now appear to believe that the
array of instructional materials offered by educational publishers covers
all except very special needs.
The so-called "back-to-basics" trend combined with generally
depressed conditions in schools has dampened interest among consumers in
adopting innovative and expensive materials, especially, those requiring
extra teacher training.
A11 materials submitted for adoption consideration must comply
with complex rules and regulations before they can be approved for purchase.
Most adoptions are made conservatively. -
The more sophisticated consumers regard field-testing claims
with considerable skepticism.



W-11
This same group also tends to believe that developers and
publishers should get together earlier rather than later in the development
process.
Regardless of their feelings about public-sector versus private-
sector development, all consumers are willing to give attention to any
materials developed by anyone that meet needs in areas now being given
special attention -- early learning, bi-lingual education, etc. & etc.
Consumers who are aware that hundreds of millions have been spent
by the federal government on educational research and development do not
usually view this as small in comparison with total sums spent on education,
and on other federally-funded activities, but rather as large amounts in
themselves.
Very few consumers are fully aware of what a tiny percentage of
total school expenditures goes toward the purchase of instructional materials.
Some consumers appear to believe that schools should not have to
pay for any materials developed with taxpayers' money. s
Even more consumers believe in the more easily defended proposition
that, if there is a need that commercial publishers cannot or will not fill,
the government should step in and arrange to have suitable materials
developed and distributed, using any and all available channels.
A few consumers appear to believe that publishers are only marketers
and make little or no contribution to development.
The ultimate consumer
An important opinion expressed in various ways by many consumers,
and also by many developers and publishers (and shared by BCMA), serves as
a fitting conclusion to this report. "Sometimes I have the feeling that
we're not really paying enough attention to the ultimate consumer of
educational materials -- the individual child."



TASK VI








TASK WI
PREPARE A FINAL SUMMARY
OF ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTIVITIES
REQUIRED IN THE FOREGOING SECTIONS



"TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction tº e º Q - - - - - - - - - - - - • • - • . . tº e º º i-vi.
Task I: An analysis of the current PAS effort . . . . . . . . . I.1 – I 21
Appendix to Task I Report: - Special study of the use of -
PAS by developers other than the laboratories ->
and centers - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I i – I xl
Task II: An analysis and evaluation of the alternatives
to PAS e © © e º © © © º © G © o © e © Q e © º e © e II l º II 6 -
Appendix to Task II Report: Examples of alternatives z
to PAS e e e e º © © © © º º © - O ge e o • © º O © © © II i * º II xxxi
Task III: Analysis of special problems associated with -
"thin market" products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III 1 - III 2.0
Task IV: Analysis of the potential role publishers could
perform in a consultant -or working arrangement
with the Institute in regard to new development
activities - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV l - IV l 4
Appendix to Task IV Report: Reports of counselling -
sessions with NIE staff members . . . . . . . . . . . IV i – IV vi
Task V: Review of consumer interest and issues that
should modify or constrain any of the previous *
policy recommendations. • º © e © º © © Q- © -> © e tº º W l e- V ll
Task VI: Prepare a final summary of all of the recommen-
dations and activities required in the foregoing *
sections © e • *@ © © © ſº © © © © © º e º º © º © © © • . VI l cº-e WI 7
* * * **
- •º & sº.
- - -
Prepared by BCMA Associates, Inc. for the National Institute
of Education under Contract No. 400–76-0086.
February 25, 1977






WI-1
TASK VI. PREPARE A FINAL SUMMARY OF ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS AN
ACTIVITIES REQUIRED IN THE FOREGOING SECTIONS. *
In this Task VI report we will summarize briefly the main con-
clusions reached and the recommendations made in the reports for Task I
through Task W. -
TASK I. AN ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT PAs EFFORT
PAS was a commendable effort, developed after an earnest attempt
to reach a consensus among the various interested parties. Its costs were
certainly very modest in relation to NIE and grantee-contractor costs as a
whole, and relatively modest in terms of what PAS actually accomplished.
It was efficiently administered.
The purposes of PAS, though clearly enough stated, were never
explained sufficiently to developers, however, and instructions about
using PAS were inadequate.
The premises on which PAS was founded were never clearly understood
by developers and publishers, and the premises themselves were not entirely
sound. NIE did not fully understand the nature and complexity of the
publishing industry, and they relied initially for advice chiefly on trade
associations to which many hundreds of potential publishers of NIE-funded
products do not belong. -
The mechanism itself should have been improved in several ways.
The time lapse between the first draft (by the developer) and distribution
should have been no more than a month. Announcement preparation should
have been 1ess formal and more individualized. The mailing list should
have been enlarged and improved qualitatively.
Many of the 101 PAS announcements apparently described products
that had no real publishing potential of any kind, and some described
products that possibly made little or no real contribution to education.
Many products were never announced through PAS, of course. The vast
majority of NIE-funded programs and products were judged to have "little
commercial value." Nevertheless, it is NIE's obligation to make it as
easy as possible for developers to announce everything that appears to
have some publishing potential at an appropriate time (or times) to, in
the words of the Copyright Guidelines, "all interested parties." The
companies that receive the announcements should be the ones to decide
whether or not they wish to explore publishing possibilities. The im-
portance on notifying everyone about everything is underscored by the
fact that on several occasions publishers' unfavorable reactions to PAS
announcements spurred developers on to attempt to make their products more
acceptable in the educational marketplace.



* O
- In BCMA's opinion, PAS as an "announcement mechanism" attained
its specified objectives reasonably well, but fell considerably short of
attaining the objectives that NIE should have established for it.
TASK II. AN ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES TO PAS
In BCMA's opinion, there are six possible alternatives to the
PAS announcement system as it was structured between August 1970 and
January 1976. We are listing them here in reverse order of preference.
1. Forgo an announcement mechanism entirely and place the burden
of finding publishers entirely on the shoulders of developers as part of
their grant requirement.
2. Improve the PAS system as it existed until January 1976. The
time 1apse between the developer's first draft and the distribution of
the announcement should be no more than a month. Announcements should be
less formal and more individualized. The mailing list should be enlarged
and improved qualitatively.
(Note: Neither of these alternatives is, in BCMA's opinion acceptable,
though the second certainly is preferable to the first.)
3. Provide developers with a comprehensive mailing list with
appropriate selection criteria and maintenance provisions, and require
them to use it according to certain regulations.
4. Modify the PAS structure - drastically by requiring all developers
to announce all products earlier, and at least twice, in simpler, less
formal bulletins distributed to the same mailing list as in alternatives
three and six. 3.
5. Announce all government-funded projects "for the record" in
a widely-read journal or journals acceptable to a consensus of representa-
tive publishers.
6. Announce a11 government-funded projects through a special news-
1etter distributed regularly to fi comprehensive list of publishers.
In addition to these six alternatives, BCMA recommends that con-
sideration be given to a seventh -- combining either three, four, five,
or six with a special personalized effort to assist developers of major
programs designed for per-pupil use to find suitable publishers. -



WI-3
TASK III. ANALYSIS OF SPECIAL PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH "THIN MARKET"
TASK IV. ANALYSIS OF THE POTENTIAL ROLE PUBLISHERS COULD PERFORM IN A
CONSULTANT OR WORKING ARRANGEMENT WITH THE INSTITUTE IN REGARD
To NEW DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES.
Since Task III concerning "thin market" products and Task IV
concerning NIE relationships with publishers are closely related, the
summaries usually apply to both tasks. The reports we have prepared for
these two tasks are problem oriented. They reflect our pragmatic responses
to a series of problems that NIE faces in its development and dissemination
program.
Among the reasons for the problems according to our analysis
are these:
The dichotomy of separating product development from the edu-
cational publishing process.
The response of publishers to the developers' requests for
proposals has not lived up to expectations for several reasons, ,
including the "back-to-basics" trend and the depressed budgets for
books, and, no doubt in some instances, to the nature of the
products, including those that publishers consider to be
"thin market". º
The inclination of the developers often to equate need for a
product according to their analysis with effective demand for
it by the practitioners...who select and purchase instructional
materials, or - to state the problem in another way - the
assumptions on the part of developers that if they developed
a product which to them fulfilled a need the publishers with
their marketing capability would create an effective demand
for it.
Perhaps, too, the developers underestimated the time lag
between the development of innovative instructional materials
and the acceptance of them by the educational community. Even
the concept of instructional materials R&D is new to many
of the educational community.
It has taken time for both publishers and developers to begin
to perceive their solid core of shared interests.
The current "return-to-basics" climate and recent studies such
as the Impact of Educational Innovations on Student Performance
do not encourage the educational community to introduce in-
novative products.



WI-4
Conclusions and Recommendations
To analyze the problems associated with the marketing of "thin
market" products, we suggest that the analysis be focused on three
types of educational publishing: the publishing of instructional
materials for classroom use usually on a per-pupil basis; the pub-
lishing of professional publications and other types of materials usually
for the use of the practitioners; and the publishing of research reports,
monographs, and other reports whose main purpose is the cross transfer of
knowledge.
For consideration we also suggest that the term "thin market"
products or materials may have served its purpose except possibly for
"thin markets" where the materials are not available from publishers
because they are not a commercially viable product; for example, bi-
lingual products, and the Alaskan readers.
In the development of curriculum materials the developers can
increase their publishing possibilities by taking into consideration the
average per-pupil expenditure for instructional materials, and the con-
ventional wisdom of district and state selection and adoption rules and
regulations. A shared interest of both publishers and developers in per-
pupil expenditures is a topic we suggest to NIE for study.
Because there is often a gap between the development of innovative
instructional materials and their acceptance by the educational community,
we recommend that NIE and the R&D laboratories and centers, and other
developers engage in teacher education workshops and teachers institutes
devoted to new theories of learning, to strategies for innovation, and
to new methods. These workshops and institutes should help to develop a
climate for innovative instructional materials during this "back-to-basics"
trend. -
We suggest that in-service educational materials that have been
developed but not published be evaluated by advisors who direct in-service
teacher education.
In the interests of NIE's dissemination effort we recommend for
consideration publications including monographs that will advance knowledge,
but whose potential circulation may require financial assistance to secure
a publisher whether that publisher be an R&D laboratory or center, a
university press, or a commercial publisher who specializes in such ventures.
This financial assistance may be available from several sources including
NIE, The Guidelines, it seems to us, describe the procedures for sub-
mitting to publishers the type of publications we have described.
For the wider dissemination of information about the products, and
especially of the reports of the R&D laboratories and centers, we suggest
that the information in catalogs and bulletins issued by the laboratories
O



WI-5
and centers be consolidated into a single publication and be made
available to a mailing list that includes state school officers, the
administrators and curriculum coordinators in the districts, the staff
members of teacher education departments, and on request.
We also recommend that NIE publish and distribute to a similar
mailing list, a newsletter that includes digests of the research and
evaluation reports Written for the practitioners rather than for the
research specialist. This newsletter will enable those practitioners
who select and adopt instructional material, to be informed about pro-
duct development from concept to product.
All of the foregoing proposals are focused on the problems
usually associated with "thin market" products.
Since NSF launched PSCS there has been a continuous exchange
between publishers and the staff of NSE, NIE and OE, and other agencies
engaged in research and development. Of the publishers we interviewed
almost all had one or more products on their list that had been developed
with federal funds. -
Communications between developers and publishers have kept the
publishers informed about the NIE research and product development.
During our interview with developers and publishers there was
fairly uniform consensus on the advantages of an early publishing agree-
ment between the two parties - even as early as the conceptual stages as
several developers and publishers said. .
An early agreement between developers and publishers has several
advantages including these: the developer has an agreement with a
publisher -- the developer has the benefit of the publisher's knowledge
of the state of the art and of publisher's technical capabilities, the
publisher has the benefit of the developer's innovations and field test-
ing. Both publisher and developer benefit from the early involvement
of the publishing staff in the project.
In the publisher and the research and development equation there
are too many variables to predict the response of educational publishers
to the developers' requests for proposals. However, a request for a
proposal that gives publishers an opportunity to contribute their input
enhances the possibilities for collaboration. *
For the benefit of a mutually advantageous collaboration at an
early stage, the terms of the agreement should be reached by mutual
consent with the responsibility of each for a final decision -- clearly -
defined. The agreement should protect the developer's role and take
advantage of the publisher's editorial capability.



WI-6
The R&D laboratories and centers could possibly offer publishers
the opportunity to submit proposals for collaboration with the developers --
a proposal suggested to us by the director of an R&D laboratory.
For your consideration we also recommend a collaboration between
publishers and developers where the publisher at a clearly defined stage
in the development of the product has the right of first refusal. This
clearly defined stage is included in the terms of the agreement. Either
party can propose the stage where the publisher has right of first refusal.
Another option the developers have to secure the publishers'
experience and technical skills is to appoint publishers no longer attached
to a firm as members of their advisory boards. As members of the advisory
boards, they would be available for temporary duty consultation on the
same basis as curriculum specialists.
Although educational publishers may not be of the same mind about
federally funded instructional materials development, there does seem
to be a consensus among them about the need for federally funded and
sponsored educational research that will benefit the educational com-
munity, including publishers. Publishers were among the pioneer advocates
of educational research.
TASK W. CONSUMER INTEREST AND ISSUES THAT SHOULD MODIFY OR CONSTRAIN
ANY OF THE PREVIOUS POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
"Consumers" are defined in these reports as teachers, supervisors,
administrators, and other educators who play some role in making or in-
fluencing decisions about the selection and purchase of instructional
materials for use in schools (pre-kindergarten through grade 12) and in
college and university departments and schools of education.
There are so many consumer attitudes and shades of attitudes that
no single "consumer point of view" can be presented.
The following consumer attitudes and opinions, however, should be
recognized by NIE in making its plans for the future.
Consumers, as a group, know very little about what NIE and de-
velopers have been doing for the past decade. They should know more, and
it is clearly NIE's responsibility to inform them properly in the future.
When consumers hear about hundreds of millions of dollars being
spent on educational research and development, they wonder who is doing
exactly what, and why, with this money that has been collected from tens
of millions of taxpayers, including themselves.
Consumers who are aware that hundreds of millions have been spent O
by the federal government on educational research and development do not
usually view this as small in 'comparison with total sums spent on education,
and on other federally-funded activities, but rather as large amounts in
themselves.



VI-7
Few consumers are fully aware of what a tiny percentage of total
school expenditures goes toward the purchase of instructional materials.
Some consumers appear to believe that schools should not have to
pay for any materials developed with taxpayers' money.
Consumers prefer to adopt materials that are written by individual
authors or groups of authors who can be clearly identified, rather than
those developed by faceless institutions.
A11 instructional materials * for adoption consideration
must comply with complex rules and regulations before they can be approved
for purchase. Most adoptions are made conservatively.
The so-called "back-to-basics" trend combined with generally de-
pressed conditions in schools has dampened interest in adopting innovative
and expensive materials, especially those requiring extra teacher training.
Many, perhaps most, consumers now appear to believe that the
array of instructional materials offered by educational publishers covers
all except very special needs. -
Many consumers believe, on conceptual and/or emotional grounds,
that the development as well as the marketing of instructional materials
should be left entirely in the private sector.
Regardless of their feelings about public-sector versus private-
sector development, all consumers are willing to give attention to any
materials developed by anyone that meet needs in areas now being given
special attention -- early learning, bi-lingual education, etc. & etc.
Most consumers probably agree that, if there is a need that com-
mercial publishers cannot or will not fill, the sº. should be allowed
to step in and arrange to have suitable materials developed and distributed,
using any and all available channels.
The more sophisticated consumers regard field-testing claims with
considerable skepticism. -
This same group also tends to believe that developers and publishers
should get together earlier rather than later in the development process.
Only a very few consumers appear to believe that publishers are only
marketers and make little or no contribution to development.
The ultimate consumer
An important opinion expressed in various ways by many consumers,
and also by many developers and publishers (and shared by BCMA), should be
noted particularly. "Sometimes I have the feeling that we're not really
paying enough attention to the ultimate consumer of educational materials --
the individual child." g



ſiliili
RSITY OF MIC
015 05837 64
3. Q -