What it all Means

A recurring theme through out the reports is the prominence of textbooks as the basis for much of the curriculum that is actually taught in science, social studies, and mathematics class rooms (Helgeson and others, 1978; Stake and Easley, 1978, Vol. II, p. 15-5; Weiss, 1978, p. 102; Wiley and Race, 1977, p. 79). Some of the materials pro duced with NSF sponsorship are well accepted; for example, BSCS biology is used in about 40 percent of schools (Helgeson and others, p. 26). Most NSF materials, however, are not widely used (Wiley and Race, p. 323). Some might say that NSF programs are re sisted because the assumption on which they are based—that developers can create programs for others to "implement"—is mistaken. According to this view, teachers must be involved in de veloping their own curriculum, and the low usage rate of NSF-sponsored materials proves they will not use curriculums planned by others. That teachers must be involved in curriculum planning is almost beyond dispute in ASCD circles. However, the notion that development must be done at the local level does not square with findings of the re ports that teachers use textbooks (which are not locally designed) as the basis for their curriculum. Most teachers will probably continue to plan their instruction around materials produced by others. What they want are ma terials that they consider usable in every sense—academically sound but practical, suitable for students with varying back grounds and abilities, and adapt able to a variety of purposes and