Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
but for things like Israeli history (I'm not sure if Alex was reffering to page history or actual history, I haven't read his message yet), there is widespread disagreement about basic underlying facts, not to mention people's motives, both of which are essential to creating a good textbook. To represent both of these views in a single textbook could be confusing to many kids below the college level (not all of them, but a significant amount). At the elementary school level, simplification to a DPOV is absolutely necessary so that all of the kids in the class can follow it.
Well, I don't agree with this at all. But until we actually face a concrete example where NPOV is impossible or too burdensome, we should proceed under the assumption that it's our policy and we're sticking to it.
Textbooks for young children need to be clear and simple, something which NPOV has a deficiency in.
I don't agree that there's any _necessary_ tension at all between neutrality and clarity and simplicity. The argument that "we have to be biased, because bias is the only thing simple enough for kids to understand" strikes me as completely spurious.
possible POVs on the topic. We could also write a little about other POVs, but within actual textbooks, we can't give them equal time.
This is where I don't think you really understand NPOV. NPOV does not require 'equal time'. It's perfectly NPOV to limit the scope of a particular book or chapter or article to a specific topic, and to write about that topic in a neutral manner.
--Jimbo