Guys less than 60 years ago in the south we were teaching that the negro was a happy creature that enjoyed the comfort provided by his master and steady labor, and that ever since reconstruction the idle negro has posed a threat to our fine white women and our way of life.
The marketplace of ideas will dictate what is permitted to be taught to students more so than what politicians want. However, if that's what the marketplace of ideas will bear in TX then so be it...grats on a retarded state.
Actually, no. What politicians want to be printed is what will be printed because they are the ones with the purse strings. Teachers may well decide to not use the textbook all that much in class because it sucks, but they won't manage to just use a different text because where the hell are they going to get the funds for a special run of non-insane prints? The result is rather restrictive.
I'm sorry if you had a teacher that read a textbook to you. That's not the way to teach.
Guys less than 60 years ago in the south we were teaching that the negro was a happy creature that enjoyed the comfort provided by his master and steady labor, and that ever since reconstruction the idle negro has posed a threat to our fine white women and our way of life.
The marketplace of ideas will dictate what is permitted to be taught to students more so than what politicians want. However, if that's what the marketplace of ideas will bear in TX then so be it...grats on a retarded state.
Actually, no. What politicians want to be printed is what will be printed because they are the ones with the purse strings. Teachers may well decide to not use the textbook all that much in class because it sucks, but they won't manage to just use a different text because where the hell are they going to get the funds for a special run of non-insane prints? The result is rather restrictive.
I'm sorry if you had a teacher that read a textbook to you. That's not the way to teach.
He is equating "textbook" with "curriculum" and "teaching". The textbook industry is private that responds to the market. If the marketplace of ideas (politicians are part of this!) dictates that the founders did not intend for the separation of church and state, then yes, textbooks will have that shit in there. That does not mean that teachers will teach that. IF they do teach that en masse, then it is obviously accepted knowledge and there wouldn't be an issue anyway. You guys are thinking that because some idiot politicians think a certain way then that is how those students will be taught. That just isn't how it works. Go watch Inherit the Wind or something.
Guys less than 60 years ago in the south we were teaching that the negro was a happy creature that enjoyed the comfort provided by his master and steady labor, and that ever since reconstruction the idle negro has posed a threat to our fine white women and our way of life.
The marketplace of ideas will dictate what is permitted to be taught to students more so than what politicians want. However, if that's what the marketplace of ideas will bear in TX then so be it...grats on a retarded state.
Actually, no. What politicians want to be printed is what will be printed because they are the ones with the purse strings. Teachers may well decide to not use the textbook all that much in class because it sucks, but they won't manage to just use a different text because where the hell are they going to get the funds for a special run of non-insane prints? The result is rather restrictive.
I'm sorry if you had a teacher that read a textbook to you. That's not the way to teach.
And I'm sorry that you are apparently incapable of responding to my points and instead choose to castigate the rather excellent teachers I enjoyed throughout my public education.
I just did address your points. If you had great teachers that only used a textbook as their source of information, then I really worry about your education and what you think an excellent teacher is. A textbook is a tool. If a teacher has a great tool then they should use it. If that tool is a bad one, they won't use it.
edit: also, no matter how great a textbook is, a teacher should rarely use it in the classroom. There's plenty of research done on the subject of usefulness of a textbook, and it doesn't perform very well in comparison to most other educational techniques and philosophies.
He is equating "textbook" with "curriculum" and "teaching". The textbook industry is private that responds to the market. If the marketplace of ideas (politicians are part of this!) dictates that the founders did not intend for the separation of church and state, then yes, textbooks will have that shit in there. That does not mean that teachers will teach that. IF they do teach that en masse, then it is obviously accepted knowledge and there wouldn't be an issue anyway. You guys are thinking that because some idiot politicians think a certain way then that is how those students will be taught. That just isn't how it works. Go watch Inherit the Wind or something.
So having horrible textbooks in no way impact the capacity to teach or what manages its way into the curriculum during our rather short school year? Then what's the point of purchasing texts at all, apparently they're just a waste of money in comparison to teachers ad-libbing the entire subject matter.
I just did address your points. If you had great teachers that only used a textbook as their source of information, then I really worry about your education and what you think an excellent teacher is. A textbook is a tool. If a teacher has a great tool then they should use it. If that tool is a bad one, they won't use it.
Some students (like myself) learn better by reading than direct instruction. If those students choose to dig into the textbook, rather than depend on what the teacher chooses to teach, they could wind up a bit confused...or worse, actually buy the retarded shit that's in there.
Yes, teachers can choose to teach whatever they want. But I'd argue that what's actually in the textbook still matters.
I just did address your points. If you had great teachers that only used a textbook as their source of information, then I really worry about your education and what you think an excellent teacher is. A textbook is a tool. If a teacher has a great tool then they should use it. If that tool is a bad one, they won't use it.
So you believe that textbooks are entirely incidental to educating and having a terrible one in no way restricts the capacity of teachers to inform their students or for students to learn about various subjects?
And while I truly do appreciate your crocodile tears, you have no idea what my education was like so mind getting off it.
Plus, if we're talking about history specifically, a saddening percentage of history teachers are actually wrestling coaches who teach history only because it's perceived as something that's "easy to teach out of the book." They teach a subject only because the Phys. Ed. positions are usually full.
I had some of these teachers (as well as some good ones, of course). I've known some of these future teachers (guys working through the Secondary Education department, with the History Option, specifically because they wanted to coach sports).
I'm sorry. You really just have no idea what you are talking about. the statement,"in comparison to teachers ad-libbing the entire subject matter" shows a profound lack of understanding of how teachers are trained and perform their jobs. Textbooks are purchased, just as whiteboards and computers are purchased, because they are tools, or educational aids. Each of these tools have different quality in different areas.
I'm sorry. You really just have no idea what you are talking about. the statement,"in comparison to teachers ad-libbing the entire subject matter" shows a profound lack of understanding of how teachers are trained and perform their jobs. Textbooks are purchased, just as whiteboards and computers are purchased, because they are tools, or educational aids. Each of these tools have different quality in different areas.
So you do admit that the quality of a textbook factors into the capacity for teachers to teach and for students to learn.
Stop making assumptions. The quality of a textbook only determines how much a teacher can use that tool. If its a bad tool, then you need to compensate.
And the compensation will presumably entail a loss in the quality of teaching - what is the teacher giving up as compensation? Presumably the time used to unteach all the textbook nonsense absorbs resources that might be better used elsewhere.
The quality of a textbook only determines how much a teacher can use that tool. If its a bad tool, then you need to compensate.
And if it is a tool that is apparently only useful as a doorstop? Or if a desk is wobbly? No, textbooks are not the apotheosis of education, but if they are actively harming a student's capacity to learn and a teacher's capacity to teach that is a very bad thing. And needlessly so. Particularly since it is an outcome wholly determined by politicians --more specifically, Texas politicians-- and not the 'marketplace of ideas' as you seem to believe. Making the ability of anyone to actually influence what makes it into their content extremely limited if not essentially zero.
Plus, if we're talking about history specifically, a saddening percentage of history teachers are actually wrestling coaches who teach history only because it's perceived as something that's "easy to teach out of the book." They teach a subject only because the Phys. Ed. positions are usually full.
I had some of these teachers (as well as some good ones, of course). I've known some of these future teachers (guys working through the Secondary Education department, with the History Option, specifically because they wanted to coach sports).
So again, what's in the textbook matters.
High school history departments in particular are known for having quite the opposite.
EDIT: And before anybody panties get in a twist, yes there are fantastic high school history teachers out there. I had one. But assuming that the bulk of them are capable of ad-libbing the curriculum and thus it's okay to have shit textbooks is not really a great idea.
We're watching this closely, but it's unfortunately not unexpected. Standards for social studies are much easier to wield as a political weapon than standards for other subjects so we get overhauled in all kinds of crazy ways.
Ultimately, these kinds of moves do get mitigated by the efforts of teachers in general and the reality of what actually needs to be taught. In order to pass a content exam the state of Texas can mandate an eighth grader should know no more than, say, 100 discrete facts about American History while still setting a reasonable standard that students can pass. (I counted 97 last year I think) Most of the test has to be skills: Can you read a chart or graph or map, can you interpret basic levels of bias? Of those 100 facts 70-80 of them at least are set in stone by essential cultural literacy: the battle we're fighting is over a vanishingly small percentage of the curriculum. Anne Hutchinson getting replaced by John Calvin is obnoxious but relatively minor. There's a lot of necessary laxity and freedom that arises from all this and 8th grade has the most exacting standards for Social Studies in Texas by far. In 10th grade it's rare to see a standard much more specific then "Students should know the basic ideas which contributed to the Renaissance" or similar nonsense.
What's truly infuriating is the attempt to use our standards to further the myth that America was founded as an intended Christian Republic. I honestly have no idea where that notion even came from apart from wishful thinking and I do worry that while such standards will not impede teachers with a more reasonable understanding of the history of our nation it may embolden or enable those with a silly goose agenda to pursue it with their students.
And the compensation will presumably entail a loss in the quality of teaching - what is the teacher giving up as compensation? Presumably the time used to unteach all the textbook nonsense absorbs resources that might be better used elsewhere.
Ronya, teachers have an incredible amount of resources that we use to convey subject matter. A textbook can be thought of as a "refresher" or study aid if it needs to be. That doesn't mean that we don't need to address fallacies in the text from time to time. I have taught more than one lesson that entailed "now guys your text says this 'insert whatever text says'....but really its more like....". They are imperfect. WE are imperfect.
Teachers do not hand students the textbook and say "have at it". Many college professors do this, but this is not how teachers are trained and isn't how they should perform. Many of you have bad examples of teachers, I have plenty as well. I can also tell you about crappy cops, politicians, and doctors.
Moniker I am not responding to you anymore. You can't approach this without throwing in a dozen internet forum memes and I don't have the patience. Take it as a victory if you want.
And the compensation will presumably entail a loss in the quality of teaching - what is the teacher giving up as compensation? Presumably the time used to unteach all the textbook nonsense absorbs resources that might be better used elsewhere.
Ronya, teachers have an incredible amount of resources that we use to convey subject matter. A textbook can be thought of as a "refresher" or study aid if it needs to be. That doesn't mean that we don't need to address fallacies in the text from time to time. I have taught more than one lesson that entailed "now guys your text says this 'insert whatever text says'....but really its more like....". They are imperfect. WE are imperfect.
Teachers do not hand students the textbook and say "have at it". Many college professors do this, but this is not how teachers are trained and isn't how they should perform. Many of you have bad examples of teachers, I have plenty as well. I can also tell you about crappy cops, politicians, and doctors.
Oddly, the two college history classes I took were the exact opposite (encouraging critical thinking and speaking well beyond what was in the text), while four of my five high school history classes were basically "read the text, do these questions, prepare for quiz on Friday."
Again, I am certainly not denying that bad teachers exist. I can promise you that outside of a minority (modern students are increasingly less reading/writing focused in terms of multiple intelligences and aptitudes) that giving a class of 30 students a textbook as the only means of instruction will result in a very small number of them actually reading it and/or really learning from it. So should we fix textbooks or bad teachers first. I say bad teachers.
Again, I am certainly not denying that bad teachers exist. I can promise you that outside of a minority (modern students are increasingly less reading/writing focused in terms of multiple intelligences and aptitudes) that giving a class of 30 students a textbook as the only means of instruction will result in a very small number of them actually reading it and/or really learning from it. So should we fix textbooks or bad teachers first. I say bad teachers.
I say bad textbooks, mainly because it would be much more easily addressed.
Also there's no reason the two can't be done concurrently. See, nobody in here is saying we shouldn't address teacher quality as well. It's just that that's not what this thread is about.
That's because you're a silly goose who's aggressively ignoring the process, going on in Texas right now, of actively making the textbooks worse. Seems a lot easier to correct that to me.
Yeah I'll concede that. I guess I was mainly concerned that the mood of the thread was much more concerned that what ever politicians want to put in a textbook is what our children will be forced to learn. That of course isn't the case.
Connor, you're not exactly coming off as reasonable here, and pitching a fit isn't helping.
Yeah, fixing bad teachers may be a better solution, but that doesn't mean that textbooks shifting from bad to worse isn't also an issue.
edit:: And I learned from my time in college that you learn more from a class that's taught well with a relevant textbook, than a class that's taught well with a completely pointless textbook.
That's because you're a silly goose who's aggressively ignoring the process, going on in Texas right now, of actively making the textbooks worse. Seems a lot easier to correct that to me.
Let me put it this way, I'd be as concerned about GA politicians changing our curriculum to include this kind of nonsense as I would if they decided that we all had to switch back to blackboards. I hate chalk. I wouldn't use the board as much.
Yeah I'll concede that. I guess I was mainly concerned that the mood of the thread was much more concerned that what ever politicians want to put in a textbook is what our children will be forced to learn. That of course isn't the case.
No, we're just saying that it's what a large number of them will wind up learning. Which is still pretty fucking bad.
I don't think anybody was claiming that no teacher in the country was bothering to teach outside the book.
That's because you're a silly goose who's aggressively ignoring the process, going on in Texas right now, of actively making the textbooks worse. Seems a lot easier to correct that to me.
Let me put it this way, I'd be as concerned about GA politicians changing our curriculum to include this kind of nonsense as I would if they decided that we all had to switch back to blackboards. I hate chalk. I wouldn't use the board as much.
Well, guess what? Thanks to Texas' disproportionate influence on the textbook 'market', you'll probably have to use their products, and you don't get any say in that at all. Also please note that for some people the textbook is the only goddamn resource so please stop talking about it as always one small part of the whole.
And the compensation will presumably entail a loss in the quality of teaching - what is the teacher giving up as compensation? Presumably the time used to unteach all the textbook nonsense absorbs resources that might be better used elsewhere.
Ronya, teachers have an incredible amount of resources that we use to convey subject matter. A textbook can be thought of as a "refresher" or study aid if it needs to be. That doesn't mean that we don't need to address fallacies in the text from time to time. I have taught more than one lesson that entailed "now guys your text says this 'insert whatever text says'....but really its more like....". They are imperfect. WE are imperfect.
Yes, but generally its a good idea to try improve upon the sliding scale of imperfection rather than moving backwards to Jesus signing the Declaration of Independence while high-fiving Thomas Jefferson. Diminishing the quality of tools available to teachers is not a good thing. Yes, it is something that can be overcome by the teachers in question, but it shouldn't have to be. Textbooks should serve to help rather than hinder coursework.
Teachers do not hand students the textbook and say "have at it". Many college professors do this, but this is not how teachers are trained and isn't how they should perform. Many of you have bad examples of teachers, I have plenty as well. I can also tell you about crappy cops, politicians, and doctors.
You're the only one presuming we've all only experienced bad teachers, and even ignoring that I fail to see what relevance the skill of a teacher has in regards to whether or not school texts should be this apparently horrific. Unless Texas is just pulling a really big prank and trying to see just how much they can overcome to ensure that our children is learning. Even so, this is not a beneficial development.
Wow, so if you're only getting the first two from your teacher, a bad textbook will be especially damaging! I'm glad you see the need for proper books.
Wow, so if you're only getting the first two from your teacher, a bad textbook will be especially damaging! I'm glad you see the need for proper books.
You only RETAIN that percentage of what you read. I guess your argument is that "well if you're only going to retain 10%, lets hope that 10% is the correct part?" Can you not see how a bad teacher is infinitely more damaging than a bad textbook?
edit. Meaning if its a great book or a bad book, on average students retain about 10% of it if that's the only instruciton they get with it. so if a bad teacher just gives them a book, it doesnt really matter what kind of book it is.
There is conceivable value in a class that is primarily taught from a text. I can't imagine why someone would think there wouldn't be. While obviously when we imagine the context of a typical classroom our first thought is not to use primarily textbook based learning. However, there are certainly classrooms and students who like using textbooks and get a lot out of them. Going into that classroom or interacting with that student with the expectation that you should effectively just punt the text is as damaging as assuming that you can exclusively use the textbook with kids who are well below reading level.
It doesn't benefit us to have knee jerk negative reactions to any teaching style which has proven at all effective in the past. The soul of the research that you cite is differentiation, not a blanket endorsement of particular styles of instruction.
Like any other profession we only sink or swim based on the quality of our tools. The textbook is a critical tool, especially in low income districts. It doesn't make us less important as teachers to acknowledge that fact.
Wow, so if you're only getting the first two from your teacher, a bad textbook will be especially damaging! I'm glad you see the need for proper books.
You only RETAIN that percentage of what you read. I guess your argument is that "well if you're only going to retain 10%, lets hope that 10% is the correct part?" Can you not see how a bad teacher is infinitely more damaging than a bad textbook?
edit. Meaning if its a great book or a bad book, on average students retain about 10% of it if that's the only instruciton they get with it. so if a bad teacher just gives them a book, it doesnt really matter what kind of book it is.
Do you not see how it is infinitely easier to have ubiquitous good textbooks than ubiquitous good teachers? It literally just takes having 15 people in Texas not being fuck-ups. I'm pretty sure that ensuring every student has a good teacher is a lot more involved than having 15 Texans raise their hands at various intervals.
This is my last post on this subject so I'll try my best to make my point and go on.
Students are different everywhere. Students need differentiated education based on learning styles and ability. Some students do better with heavy reading in classes than others. AP students come to mind. Teachers use different materials for different classes all the time. I have had three consecutive 10th grade world history classes in one day. Each of those had slightly different needs. Some classes had seven special education students, while another might have had four gifted students and no special ed. there is considerable research done into how students learn, and I gave my students a test at the beginning to see how each of them learned best, be that audio/visual/kinesthetic/reading/writing.
Some of you might be scoffing at that and say "well you aren't most teachers." Yeah but what if that was the absolute norm? I can attest that this is how most teachers are being taught these days. The "sage on the stage" approach does not work as well as it used to. Our students are from a digital age and are used to changing activities and subjects very rapidly. If you haven't actually been tasked with teaching a group of 25-30 adolescents for 90 minutes (and I don't mean this to sound snarky) you just really aren't aware of the complexities of the issue.
My main issue with this entire thread is that it seems that there is an idea out there that politicians force teachers to teach certain material. Some of you are saying that for those students that have bad teachers who only teach them by handing them a textbook will be in more trouble if the textbook gets worse. I agree with you. For me that argument brings up a visual of cutting a hole in a chicken-wire ceiling and declaring that now more water is going to get though when it rains. I guess that's true too, but you're missing the point.
What are the options? Regional textbooks might work, but the thesis that we need a national curriculum is insane. It will be Texas curriculum for everyone (and curriculum is more than just textbooks). Obama and the democratic congress could not get health care passed with a filibuster proof majority. All the republicans have to do is throw around "godless anti-americans" and before you know it the democrats will show their bellies and give the republicans whatever they want.
We could do what we do in Mass, and penalize schools that have a large gap between children who pass the school curriculum and children who pass the (national, in my proposal) test.
What are the options? Regional textbooks might work, but the thesis that we need a national curriculum is insane. It will be Texas curriculum for everyone (and curriculum is more than just textbooks). Obama and the democratic congress could not get health care passed with a filibuster proof majority.
A. The process of passing health care reform is not yet over.
B. There was never a filibuster-proof majority, because Nelson, Bayh, Landrieu, Lincoln, and Pryor were eager to vote with Republicans and had to be bribed to stay with the party every goosing time.
Wait, what does Congress have to do with anything? Nationally mandated minimum standards for textbooks &c. would be a function of the Department of Education. Legislation might possibly need to be drafted in order to provide him with that power, but that would basically be it. Everything else would be a matter for the Executive, and basically just entail holding funding hostage for various programs to ensure State compliance.
What are the options? Regional textbooks might work, but the thesis that we need a national curriculum is insane. It will be Texas curriculum for everyone (and curriculum is more than just textbooks). Obama and the democratic congress could not get health care passed with a filibuster proof majority.
A. The process of passing health care reform is not yet over.
B. There was never a filibuster-proof majority, because Nelson, Bayh, Landrieu, Lincoln, and Pryor were eager to vote with Republicans and had to be bribed to stay with the party every goosing time.
Yes there was a filibuster proof majority, not our fault that the democrats can not keep there party in check. If republicans pulled that crap there would be bodies floating in the Hudson river.
Wait, what does Congress have to do with anything? Nationally mandated minimum standards for textbooks &c. would be a function of the Department of Education. Legislation might possibly need to be drafted in order to provide him with that power, but that would basically be it. Everything else would be a matter for the Executive, and basically just entail holding funding hostage for various programs to ensure State compliance.
There is nothing stopping a congressional bill that would say that the department of education has to include creationism in the curriculum.
And that still does not answer the question of what happens the next time the republicans gain power?
Posts
I'm sorry if you had a teacher that read a textbook to you. That's not the way to teach.
I...I...I don't see where he said that at all.
And I'm sorry that you are apparently incapable of responding to my points and instead choose to castigate the rather excellent teachers I enjoyed throughout my public education.
edit: also, no matter how great a textbook is, a teacher should rarely use it in the classroom. There's plenty of research done on the subject of usefulness of a textbook, and it doesn't perform very well in comparison to most other educational techniques and philosophies.
So having horrible textbooks in no way impact the capacity to teach or what manages its way into the curriculum during our rather short school year? Then what's the point of purchasing texts at all, apparently they're just a waste of money in comparison to teachers ad-libbing the entire subject matter.
Some students (like myself) learn better by reading than direct instruction. If those students choose to dig into the textbook, rather than depend on what the teacher chooses to teach, they could wind up a bit confused...or worse, actually buy the retarded shit that's in there.
Yes, teachers can choose to teach whatever they want. But I'd argue that what's actually in the textbook still matters.
So you believe that textbooks are entirely incidental to educating and having a terrible one in no way restricts the capacity of teachers to inform their students or for students to learn about various subjects?
And while I truly do appreciate your crocodile tears, you have no idea what my education was like so mind getting off it.
I had some of these teachers (as well as some good ones, of course). I've known some of these future teachers (guys working through the Secondary Education department, with the History Option, specifically because they wanted to coach sports).
So again, what's in the textbook matters.
So you do admit that the quality of a textbook factors into the capacity for teachers to teach and for students to learn.
I accept your apology.
Oh physician heal thyself.
And if it is a tool that is apparently only useful as a doorstop? Or if a desk is wobbly? No, textbooks are not the apotheosis of education, but if they are actively harming a student's capacity to learn and a teacher's capacity to teach that is a very bad thing. And needlessly so. Particularly since it is an outcome wholly determined by politicians --more specifically, Texas politicians-- and not the 'marketplace of ideas' as you seem to believe. Making the ability of anyone to actually influence what makes it into their content extremely limited if not essentially zero.
Since it got BOTP'd:
High school history departments in particular are known for having quite the opposite.
EDIT: And before anybody panties get in a twist, yes there are fantastic high school history teachers out there. I had one. But assuming that the bulk of them are capable of ad-libbing the curriculum and thus it's okay to have shit textbooks is not really a great idea.
We're watching this closely, but it's unfortunately not unexpected. Standards for social studies are much easier to wield as a political weapon than standards for other subjects so we get overhauled in all kinds of crazy ways.
Ultimately, these kinds of moves do get mitigated by the efforts of teachers in general and the reality of what actually needs to be taught. In order to pass a content exam the state of Texas can mandate an eighth grader should know no more than, say, 100 discrete facts about American History while still setting a reasonable standard that students can pass. (I counted 97 last year I think) Most of the test has to be skills: Can you read a chart or graph or map, can you interpret basic levels of bias? Of those 100 facts 70-80 of them at least are set in stone by essential cultural literacy: the battle we're fighting is over a vanishingly small percentage of the curriculum. Anne Hutchinson getting replaced by John Calvin is obnoxious but relatively minor. There's a lot of necessary laxity and freedom that arises from all this and 8th grade has the most exacting standards for Social Studies in Texas by far. In 10th grade it's rare to see a standard much more specific then "Students should know the basic ideas which contributed to the Renaissance" or similar nonsense.
What's truly infuriating is the attempt to use our standards to further the myth that America was founded as an intended Christian Republic. I honestly have no idea where that notion even came from apart from wishful thinking and I do worry that while such standards will not impede teachers with a more reasonable understanding of the history of our nation it may embolden or enable those with a silly goose agenda to pursue it with their students.
Ronya, teachers have an incredible amount of resources that we use to convey subject matter. A textbook can be thought of as a "refresher" or study aid if it needs to be. That doesn't mean that we don't need to address fallacies in the text from time to time. I have taught more than one lesson that entailed "now guys your text says this 'insert whatever text says'....but really its more like....". They are imperfect. WE are imperfect.
Teachers do not hand students the textbook and say "have at it". Many college professors do this, but this is not how teachers are trained and isn't how they should perform. Many of you have bad examples of teachers, I have plenty as well. I can also tell you about crappy cops, politicians, and doctors.
Oddly, the two college history classes I took were the exact opposite (encouraging critical thinking and speaking well beyond what was in the text), while four of my five high school history classes were basically "read the text, do these questions, prepare for quiz on Friday."
I say bad textbooks, mainly because it would be much more easily addressed.
Also there's no reason the two can't be done concurrently. See, nobody in here is saying we shouldn't address teacher quality as well. It's just that that's not what this thread is about.
Yeah, fixing bad teachers may be a better solution, but that doesn't mean that textbooks shifting from bad to worse isn't also an issue.
edit:: And I learned from my time in college that you learn more from a class that's taught well with a relevant textbook, than a class that's taught well with a completely pointless textbook.
Let me put it this way, I'd be as concerned about GA politicians changing our curriculum to include this kind of nonsense as I would if they decided that we all had to switch back to blackboards. I hate chalk. I wouldn't use the board as much.
No, we're just saying that it's what a large number of them will wind up learning. Which is still pretty fucking bad.
I don't think anybody was claiming that no teacher in the country was bothering to teach outside the book.
Well, guess what? Thanks to Texas' disproportionate influence on the textbook 'market', you'll probably have to use their products, and you don't get any say in that at all. Also please note that for some people the textbook is the only goddamn resource so please stop talking about it as always one small part of the whole.
http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~tbayston/eme6313/learning_pyramid.jpg
Yes, but generally its a good idea to try improve upon the sliding scale of imperfection rather than moving backwards to Jesus signing the Declaration of Independence while high-fiving Thomas Jefferson. Diminishing the quality of tools available to teachers is not a good thing. Yes, it is something that can be overcome by the teachers in question, but it shouldn't have to be. Textbooks should serve to help rather than hinder coursework.
You're the only one presuming we've all only experienced bad teachers, and even ignoring that I fail to see what relevance the skill of a teacher has in regards to whether or not school texts should be this apparently horrific. Unless Texas is just pulling a really big prank and trying to see just how much they can overcome to ensure that our children is learning. Even so, this is not a beneficial development.
Wow, so if you're only getting the first two from your teacher, a bad textbook will be especially damaging! I'm glad you see the need for proper books.
You only RETAIN that percentage of what you read. I guess your argument is that "well if you're only going to retain 10%, lets hope that 10% is the correct part?" Can you not see how a bad teacher is infinitely more damaging than a bad textbook?
edit. Meaning if its a great book or a bad book, on average students retain about 10% of it if that's the only instruciton they get with it. so if a bad teacher just gives them a book, it doesnt really matter what kind of book it is.
It doesn't benefit us to have knee jerk negative reactions to any teaching style which has proven at all effective in the past. The soul of the research that you cite is differentiation, not a blanket endorsement of particular styles of instruction.
Like any other profession we only sink or swim based on the quality of our tools. The textbook is a critical tool, especially in low income districts. It doesn't make us less important as teachers to acknowledge that fact.
Do you not see how it is infinitely easier to have ubiquitous good textbooks than ubiquitous good teachers? It literally just takes having 15 people in Texas not being fuck-ups. I'm pretty sure that ensuring every student has a good teacher is a lot more involved than having 15 Texans raise their hands at various intervals.
Students are different everywhere. Students need differentiated education based on learning styles and ability. Some students do better with heavy reading in classes than others. AP students come to mind. Teachers use different materials for different classes all the time. I have had three consecutive 10th grade world history classes in one day. Each of those had slightly different needs. Some classes had seven special education students, while another might have had four gifted students and no special ed. there is considerable research done into how students learn, and I gave my students a test at the beginning to see how each of them learned best, be that audio/visual/kinesthetic/reading/writing.
Some of you might be scoffing at that and say "well you aren't most teachers." Yeah but what if that was the absolute norm? I can attest that this is how most teachers are being taught these days. The "sage on the stage" approach does not work as well as it used to. Our students are from a digital age and are used to changing activities and subjects very rapidly. If you haven't actually been tasked with teaching a group of 25-30 adolescents for 90 minutes (and I don't mean this to sound snarky) you just really aren't aware of the complexities of the issue.
My main issue with this entire thread is that it seems that there is an idea out there that politicians force teachers to teach certain material. Some of you are saying that for those students that have bad teachers who only teach them by handing them a textbook will be in more trouble if the textbook gets worse. I agree with you. For me that argument brings up a visual of cutting a hole in a chicken-wire ceiling and declaring that now more water is going to get though when it rains. I guess that's true too, but you're missing the point.
B. There was never a filibuster-proof majority, because Nelson, Bayh, Landrieu, Lincoln, and Pryor were eager to vote with Republicans and had to be bribed to stay with the party every goosing time.
Yes there was a filibuster proof majority, not our fault that the democrats can not keep there party in check. If republicans pulled that crap there would be bodies floating in the Hudson river.
There is nothing stopping a congressional bill that would say that the department of education has to include creationism in the curriculum.
And that still does not answer the question of what happens the next time the republicans gain power?