It was business as usual as the Indiana Board of Education prepared to approve the list of proposed textbooks, until they actually read them.According to Indy Star reporter Andy Gammill:
“Their reviews of this year’s batch of social studies texts: Boring, dull, uninspirational; so lifeless as to be unfit for students. The board first rejected the entire list of books during a meeting Wednesday. After much discussion, members settled on a compromise to approve the books but send a letter to schools warning that the books may be too monotonous for children.”
The Board reasoned that it had to do something; if the texts weren’t approved, school districts would not be able to purchase them at a discounted rate. But to pass the buck on determining quality textbooks, and simply send a letter to schools warning them about the monotony of the textbooks they just approved: What exactly does the Board anticipate school districts’ reaction to be? Of, course the “boring” textbooks still will end up in the classroom.
Next time, instead of passing along mediocre classroom materials to teachers with a letter of warning, we recommend the Indiana Board of Education do its job. Indiana should put the word out to textbook publishers that they want to see rigorous, content-rich textbooks. And if they don’t get it the Board should be thinking “outside the box” -meaning outside the established textbook industry–to acquire the materials Indiana students need and deserve. How about checking out the great materials that the Core Knowledge Foundation produces? Or Joy Hakim’s excellent A History of US series? Or-for high schoolers-former US Secretary of Education Bill Bennett’s America: The Last Best Hope?
To many teachers and curriculum specialists, dull textbooks are nothing new.
“Social studies textbooks have been dull for decades,” said Robert Brady, director of social studies for Indianapolis Public Schools. “I just think the books are sterile,” he said. “All the fun is softened. When I read history, the controversies are what’s interesting. . . . The actual content is watered down.”
We’d be interested to see how the textbook industry would react if even just a few states refused to go along with the pablum it produces. It could help make textbooks better for all students.
– Lynne and Laura
Tags: social_studies, textbooks
Dear Lynne and Laura:
My name is Rex Bolinger and I am the Project Director of Team HOPE (History Opens Eyes). Team HOPE is a group of Milken Educators (www.mff.org) who are advancing Dr. William J. Bennett’s American history books, America: The Last Best Hope, to students across the nation. Team HOPE has developed the online teacher and student supplements called the Roadmap.
Thank you for your endorsement of America: The Last Best Hope as a rigorous content-rich textbook for students. We agree wholeheartedly. I read with interest your comments about the Indiana State Board of Education and its actions at the October meeting. I was in attendance at that meeting. America: The Last Best Hope was approved for use in Indiana’s high schools. During the lengthy Board discussion about the boring books within the list, State Superintendent, Dr. Suellen Reed, did openly say that there was at least one excellent American history choice for Indiana’s students, a two-volume series. She indicated she had read it thoroughly. But, acting professionally, she did not mention our books by name. However, ours is the only two-volume series offered this year in Indiana and it has been affirmed that she was referencing America: The Last Best Hope. Mr. Gammill, Indianapolis Star Reporter, omitted that comment from his article, but not purposefully. I spoke with him a day after the meeting and I appreciate his interest in this topic. I do not believe that Mr. Shane (Board member) meant to suggest that all books fit into the same category. However, your comments are accurate that Indiana and all other states should send a strong message to publishers regarding the types of materials currently being offered by the traditional textbook industry.
We agree with you and Dr. Reed that America: The Last Best Hope is a wonderful book for high school students. We are, in fact, “outside the box” and outside the established textbook industry (as you noted) and we mean to stay that way. We intend to start a revolution in the way American history is taught in our schools. I invite readers to check our work online and view a sampler as well at http://www.roadmaptolastbesthope.com. Interested persons may e-mail me at rbolinger@thomasnelson.com for more information. Our books have recently been approved for use in Indiana and Illinois! They are being piloted this fall in 31 states and more state adoptions will be coming soon.
Thank you for your insightful and timely comments.
Rex Bolinger
If anyone is serious about this problem and wants to change things,…I can use help and funding at OpenHistoryProject.org and Whendidji.com
Following up (Rex and I were simul-posting). ATLBH is indeed an excellent text. K12, Inc’s seem interesting as well.
Looking further forward, are texts the answer? How do we meet the needs of a generation increasingly expecting interactive engagement? Of a generation reading less than its predecessors, who in turn didn’t read history texts?
What we know about social studies classes is that they are using a wide variety of resources. If you talk to young teachers, they are especially impressed with primary source materials. They like materials they can pull from the web.
Yet, is that what will grab students and stick in their minds? (All of them, not just the most studious?) And should teachers be the ones picking materials at will?
Let me quote ATLBH’ Roadmap site:
Lets also extend that: the Hebrews had a great story. So did the Romans. So did someone in Mesopotamia, Gengis Khan, Socrates, Thomas de Torquemada, Saul. How can we get more of these great stories told, and told in ways that reach the spectrum of learners?
Not all students are wired to read at length. In fact, most teachers will prefer a variety of media to access the stories.
Should we not, then, turn to a wider set of producers? Should we not empower many more creative people to work within certain bounds to raise the quality and quantity of interactive, student-centered, sound-and-motion, history content?
The creativity out there is astounding! What if we focused much more of it toward creating story-telling media with rich content? What if we empowered not just a small handful of scholars and producers, but a broad virtual community–in the model of the Firefox community-to generate loosely coupled, high quality, multi-sensory experiences?
The Open Source model is very, very powerful. It is accomplished. Highly. Most readers here would be astounded at how much of the Internet they experience has been developed and distributed by communities of programmers working together across boundaries; programmers in many cases just students or volunteers; or working for companies who may even be competing with each other.
It is that working together component that could help with the history resources problem. We need a way for teams to come together. Teams with members who bring: experience in rich content, experience in building highly engaging media, excellence in podcast audio, graphic designers, programmers, testers, animated-map-makers, game-makers.
There are students who will not read a text who will respond greatly to a simple repetitive game. Can we not reach these people as well?
I applaud the Indiana Board, and also the ATLBH team for taking steps beyond just discussing the problem.
OpenHistoryProject.org could be a platform where we take curriculum resource development to a 21st century level, to a level beyond Web 2.0 and deserving of these great student’s attention and engagement.
Open content doesn’t need State Board approval–it can drive it.
Yet we (I) need help.