Karl Wick:
> Sanford,
>
> Would it be feasible to take the work done on the US
> Constitution and Government and/or US History books
> and
> adapt it to fit the CA state standards in place of
> the
> World History Project ?
Daniel Ehrenberg:
I don't think we should focus on standards. It
would
be better to focus on making good textbooks. To be
realistic, public schools would probably not use our
books, but there is a chance that private schools or
homeschoolers (the ones that don't use more radical
methods) would use them. These groups don't
particularly like books that were formulaically
constructed around state standards.
I think that's a possibility. **As long as the framework standards are
adhered to**, the book should pass California (and many other states) peer
review. Note that the California frameworks are considered to be very
progressive, and thorough, even by institutions that are outside the public
school system, including home and private schools.
If you look at the frameworks for just about any course, they're really
quite thorough. The beauty of open source content is that a lot more
creativity and variety can be placed around state-approved curriculum
frameworks. In this scenario, everyone wins. In fact, I know several home
schoolers - both in and out of California - who use California K-12 textbook
as part of their home-based curriculum.
Further, it's not at all accurate to say that home schoolers and private
schools eschew state-approved books. I spent 15 years in the academic school
book business; both home and private schools use "state-approved" books in
very large numbers.
The whole idea behind the Wikipedia K-12 textbook project is to create open
source K-12 textbooks. yes, it's well within the realm of possibility to
create K-12 books that don't adhere to state frameworks. Personally, I think
that would be a massive strategic mistake that leads to gross
inefficiencies.
Sure, *some* private schools and some home schools might chose to use
non-framework books; however, the *vast* amount of good that could be done
by providing *better, cheaper, more flexible* content scenarios to *10's of
millions* of students, worldwide, would be lost. We would not be able to use
these materials in public schools. Millions of public school students would
lose out - many of these students are from poor districts, which badly need
quality content that is affordable.We also need to realize that the content
created to state framework standards would be used by countries like India
and China, who look to approved framework-standard materials in English to
teach their students (many schools teach the native tongue, and English,
simultaneously).
The argument for writing to a state framework standard is unassailable,
especially in distributed, open, content environments. The fact is that is a
book is written to a framework standard, it *will* be used by public
institutions, and internationally. It *will* also be used by private and
home schools (even some of the radical ones). Those private and home schools
who want to variate Wikipedia K-12 content (picking and choosing and
modifying what they want) would be able to do so, and/or add their own open
source contributions to make it fit their exact needs. Thus, choosing to
ignore state frameworks in this project severely reduces it's overall
impact. Writing to state framework standards is clearly the only way to go,
*if* we want to make the largest difference possible.
Let's do this project right, and create a K-12 textbook publishing
revolution that makes a real difference, changes the way K-12 content is
sourced and distributed, and sets an example - worldwide - that is nothing
short of a gold standard.
Sanford