----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Ehrenberg" <littledanehren(a)yahoo.com>
To: <textbook-l(a)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(a)wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l