Here’s a story about how four school districts in California are going to pilot a program that provides iPads to students instead of textbooks.

Of course, I say, “COOL DUDE!”

And trust me, you are going to hear the kids say that as well. And for the kids who get textbooks as opposed to iPads (supposedly chosen at random but I have a feeling it might not be as random as the word random actually connotes) there is gonna be a whole lotta, “DUDE, THAT SUCKS!” in the air as well.

But what is interesting to me is that Houghton Mifflin, the textbook publisher, has “teamed up” with the CA. Dept of Ed. is the one providing the iPads. (Code words decoded: I think this means that HM is actually paying for the goodies since the CDE is flat broke)

This harkens back to the idea that Jim Burke mentioned about how the next iteration of textbooks will come to us through a walled garden approach. Essentially, the textbook companies will provide the technology tools but the district will buy the content – from the textbook publisher… and then students will be owning devices that have “fences around them”. (i.e. walled gardens). so that they can’t go beyond the perimeters as set forth by… you guessed it, the textbook publishers.

Now I haven’t seen how the Houghton Mifflin iPads are going to be configured, but I do hope that someone comes forth to explain whether or not these iPads will be “unrestrained” iPads or if they will merely be iPads characterized by a whole lotta PDFs from Houghton Mifflin’s backlist of previously published academic work.

And will the kids have access to Open Source learning?
And will the kids be able to go to a competitor of Houghton Mifflin’s academic resources if there is, perhaps, a “better” lesson on a subject available over there?

I can tell you that restraining access runs counter to the nature of the web and an iPad that does not allow you to actually tap into all of the possibilities available with an iPad is really not quite the iPad that it is being purported to be.

Got my eye on this one, that’s for sure.

I just read a line from a teacher who said this (and oh, it’s so telling)…

I love my school, but this year I’m trying real hard to be positive. I’ve taught novels the past two years and am now being told I must adhere to the textbook curriculum because of low test scores. Wow! Boring textbook anthology and worksheets are going to help my students do better on a bubble test? ARGH!

For me, I wonder where the data is to prove that sticking to the “textbook curriculum” improves test scores? Has this data been published? If so, I’ve never seen it — and I look for it.

On the contrary, I’ve seen a host of stuff from IRA and NCTE coming out against scripted curriculum (not the same as textbook curriculum but most certainly a cousin) because, well, it doesn’t work. Actually, there’s even an argument that it’s proving to be detrimental.

So where’s the proof?

Is it too much to ask for the proof? I mean data, data, data is the mantra that gets drummed into our heads by so many of these “bean counter types” in our schools who think that kids are widgets and if you just press the right mold hard enough, their lives, brain, attitudes and skills will conform in a way that will serve our nation’s schools and society well.

So this year, I am simply going to ask one straightforward question when people come at me with with the, “We need to stick to the textbook curriculum to improve test scores”:

WHERE’S THE PROOF?

And actually, might it not be argued that a textbook curriculum is what has helped to land us where we are right now? I mean they’ve been at the forefront of the educational wheel for a few decades now, particularly in the math and science realm where our scores (internationally speaking) lag in a particularly “ouch, that hurts to see!” type of way.

Perhaps the textbook curriculums are the culprit in some way? After all, in a world where we are all being asked to take ownership and remain accountable, I gotta wonder, how are the textbooks accepting accountability for their shortcomings?

Or don’t they have any shortcomings?

(BTW, if they need my help in assisting them to identify a few of these areas, I’d be happy to help. For instance, how about price, size, weight, tepid material, a one-size-fits-all mentality, overstuffed, sanitized and oh yeah… lacking data-based proof that using these materials actually improves bubble sheet test scores, which are a silly way to measure student success in the first place, but that’s for another post.)

Does anybody read Alfie Kohn? Thomas Newkirk? Readicide? Nancy Atwell? I gotta stop typing now because writing posts like this bum me out. For every ten teachers forced to use a textbook curriculum in the Language Arts (to the exclusion of novels) I’d guess that, based on my own unofficial feedback, that at least 7 or 8 of them are frustrated with the materials and feel boxed in and aggravated… and worst of all, not as effective as they believe they could be if they were unshackled from the mandates of people who do not actually have to eat the food that they are asking other people to dine on themselves.

For those who say, “You must teach the textbook curriculum to the exclusion of novels,” I say, “Hey pal, you go do it first… and prove that it works, because all the best teachers I know use real books in the English Language Arts classroom.”

I am hopeful. I am fearful. I am exhilarated. I am mortified. Why? Because the first in what is sure to be a long line of heavy salvos is being fired at the textbook industry with Amazon’s new Kindle, designed especially to take on the status quo in the textbook market.

I am hopeful because the entire textbook industry needs to change. Simply put, it’s outdated, outmoded, and terrifically expensive to the point of being sheer lunatic.

I am fearful because I know there is going to be years of iniquity which will befall America while some classrooms smoothly make a transition to the digital delivery of educational content while other schools operate like the modern day classrooms which still use cassette players in class. (Don’t laugh. A heck of a lot of schools still use cassette players for instruction. Forget CD’s — which are already a outdated medium of content delivery — they are using CASSETTES!)

I am exhilarated because open source can’t be too far behind meaning that the stranglehold these behemoth corporations have on our classrooms is going to crack. The vice grip such a small group of folks have had over hundreds of thousands of teachers and millions of students in terms of curriculum is sheer foolishness and if they are looking for someone to help shovel dirt on this grave so it can be buried faster, I — as well as a heck of a lot of other teachers I know — would be glad to lend a hand. Textbooks, in their current incarnation, are pretty weak and all the best teachers I know use them as supplements at best — and never (like me) at worst.

And I am mortified. MORTIFIED!!

Why? Because when I read quotes like the one below by a guy named Bruce Hildebrand, the executive director for higher education for the Association of American Publishers, which represents several big textbook companies, I am shocked by the airs he puts on.

He said, and I quote, “… publishers are “absolutely agnostic” about how their content is delivered, so if costs like printing and shipping were removed, the companies could charge less.”

Bull pies!! As my friends in Kentucky might say, that dog just don’t hunt.

Agnostic? I mean come on folks. The textbooks have been drinking at the public trough of education funding for decades. They are multi-multi-multi-million dollar businesses. And how’d they get to be that way? By holding an iron grip on the market. If a teacher wants chapter 3, 4, and 8 she has to buy chapters 1,2,5,6 and 7 and there are literally less than 10 options whereby they can turn to shop. (We all know that’s it’s pretty much down to 3 big textbook publishers right now but I’ll grant them a wee bit of latitude and avoid going down the road of hurling accusations of collusion at them — they have enough problems.)

Well, not anymore bay-bee!!! If I only want the content of chapters 3, 4 and 8 then that’s all I am going to have to buy. And the amount of people offering high quality material on how to effectively and intelligently teach Chapters 3, 4 and 8 is going to balloon immensely. I mean why should I only turn to you, Mr. Textbook Publisher?

Because you have been so good to us throughout the years? Because when times were financially tough you went easy on our purse strings? I am not so sure how much goodwill you have built up over the decades.

Don’t believe me that’ll I turn somewhere else or demand customization of my eduational items either? Maybe you ought to check out a small little phenomenon called iTunes which has taken me from having to buy every song on an entire album to now being able to buy only the specific tunes I want. (To wit, I cite the Bee Gees. I don’t want songs like Tragedy, I want tunes like Jive Talkin’ You Should be Dancing, and, of course, Staying Alive for those teacher lesson plans I create in my underwear every now and then while blow drying my hair to keep it real.)

And maybe I can finally stop having to pay for material that’s already in public domain, too. Really, how many times have the ninth grade English classes of America paid Textbook Company X for the play Romeo and Juliet? Think about the cash we have spent over the past 50 years. Well, guess what Mr. Hildebrand, that text is now free. (Always has been for you — now it is for us. Goodness, how much do I love the idea of not having to use my school funds to pay you for something which you yourself do not have to pay for when teachers at my school are being laid off due to low funds?)

But now, Mr. Agnostic, all you will be able to sell me are the accompanying study materials to R&J. This brings real competition to the game. Like have you seen the materials this little known group called the Royal Shakespeare Company offers? Or do a search on Web English Teacher for R&J? If they are offering all of this great stuff, can you go toe-to-toe with them? And even if you can, can you match their prices — which are sometimes totally free?

But you, a guy who presides over an industry that rakes in monster bucks selling 100 dollar per kid per subject area textbooks isn’t sweating the idea that schools which adopt these new Kindles might threaten your revenues?

Besides, don’t you still have to digitally develop all the content you plan to sell, make it customizable, individual, accessible and functional for e-commerce delivery? I doubt that’s an impending expenditure of a few clams against your bottom line, really I do.

But no, you are agnostic.

Well, what I think you are, if you have any common sense at all, is terrified. And rightly so. The world is changing and all the millions you have in the bank of our school money isn’t going to be able to stop this from happening.

With a little luck, maybe we’ll be able to hire a few teachers back with the cash we save, too. Oops, there go our free backpacks during textbook adoption season.

I think we can live with it.