[Textbook-l] distinct books

[Sanford Forte]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel Ehrenberg" <littledanehren at yahoo.com>
To: <textbook-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] distinct books


> > This is all good stuff. The way it works in
> > California is as follows (I
> > would assume it's similar in most of the other large
> > states):
> >
> > 1) after a publisher readies a book, it has to pass
> > a textbook committee
> > review to make sure that it conforms to the
> > frameworks.
> >
> > 2) Once a book has been approved, it's available for
> > any district to adopt.
> > The districts have their various curriculum experts,
> > teachers, interested
> > parents, etc. determine what's the best fit for the
> > district. btw, it's more
> > complex at K-5 [elementary school], where amorphous
> > 'topics' like 'language
> > development' take on the flavor of entire integrated
> > programs, and are more
> > complex, (but ideally suited to open content
> > development).
> >
> > So, this is one way it gets interesting is with open
> > content developed in
> > modular format via Wikipedia. It turns out that
> > many, many excellent
> > teachers have developed very good materials on their
> > own over the years.
> > Often, this material is published by a district, and
> > distributed to all the
> > schools in that district.
> >
> > If a specific book is published via Wikipedia to
> > adhere to standards, once
> > the content is approved at state level, various
> > districts could either
> > self-publish, or request that a commercial publisher
> > include those teacher
> > materials specific to the district that had been
> > published by Wikipedia.
> > This would save time, money, and other resources -
> > not to mention the
> > benefit that(again, I would start with one
> > (recommending California), and
> > migrate to many...in fact, eventually, one could tag
> > various modules within
> > a 'book' as specific to one or another state, and go
> > from there).
> >
> > This is just one advantage of the modular approach,
> > from a practical
> > 'on-the-ground' approach. There are many others.
> >
> > Sanford
>
> That's not how I heard it. After reading ''The
> Language Police'' by Diane Ravitch, I have a clear
> view of why my textbooks (as in at school, not at
> wikibooks) are so dull.
>
> First, the textbook companies self-censor for the PC
> left and religious right in order to get the big
> contracts with the state and to not get sales hurt by
> a big lawsuit, initiated by a disgruntled pastor or
> feminist who doesn't like the fantasy in Aesop's
> fables or the imbalance in the roles of women as
> compared to men in history. These lawsuits are
> consistantly lost by the parents who want to censor
> the books, but it is enough for the textbook to stop
> selling almost completely. The textbook companies
> don't like this, so they self-censor.
------------
The publishers self-censor for lots of reasons. One of them is for the
reason you mention. Others have to do with 1) an obsessive preoccupation
with lowest-common-denominator grammar; 2) lowest-common-denominator content
[somewhat related to your point]; 3) the fear that not pleasing everyone
[which is impossible] will lose the 'big' state textbook adoptions, which
the publishers need to break even (the gravy in made in the smaller states)

> Often three, two, or even only one textbook is
> approved in a state as big as California, and they're
> not forced to accept every textbook that just meets
> standards. They want to accept only textbooks that
> will prevent big public outrage. And they do have
> standards mandating gender-neutral language and such,
> but those aren't as harsh as the censorship the
> textbook companies themselves use.
------------------------
Yes, it's true that that sometimes only one book passes peer review at the
state level, but that's not often the case. Usually, there is a fairly large
choice. (but not large enough, as far as I'm concerned).

> Then, even if the book is approved by the state, it
> still needs to get through the school board, which
> isn't always that good on allowing objectionable
> material through (eg. not perfect race balance
> compared to recent US Census or something talking
> about the advantages of the UN in extreme cases).
------------------
Correct. But that's not something that an open content textbook policy can
change. That's a community issue, having to do with 'community moral
standards'.

> Then, parents complain anyway, even after all of this
> censorship, not about the censorship, but about the
> lack of more of it.
-----------------
Sometime true, sometimes not. Again, this is something that open source has
no control over.

>
> I'm sorry if this letter sounded like a
> conspiricy-theory rant and I'm paranoid, but that's
> just what it seems like. So I don't think we should be
> aiming at schools. Maybe colleges or homeschoolers? In
> colleges, the professors pick out the textbooks, and
> they look around for the best one, unlike gradeschool
> teachers who have no power over the issue whatsoever.
> Homeschoolers tend to dislike textbooks, but that's
> probably because they're so terribly written. Or we
> could go for a place where this censorship isn't so
> bad, possible Europe or Canada?
> -LDan
--------------
It's not a conspiracy-theory rant; it's a well-considered opinion. There is
some truth to what you say. I don't think you're paranoid (unless you were
writing this with your door quadruple-bolted and a loaded scrapnel grenade
on your lap after your seventh Red Bull in the last 30 minutes)  ;)

Here are some reasons why we *should* be aiming at schools.

1) States waste - cumulatively - *Billions* on inferior book products. The
K-12 publishing business is essentially a commercial, price-controlling
oligarchy that is virtually void of innovation - whether it be process, or
content. The money could go to better use. Also, many nations on earth are
in desperate need of good K-12 textbooks written in English (China and
India, for example). Imagine how much open source K-12 books would mean to
those billions of people. Further, imagine how open source K-12 texts are
potentially extendable into other information resources, like open source
encyclopedias. Wow.

2) Open source books, as long as they meet state frameworks, *will* pass
state textbook selection committees.

3) Open source textbooks can - as suggested, and is advised - be modular, so
that districts can choose those parts of a book that they want (that are in
addition to the approved core. So, if you have a district that believes that
the idea evoluton is the devil's work, they can add a module about how we
didn't evolve from apes. They'll do it anyway. In fact, someone may very
well contribute such a module to an open source text project. Wouldn't it be
better to see the part of the book that is approved for general use in place
(cheaper, better content, more flexible, etc.), than not? There's no way
that open source content can legislate community morality.

Now, about colleges and homeschoolers. Open source college books are already
being done. They will continue to be done. This is happening. And, it's a
no-brainer. College instructors are largely an independent lot when it comes
to book material.

Homeschoolers have almost infinite choice already when it comes to learning
materials. Why even bother with a textbook?. And if you want to, why not
customize your own form the best of open source, supplemented by other
materials?

Sanford

> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Textbook-l mailing list
> Textbook-l at wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l