Who Do We Think We Are?

I'm currently researching California's textbook adoption process, and stumbled across a fantastic report from the Fordham Institute titled "The Mad, Mad World of Textbook Adoption." There is a whole section devoted to California's "social content standards" which were implemented in 1976. As far as I can tell, these standards are implemented by a bunch of bureaucrats who are trying not to offend...well, pretty much anyone.

Now, I am all for fair representation of the glorious diversity in the good old U.S. of A. But, ummmm....have you met America? We are a pretty divided place. There is an interest group for everything, and they often have opposing viewpoints: Feminists vs. Fundamentalists; Homos vs. Homo-haters; Evolutionists vs. Creationists...etc. Even if there aren't opposing viewpoints, how is it even remotely possible to satisfy everyone's interest? Gender balance, equal representation of people with disabilities, various ethnic backgrounds, religious beliefs, and socioeconomic status....I just don't see how it's realistically possible for one textbook to incorporate all of these various stakeholders (or at least satisfy their interest groups) into a quality textbook that is (gasp!) a quality and compelling text for students.

This kind of reminds me of a conversation that I had with a classmate of mine once upon a time. We were talking about test scores and how different regions of the U.S. stack up against each other (urban vs. rural, east coast vs. west coast, etc), and also how the U.S. stacks up against other countries. I brought up Finland, which generally speaking blows the U.S. out of the water on most standardized metrics. My classmate immediately shot back that Finland is extremely homogeneous, making it much easier to develop a national school system that works for everyone.

Oh.

Duh.

Finland =
US =
Right. There are simply more complexities when you are trying to do something on a national scale in a place that has a plethora of different backgrounds in its social fabric.

Now, just to be clear, I firmly believe that children and teenagers should be exposed to the rich diversity of our country and the world. I just as firmly believe that children and teenagers deserve a quality education. What I'm seeing in the California system of implementing diversity in teaching materials doesn't seem to accomplish either of these things. Textbook editors have scrubbed their materials of anything that might be controversial. Which equals BORING, and what a shame! Controversy has shaped us, and kids should get to know about it!

What really gets me, though, is that in all the reading I've done about these social content standards and various review panels, it is often several paragraphs, pages, or even chapters before I see the words "students" and "needs" put together. It's like we can't see the forest for the trees. And who, exactly, do we think we are that by wordsmithing texts to their graves we can indoctrinate children into a way of thinking deemed correct by some bureaucrat somewhere? The more I read about these tedious processes where the goal of educating children is completely lost in the shuffle of people making themselves feel important, the more I tend to believe that maybe we're going about this all backwards. Maybe state panels and bureaucracies should have less control in regulating textbooks or materials instead of more. Maybe teachers, who know their students, should be more entrusted to provide students with what they need. Or maybe--and this is pretty radical--we can give students more freedom to explore the topics of interest to them, thereby developing a more authentic understanding of the world. After all, are we trying to produce robots who can regurgitate facts as approved by some panel somewhere? Or is our goal to develop nimble leaders of a dynamic and shifting world?