There is an interesting discussion underway on the “Texas Textbook Wars” over at FoxNews.com. Of course, when one posts a comment in these sorts of online venues, one always runs the risk of the emotional response to a substantive post. However, there is also the probing question, though, that deserves more attention, which is why I am making a more thorough answer to one of those questions here at theendoflinearity.
My original post went as follows:
Of course, the really interesting part of this debate is the topics that are just under the surface. In a world of iPads, Kindles and digital content, we are still talking about books! In the era of Encyclopedia Britannica, “content” was static because it was printed on paper, and it was not cost effective to print more than every 7 or 8 years. The content was never static; the delivery and production mechanisms were.
In a world of Wikipedia, content can now be more dynamic, because the costs to deliver it are dramatically reduced. Think about it. If there is a mistake in Britannica, it will take years to have it corrected. If there is a mistake at Wikipedia, it can be fixed in seconds. Even better, debates like this one can have all of the arguments available to students, not just the conclusion. Facts like 1+1=2 are easy to validate; other “facts” are bit more challenging to nail down firmly.
Please check out these two posts for much longer expositions on the real battles we should be fighting over textbooks: Learning to Read – Books or Words? Beyond Schools: A Foundation for Education in the 21st Century.
The more useful question (the other one told me I had a lot to learn) went like this:
i agree with you but this also means that what they dont want us to see can be rewritten just as easy
As I commented in the thread at FoxNews, Continue Reading →