Guidelines for Selection of Materials in English Language Arts Programs

Approved by the NCTE Executive Committee, April 30, 2014

Instructional materials are essential tools in the English language arts classroom.
They allow students to interact with words, images, and ideas in ways that develop their
abilities in multiple literacies such as reading, listening, viewing, thinking, speaking,
writing, and technology. Because instructional materials are a primary resource for
English language arts teachers, they must be selected wisely.

The cornerstone of consistent, pedagogically sound selection practices is a clear,

written policy for the selection of materials in the English language arts program. Such a
policy not only helps teachers to achieve program goals, but also helps schools protect
the integrity of programs increasingly under pressure from censors, propagandists, and
commercial interests.

Because selection policies should reflect local interests and issues and should be
consistent with other locally developed policies and curriculum documents, NCTE
provides no “boilerplate” to be used as a model by local schools. However, NCTE
strongly recommends that English language arts teachers and school boards use the
following guidelines to develop or review policies for inclusion of materials in English
language arts programs.

Scope of the Policy for Selection of Instructional Materials

What do we mean by “instructional materials”? In the past, the answer might

have been simply textbooks and workbooks. Today, however, the range has broadened
considerably, including young adult and graphic novels, informational text, websites,
and ever-changing technology. The focus of this document, then, is not on selection in
the narrow sense of textbook adoption, but on curriculum and program planning that
entails selection of a wide range of materials, both print and digital, that can be used in
whole-class study, small-group work, and by individual students in extensive study.

As schools clarify the scope of the policy, they should consider not only
purchased materials, but also materials that are provided online as well as those
generated by the teacher and even the students (e.g., student writings discussed in
class or small groups). Also, the scope of the policy should not unwittingly stifle
spontaneity and creativity in teachers by requiring a formal selection process for all
materials used for instructional purposes. Sometimes the most effective learning
experiences are those that make use of unanticipated instructional materials: a letter to
the editor, a blog or tweet, for instance, or a newly released video version of a literary
work read by the class.
 It is important, too, to distinguish between selection of materials and censorship
of materials. (See NCTE’s Statement on Censorship and Professional Guidelines.)
Selection of instructional materials is part of sound program planning. Needless to say,
careful selection is a powerful buffer against challenges because it assures that the
program planning process was thoughtful and not haphazard. NCTE has previously
published many materials on responding to challenges, recommending that orderly
procedures be followed when an objection to instructional materials is made.

Criteria for Selecting Materials

Each school should develop its own criteria for selecting materials for inclusion in
English language arts programs, but virtually all criteria relate to two general
requirements for selections: materials must (1) have a clear connection to established
educational objectives and (2) address the needs of the students for whom they are
intended.

Connection to Educational Objectives

Instructional materials in the English language arts program should align with the
general philosophy of the school or district, the curriculum goals and objectives of the
English language arts program, and the learning outcomes of the particular course or
grade level. For instance, some materials may be included because they reflect the
school’s philosophy of encouraging critical thinking in relation to controversial situations
and points of view. Or materials may be included because they meet the curriculum
objective of presenting articulate voices from different eras or diverse cultures. Or they
may be included to address specific learner outcomes, such as understanding how
imagery can underscore theme. As an example, Khaled Hossein’s The Kite Runner may
serve all of these purposes while Markus Zusak’s The Book Thief may serve only some
of them. However, because both of these high quality works have a clear connection to
educational objectives of the school, both might be included in the English language
arts program. Publishers and policymakers have found it easier than ever to compile
national lists of “standards-aligned materials” because of Common Core State
Standards (CCSS). While such lists may provide insight and guidance, decision-making
about the selection of materials should still be shaped by local goals and objectives.
Adoption of such lists may also hinder teacher-generated lessons and materials and
rigid adherence to such lists limits the inclusion of timely materials that are often
powerful teaching tools for any number of standards.

Policies should also reflect the understanding that an English language arts
program is not one instructional resource, but many; not one curriculum objective, but
several. Therefore, English language arts policies should seek to build a collection of
instructional materials that as a whole create balance and emphasis in the curriculum.
Clearly, no single textbook or set of instructional materials will meet the curricular goals
of presenting various points of view, situations, and styles; addressing diverse ability
levels; and representing the contributions of people of diverse religions, ages, races,
ethnicity, abilities, and cultures. Nonetheless, the collection of materials in the English
language arts program as a whole should address all of these concerns and should
emphasize those which teachers, as informed professionals working within the district’s
philosophical framework, find particularly important.

Finally, materials must be selected with an eye toward coordinating instruction

within and between grade levels, courses, and disciplines. For example, students who
read or watch Suzanne Collins’ The Hunger Games in social studies, English, and
health are getting too much of a good thing. So are the students who reported studying
Frost’s “Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening” every year in grades 7-10. By
contrast, teachers of junior English cannot draw on students’ shared literary background
if teachers at earlier levels have used a potpourri of unarticulated works. This is not an
argument for a fixed, lock-step curriculum but for a collegial sharing of goals and ideas
for instructional materials as teachers engage in the process of selecting materials.

With the adoption and implementation of the CCSS, much emphasis has been
placed on the need to use complex texts with students, leading to requirements for
selection procedures to incorporate this dimension as an expectation of educational
objectives. The concept of increasing text complexity over time is not new to English
language arts teachers, while qualification of what is meant by “text complexity” in
CCSS terms is new and must be considered. Appendix A of the CCSS attempts to
clarify that text complexity should be determined by three “equally important
components”: quantitative measures (assessed by readability formulas measuring
sentence length and word frequency to assign Lexile or grade levels); qualitative
measures (assessed by adults measuring content, structures, knowledge demands, and
clarity); and by reader and task considerations (assessed by teachers weighing
knowledge of individual readers’ motivation, experiences, background knowledge and
considering the complexity of task(s) associated with a text (p. 4, 2010).
Misinterpretations about determining text complexity are common, with publishers, state
and local policy leaders focusing more heavily on the quantitative dimension and
Lexile/Readability levels. Over-dependence on quantitative measures of text complexity
is erroneous on behalf of publishers and policy leaders and perilous on behalf of
students. Teacher expertise is clearly privileged within the CCSS criteria to make text
complexity determinations using qualitative and reader/task considerations and requires
the careful deliberation of those selecting materials.

Relevance to Student Needs

 Materials should be examined for level of difficulty. They must be readable if they
are to be truly accessible to students. Because readability formulas tend to be simplistic
measures, such formulas should be used cautiously, if at all. Teachers’ judgments
about the difficulty of a work are more soundly based on complexity of plot,
organization, abstractness of the language, familiarity of vocabulary, and clarity of
syntax. Also, because the average classroom includes students reading at several
levels of proficiency, materials judged as inappropriate for whole-class instruction might
be suitable for small-group use or for independent reading by more capable readers.

Reading materials which draw upon students’ backgrounds are desirable. Both
comprehension and engagement are enhanced when students can activate relevant
background knowledge as they read, connecting their personal experiences with
vicarious experiences. This does not deny the value of reading about the unfamiliar and
even the fantastic. But the relevance of a work to students’ daily lives or to the lives of
their imaginations is worthy of consideration in the selection process.

“Age-appropriateness” alone is never sufficient reason to include particular

materials in the English language arts program; nevertheless, materials should be
suited to the maturity level of the students for whom they are intended. Evaluating “age-
appropriateness” can be problematic, but legal decisions have provided some guidance
in this area. Generally, when courts evaluate the age-appropriateness of material, they
do not consider it in isolation. They weigh the value of the material as a whole,
particularly its relevance to educational objectives, against the likelihood of a negative
impact on the students for whom it is intended. That likelihood is lessened by the
exposure the typical student has had to the controversial subject or manner of
presentation. A negative impact is also less likely if the typical student of that age is
sufficiently mature to view the subject or manner of presentation within the context of
the overall purpose of the work. When these mitigating factors exist and the material
serves a legitimate pedagogical purpose, courts consider the material age-appropriate.
For instance, one court found the overall merit of a particular magazine article to
outweigh the potentially negative impact of the author’s repeated use of a profane
expression (Keefe v. Geankos, 1969). The court noted that seniors in high school were
“not devoid of all discrimination or resistance” and doubted that students of that age had
been or could be protected from exposure to such expression.

Procedures for Selection of Instructional Materials

Good schools, recognizing the importance of support from parents and the
community, operate within a framework for democratic decision making. Materials
selection and challenged materials policies are important parts of that framework. Well-
established procedures for selecting instructional material ensure public involvement
and professional guidance. Therefore, it is essential that materials selection policies
clearly describe the steps involved in the selection process and the personnel
responsible for each step.

Responsibility for Selection

Selecting materials requires in-depth knowledge: not just of students’

backgrounds and learning experiences, but also of their abilities and interests; not just
of educational objectives, but of the best practices and range and quality of materials for
meeting them; not just of the particular work being considered, but of its place within the
medium, genre, epoch, etc., it represents. In short, responsible selection demands not
only the experience and education needed to make sound choices but also the ability to
defend the choices made.

This level of expertise can be found in the English language arts professional.
Therefore, although administrators and school boards are often legally charged with the
responsibility of selecting instructional materials, this responsibility should be delegated
to English language arts professionals.

Selection Procedures

Selection procedures may vary in terms of the size of the group, nonteacher
participants, and schedules, but certain elements are important. In general, selection is
most appropriately done by the English language arts teachers who are closest to the
students–that is, by teachers at the building level. The group’s charge must be clearly
specified and understood by all. The process should be part of the school’s annual
schedule, and adequate time must be set aside for the work at hand.

As part of its evaluation process, the selection group should discuss every work
under consideration for inclusion, giving extended attention to materials that are likely to
be assigned for whole-class use. However, good English language arts programs
typically involve classroom libraries and extensive reading lists that individualize and
expand student choices. Consequently, selection often makes use of published reviews
of materials and opinions of informed peers, including district language arts
coordinators, librarians, and leaders in professional associations.

All selections should be made on the basis of the materials’ strengths in terms of
the selection criteria. Once selections are made, the selection group should be
encouraged to maintain a file of written rationales, if only in the form of meeting notes,
which explain how selections meet the selection criteria.

The selection criteria should be made public in written form. The actual materials
selected will become known in due time through course syllabi, booklists circulated to
students and parents, and various assignments. But the list of materials can be made
available for comments by students, parents, and the public at any time, with the
understanding that further informal selection and changes are sometimes made as
teachers perceive numerous opportunities during the course of the year to better meet
students’ needs through other materials.

Opportunity for Informal Selection

Creative teachers take advantage of opportunities to use materials which do not

lend themselves to the formal selection process e.g., current online newscasts,
websites, videos, blogs, e-books, articles, student writing samples, or materials for
short-term projects. Such supplemental materials may be selected by the appropriate
instructor; but again they must meet the general selection criteria of educational
relevance and ability to meet student needs.

This position statement may be printed, copied, and disseminated without

permission from NCTE.

Source: https://ncte.org/statement/material-selection-ela/