More Coffee, Please

A major battle ended the other day—even if nobody really noticed.

It should be no surprise that I’m not a textbook fan. I’ve spoken about them more than once, and I generally prefer—wherever possible—to use original sources. I think Einstein was a better teacher than I was—and so were most of the great minds. If and when we can, going to them is best.

Still, I understand that many times we can’t. I get that.

Not all textbooks are the same, however, and they’re constantly changing. Part of our role is in making decisions about which one to use—which is often a district or even state-wide decision. When given a choice, we ought to do the best we can to get the best into the hands of our kids. Unfortunately, it’s not often the way it works; most of the time we get what Texas and California buys.

Yes—exactly right. A kick in the rear, eh?

Because Texas purchases so many textbooks, and because there are so few textbook writers, what sells well in Texas—and matches Texas state standards—often becomes the national norm.¹ Which means that the battle that’s been going on over evolution in Texas matters to all of us—not to mention the health standards.

I’m reasonably ambivalent—I think we live in a pluralistic nation, and we need to be willing to accept that others may not share the same values. More importantly, I believe that science is self-correcting. There are—I’ve no doubt—bad scientists, who believe in what they believe despite what evidence brings to them. But I do believe that science is about searching for the truth, and I don’t believe that faith has anything to fear from truth.²

There might be bad science, but that doesn’t follow that all science is bad—and if we’re raising kids who can think critically, weigh evidence, and reach logical conclusions, then I don’t think we’re in a bad place. And, in the event that there is bad science, then the processes of science will eventually find evidence that contradicts itself—leading to some new understanding.

So I don’t know how much need there is to argue about science—and I do think it’s the duty of the school, the duty of an education, to provide the best possible knowledge available at that time. I’m not going to fault an educator in 1491 for telling students the world is flat. The same statement in 1991 is bad teaching—even if there are still people who disagree with the majority of science.

Which is why, I guess, I’m ambivalent about Texas and their role in textbook writing—nor am I alone. Not only do I dislike the idea of a textbook, but I also dislike how easily textbooks are manipulated—and thought it seems like an acceptable compromise was reached, it is a compromise, and I would prefer if, just once, we could say we did it right.

1 I’m of two minds when it comes to the Federal vs State governments and education. On one hand, the states are very clearly meant to have power over education—nowhere does the Constitution mention education, and the “reserve powers” clause of the Tenth Amendment is pretty clear. Because of this, the United States is alone in the developed world when it comes to education—every other modern state has national standards, and a national curriculum. On one hand, I like the idea of vigorous and spirited debate about what standards are needed in our school, and to have it done at the Federal level will mean that there will be considerable investment and discussion. On the other hand, local control is important for precisely the reason the Federal system was adopted—an oppressive national government was the nightmare a war had just been fought to banish. It just becomes an issue when one large state, because of numbers, dominates the rest—and that state is not guaranteed to have good standards. ↺

2 John 8:32 ↺

Gregarious

Share This