99 Textbook Publishing, Textbooks, and Democracy: A Case Study Laura Elizabeth Pinto University of Toronto Journal of Thought, Spring-Summer 2007 Introduction Widely used by teachers, textbooks interpret curriculum policies in a way that reflects the views of authors, publishers, and reviewers. Their content implies what knowledge and skills students ought to achieve. Often, “hidden” aspects of textbook content are overlooked. There are features of the publishing industry and of the textbook de- velopment process that can result in a situation that filters out depth of content and controversies in favour of conventional values, concepts and thinking. At the present time, three publishers produce over 90% of textbooks for Ontario secondary schools. This gives them enormous power as interpreters of the curriculum, while limiting the curriculum resource choices that teachers have.Moreover,four salient features of the textbook development process contribute to a filtered view.This filtered view has two characteristics: a hidden curriculum (i.e., implicit values that reflect dominant and hegemonic ideologies) and a presentation of information (i.e., explicit content) that is superficial and limited. When students interact with textbooks in uncritical ways, the result may be nothing less than indoctrination. Such indoctrination can produce “dogmatic, closed-minded graduates” (Lammi, 1997, p. 10) with limited cognitive views which are at odds with autonomy in the classroom and inconsistent with a democratic vision of education.
23
Embed
Textbook Publishing, Textbooks, and Democracyjournalofthought.com/Issues/2007vol42issue12pdf/16pinto.pdf · curriculum to inculcate ideas and values embedded in practices, relation-ships
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Laura Elizabeth Pinto 99
Textbook Publishing,Textbooks, and Democracy:
A Case Study
Laura Elizabeth PintoUniversity of Toronto
Journal of Thought, Spring-Summer 2007
Introduction Widelyusedby teachers, textbooks interpret curriculumpoliciesinawaythatreflectstheviewsofauthors,publishers,andreviewers.Their content implies what knowledge and skills students ought toachieve. Often, “hidden” aspects of textbook content are overlooked.Therearefeaturesofthepublishingindustryandofthetextbookde-velopmentprocessthatcanresultinasituationthatfiltersoutdepthofcontentandcontroversiesinfavourofconventionalvalues,conceptsandthinking.Atthepresenttime,threepublishersproduceover90%oftextbooksforOntariosecondaryschools.Thisgivesthemenormouspowerasinterpretersofthecurriculum,whilelimitingthecurriculumresourcechoicesthatteachershave.Moreover,foursalientfeaturesofthetextbookdevelopmentprocesscontributetoafilteredview.Thisfilteredviewhastwocharacteristics:ahiddencurriculum(i.e.,implicitvaluesthatreflectdominantandhegemonicideologies)andapresentationofinformation(i.e.,explicitcontent)thatissuperficialandlimited.Whenstudents interact with textbooks in uncritical ways, the result maybenothinglessthanindoctrination.Suchindoctrinationcanproduce“dogmatic,closed-mindedgraduates”(Lammi,1997,p.10)withlimitedcognitiveviewswhichareatoddswithautonomyintheclassroomandinconsistentwithademocraticvisionofeducation.
Textbook Publishing, Textbooks, and Democracy100
Scope ThispaperwillfocussolelyonthesecondaryschoolcontextintheprovinceofOntarioafter1998,whennewcurriculumpolicywasintro-ducedacrosstheprovince.Iwillnotattempttoperformcontentanalysisof textbooksbutwill insteaddrawhistoricaldataonchanges in theindustryandonmyexperienceasanauthortodescribethepublishingindustryandprovideanaccountofthetextbookdevelopmentprocess.Forthepurposeof thispaper, theterm textbookwillbedefinedasabundleofcurriculumartifacts,designedforusebyteacherstodeliveracourse.Ittypicallyconsistsof
Background: Use of Textbooks Dove (1998,p.24)describes textbooksas“theprimarymeansofcommunicatinginformationandinstructiontostudents.”Avarietyofstudies—mostofthemdoneintheUSA—suggestthatsomewherebe-tween60%and95%ofclassroominstructionandactivityaretextbook-driven(seeDove,1998;Schug,et.al.1997;Zahorik,1991;Apple,1991;Moulton,1994;andothers).Rozycki(2001)speculatesthatefficiencyistheprimaryappealoftextbooks—theyprovidecontentthatwouldbetoovastinscopeforateachertogatheronherown.Schugetal.(1997)foundthatUSteacherssurveyedreportedtheprimarymotivationsforusingtextbooksare:theirusefulnessinplanningcoursesandlessonsandvalueofthe“ancillarymaterials”(e.g.,handouts,displaymateri-als)providedwith textbooks.Myexperiencesuggests that textbooksarealsoappealingbecause,unlikeothermaterials,theydonotrequiredailyphotocopying.
orinteractwith,texts:(1)dominated;(2)negotiated;and(3)oppositional.Thoughthesethreeapproachesareapplicabletoanytext,forthispaperIwillconsiderthemspecificallyastheyrelatetotextbooks,whichareindeedaformoftext.Inthedominatedapproach,thereaderacceptsthemessageatfacevalue.Inaclassroomcontext,thiswouldinvolvepositioninginformationinthetextas“fact”andnotseekingalternateperspectivesnorquestioningthecontentanditsunderlyingassumptions.Inthenegotiatedapproach,thereadermaydisputeportionsofthetext,but tends toaccept theoverall interpretationspresented.Finally, intheoppositionalapproach,thereaderrepositionsherselfinrelationtothetextandtakesonthepositionoftheoppressed.Inaclassroom,thiswouldinvolvequestioning,orencouragingstudentstoquestion,theovertandhiddenmessagesinthetextandtoseekoutalternativeconceptionsandinformation.ItisdifficulttosaywithcertaintythefrequencywithwhichthethreeapproachesasdescribedbyAppleandChristian-SmithareusedinOntario. AppleandChristian-Smith’s(1991)approachesdescribethenatureoftheinteractionbetweenthereaderandthetext.Inaclassroomcon-text,bothteachersandstudentsarereaders.Moreimportantly,teachersplayaroleinguidingstudents’readingoftexts.Teachersmayprovideguidelinesforreading,questionsforreflection,orguidediscussionuponcompletionofreading.Theseareopportunitiesforteacherstoencouragedifferentapproachestostudentreading.However,teachersarenotinaposition,formanyreasons,toreflectuponorhavestudentsinteractinacriticalwaywithtextbooksintheirentirety.Thereareseveralfactorsthatmight lead to theuseofdominatedandnegotiatedapproaches.TeachersinOntarioarefacedwithtwoimportantresourceconstraints:limited time to address curriculum policy expectations and limitedfundsavailableforclassroommaterials.Apple(2001)believesthatthereasonthatconservativeeducationalpoliciesdominateisthatteach-ersdonothaverealisticalternativesforuseintheclassroomtosharewithstudentsandguidelessonsandplanning.Asaresult,theyturntotextbooks.Thoughothercurriculumoptionsareavailable,teachersmaynothavetimetolocatethem,norfundstoacquirethem.Second,theprescriptivenatureoftheentiretextbookpackageprovidesteacherswithareasonnottoquestioncontentorpedagogyiftheychoosetousethepreformattedlessonplans,assessmenttools,andhandouts.Usingthesematerialscansaveenormousamountsoftime,eliminatingtheneedtoplanacourseandindividuallessons.Astheauthorofthesesortsofmaterials,Ireceivee-mailsfromteachersacrosstheprovincelettingmeknowhowtheyareusingprefabricatedTGlessons,sometimesaskingformyopinionabouttheorderinwhichtheyplantousethem.Itappears,
ThefirstfeaturethatLammicallsattentiontoisthatindoctrinationisaprocessthatcanoccureitherintentionallyorunintentionally.HareandPortelli(2001)seemtoagreewithLammithatindoctrinationcanbeunintentionalwhentheysayit“extendstothepowerofthehiddencurriculumtoinculcateideasandvaluesembeddedinpractices,relation-shipsandarrangementsthatimpingeontheschool”(Hare&Portelli,2001,p.119).Inthisway,thefilteredviewandlackofteacherautonomyinselectingtextslendthemselvestoindoctrination. A second, andevenmore important feature ofLammi’s account,isthatteachingcanamounttoindoctrinationifitresultsinacertainkindofproductoroutcome.Thatistosay,whentheproductisclosed-mindednessineducationandinsociety,thentheprocessofteaching(either through action or inaction) amounts to indoctrination. Suchclosed-mindednessthreatensdemocracyineducationandfailstopreventstudentsfordemocraticlife.Bellous(2001)recognizesthatpracticingpedagogyinawaythatinhibitsindoctrinationwhilefosteringcriticalinquiryisdifficult.AppleandChristian-Smith’s(1991)dominatedap-proachtointeractionwithtextbooksisdeemedindoctrinativebecauseittakesinformationcontainedintextsatfacevalue.Withoutcriticalinquiry into the rational status of claims, values, and information,thisresultsinblindacceptanceoftextbookcontent.Similarly,theneg-otiatedapproach,representingthemiddle-groundofinteractionwithtexts,also lends itself to indoctrination,becauseportionsof the textaretakenatfacevalueandnotquestionedorapproachedcritically.Ifstudentssimplyacceptinformationandconceptswithout“activelyin-quiringintotheirrationalstatus”(Siegel,1988,p.89)3—astheywilliftheytakeadominatedorpossiblynegotiatedapproachtothetexttheyarereading—theyarelikelytoaccepttheexplicitcontentofafilteredview,withoutconsideringwhetherthatcontentisaccurateornot.Thisisproblematicfortworeasons.First,readersmaybemisinformedabouttopicsand issues if theyaremisrepresentedornot fullyexplored intexts.Thoughmisinformationbyitselfdoesnotimplyindoctrination,inducingstudentstoacceptsuchinformationuncriticallydoesatleastboarder on indoctrination. Second, and most importantly, sustainedinteractionwithtextbooksinthisfashionwilllikelyleadstudentstocarryondominatedandnegotiatedapproachesbeyondtheirschooling,
Textbook Publishing, Textbooks, and Democracy104
resultingin,atworstclosed-mindedgraduatesandcitizens,and,atbest,misinformedindividualsunpreparedtoengageindemocraticlife.Theoutcomeofindoctrinationis,atworst,aclosed-mindedindividualwithalimitedcognitiveview(Lammi,1997)atoddswithautonomyintheclassroomandcontradictorytoademocraticvisionofeducation. Whileindoctrination,asIhavediscussed,canarisefromexplicittextcontent,equallyimportantisthehiddencurriculumtransmittedthroughtextbooks.Thehiddencurriculumreflectedinthefilteredviewtextbookspresentisrootedinideology.4Apple(1979,p.20)describesideologyasa“systemofideas,beliefs,fundamentalcommitments,orvaluesaboutsocialreality.”Schoolisonecontextinwhichindividualsareexposedtoideologies.Giroux(1983,p.66)characterizesideologyasaprocessof“production,interpretation,andeffectivityofmeaning.”Heviewsthedominantideologyasservingtheinterestoftheprivilegedclasseswithintheculturethatproducesit.Initiationintoaparticularideologycanoc-curinawaythatleadsstudentstoacceptitifthelearningenvironmentclosesoffopportunitiesforoppositionorchallenge.Thisismorelikelytotakeplaceifonlyoneideologyispresented,andnoopportunitiesareprovidedtoexamineotherpointsofview.Suchenvironmentsmayleadstudentstobecometrappedinconventionalideas5thatdonotnecessar-ilyaddresstheirinterestsandcertainlycontradictdemocraticideals.AccordingtoGiroux,dominantideologiesappearintwoways:embeddedinculturalandcurriculumartifacts(suchastextbooks);andinthedis-courseandinteractionsthattakeplaceinclassrooms.Iftextbookstendtoperpetuateideologies(dominantornot),theyaresurelypotentialtoolsofindoctrinationifcoupledwithdominatedornegotiatedapproachestointeraction.Ayalon(2003)citestwostudiesfromtheearly1990s(Apple,1992;Sleeter&Grant,1991)whichfoundthatK-12textbookstendtoperpetuatedominantideologieswhilemarginalizingtheroleandper-spectivesofminoritygroups.6Forinstance,ifonlyonepointofviewistakenseriouslyintheclassroom(i.e.,thatofthetextbook),theremaynotbeaweighingofthereasonsforthatpointofview.Bycontrast,ifmultiplepointsofviewarepresented,studentshaveanopportunitytomakedecisionsaboutorcomparecompetingviews–anactivitythatisessentialfordemocraticlife.7Withouthavingtoengageininquiryandconsiderotherperspectives, students canbecomeclosed-mindedandindoctrinatedintoasingleideology.Whenconsciousnessofalternativestothedominantviewaresuppressedordevalued,studentsareunlikelytobeopentosuggestionsthatdonotadheretothedominantview.Thedominantideologywillplayasignificant(ifnotexclusive)roleinshap-ingastudent’scognitiveviewiftheonlyperspectivesheisexposedto,perhapsattheexpenseofamoreholisticdevelopmentthatconsiders
BecausethesizeoftheCanadianmarketislimitedduetopopulationandfinancialresourcesavailabletopurchaselearningresources,publish-ersworktomaximizethepotentialnumberofbookstheycansell.Thereisadistinctioninthewaythatmandatorysubjectsandelectivesubjectsaretreated.“Core”subjectareasarethosesubjectsthataremandatoryforallstudentsinOntariotostudy:mathematics,English,science,his-toryandgeography.Becauseallstudentsmusttakethesecourses,thesizeofthemarketislarger.Forcoresubjects,severalpublishersoffertextbooksthatcompeteagainstoneanother.Electivesubjects—thosethatstudentsmayselect,butarenotrequiredtostudy(e.g.,business,technology,arts,physicaleducation,law,economics,philosophy,etc.)—aretreatedverydifferently.Publishers tend todivideup thismarket sothatthereislittleornocompetitionforagivenbook.Ifonepublisherisworkingon,say,anaccountingtextbookoraphilosophytextbook,theotherswillavoiddevelopmentofsuchabook.9ThiswasnotthecaseinpreviousdecadeswhenmorepublishersservedtheCanadianmarket.Forexample,intheearly1990s,therewereseveralaccounting,marketing,andlawbooksavailable.Asmergerstakeplace,thosethatmighthaveproduced“competing”booksareswallowedupbycompetitors.Forobvi-ousreasons,apublisherdoesnotwanttocarrytwobooksthatcompeteagainstoneanotheriftheycanjustaseasilyofferonlyone. OnefinalaspectoftheindustryishowvariousCanadianmarketsaretreated.Textbooksforthesecondaryschoolcoursesarewrittentocorrelatetocurriculumexpectationsassociatedwithspecificcourses.AsthelargestEnglish-speakingprovince,Ontarioplaysasignificantroleindrivingthedevelopmentofnewtextbookstosuititscurriculum.However,publishersareanxioustomakebooksforOntariorelevanttootherpartsofCanada.Insomeprovincesandregions(specifically,BritishColumbiaandtheMaritimes),province-wideandboard-wideadoptions of textbooks are common.Where an Ontario book can bealteredtoaddresscoursecurriculumofotherprovinces,itis.Anecdotalevidencesuggeststhatschoolboardsinsomeregions(particularlytheMaritimes)tendtofavoursmall,localpublishers.10
Textbook Publishing Following Ontario School Reform
TheadventofsecondaryschoolreformbytheOntarioMinistryofEducationbroughtaboutnewcurriculumforsecondaryschoolcoursesbetween1998and2000.Thesignificantandsweepingchangestothecurriculum necessitated new teaching and learning materials. Theprovinceannouncedthatitwouldprovide$30millionperyearfornewtextbooksin1998/1999and2000/2001(PeopleforEducation,2001).In
Textbook Publishing, Textbooks, and Democracy108
2002,Ontarioaddedanother$65milliondollarsfortextbooksandsoft-ware(Honey,2002).Someadditionalgrantswereavailabletosubsidizepublication by Canadian publishers and authors (Minister of PublicWorksandGovernmentServices,2001).Publishersimmediatelyseizedthis opportunity, andbegandevelopingproducts to address thenewcurriculum.Becausethisperiodof textbookdevelopmentwasdrivenbyschoolreform,publishersandwritersfocusedonensuringthatnewbooks produced for Ontario addressed curriculum policy documents.ThisensuredthattheywouldbeapprovedbytheTrilliumlist11andbeconsidereduseablebyteacherswhoareaccountabletomeetcurriculumpolicyexpectationsassociatedwiththereforms.
Case Study: The Textbook Development Process Asatextbookco-authorinOntariobetween1998and2003,Iexper-iencedthedevelopmentprocessundertwoseparatepublishers(Irwin,whichwassubsequentlypurchasedbyThomson,andPearsonEducationCanada).Twoofthesetextbookswerewrittenforinformationtechnologycourses,12whilethethird(whichwascompletedbutnotpublishedduetoorganizationalconstraints)wasforacomputerprogrammingcourse.Myco-authorswereallpracticingteacherswillfull-timejobsorother,similarcommitmentsduringthewritingprocess.Authorswereeitherself-selected(byproposingabook)orselectedbypublishers.13 Severalsalientprocessfeaturescharacterizedmyexperience.Theywere:(1)aggressivetimelines;(2)theneedtoadheretocurriculumexpec-tations;(3)impactof“marketability”andprofitabilityastheyrelatetocontentand length;and (4)varied influenceofpublishersandotherindividualsoncontent.Eachofthesefeaturesisdiscussedbelow.
Each of the books I worked on was developed primarily for theOntariomarket.Authorsbeganwithlistsofcurriculumexpectations.Collectively,wesatdownanddeterminedhowbesttogrouptheexpec-tationsintochaptersandwhatsequencethosechaptersshouldfollow.Resultingdraft tablesofcontentsweresenttopublishers,reviewersand/orfocusgroupsforinput.Wheretherewasdisagreement,amend-mentsweremadethatreflectedtheopinionsofthemajority. Thecurriculumexpectationsprovidedtheauthorswithadirectionforeachchapter,butthespecificcontentforthefirstdraftofthemanuscriptwasbasedontheauthor’spersonaljudgment.Thisisimportant,becausethecurriculumexpectations,inmanycases,arehighlyinterpretable14.Manyoftheseexpectationscallforanexplorationofspecificissues—butdonotprescribehowtoexplorethem,norwhatsortsofexamplesorperspectivesshouldbeprovided.Thedegreetowhichsourceswereusedtosubstantiateclaimsmade—andwhatsourceswereused—wereuptoauthors.Inmyexperience,authorsreliedprimarilyonourexistingknowledgeof,andteachingexperiencewith,topicstodeterminecontent.Giventheaggressivetimelines,Idonotbelievethatanyoftheauthorstooktimetoconsiderthesubtleconsequencesoftheirsubjectmattertreatment.Inourdiscussions,wefocusedonquestionssuchas:What do students need to know/do to meet the expectations? What do we currently look for in our students to demonstrate mastery of, say, word processing?Formanytopicscovered,authorsrevisitedconceptstheywerefamiliarwithtolocateappropriatecitationsoradditionalinformation.Forothertopicswithwhichauthorswerelessfamiliar(e.g.,e-commerce),theyconductedresearchtodevelopcontent.
Marketability and Profitability
Textbookpublisherswish toproduceproducts that teachersandschooldistrictswillpurchase.Beforeapprovalcanbegrantedtoproceedwiththedevelopmentofabook,acasemustbemadeastoitsprofit-abilitybasedonthenumberofstudentsenrolledinthecourseandthenumberofschoolsacrosstheprovincethatofferthecourse.Theprojectedretailpriceforthebookwasdeterminedbasedonamaximumnumberofpagesanduseofcoloursandartwork.Approvaltoproceedwasbasedonapagelimit(since,particularlyforfull-colourbooks,thecostofgoingoverthepagelimitishigh)anddrafttablesofcontents.
Manyindividualsareinvolvedinthetextbookdevelopmentprocess.Eachhasaroletoplayintermsofinfluencingthecontentoftextbooks.ThekeyparticipantswhohadinfluenceonthecontentaresummarizedinTable1. Thoughtheauthorspreparedfirst-draftmanuscriptsindependently,oncemanuscriptsweresubmittedtotheeditorandseniormanagementdialogue began to take place over how curriculum expectations were
Laura Elizabeth Pinto 111
coveredandinterpreted.Myexperiencewasthattheseniormanagementwere“handson”andhadmuchtosayaboutthecontent.Inoneparticularinstance,Icompletedachapterthatincludedseveralexpectationsrelatingtoemployment.15Boththeeditorandtheseniormanagerspecifically(andstrongly)requestedthattheConferenceBoardofCanada’sEmployabilitySkills16bebroughtintothechapter.17Thisiscommonlyusedbysecondaryschoolteachers,whichmayhavebeenthereasonforthesuggestion.Pagelimitationspreventedmefromcounterbalancingthiswithadiscussionthatreflectedsomecriticalconcernsintheliterature. Reviewersandfocusgroupsalsoplayedanimportantroleintheinterpretationofcurriculumexpectationsastextbookcontent.Authorswererequiredtoeither(a)incorporatereviewercommentsinarevisedmanuscript;or(b)provideawrittenrationaleforwhyasuggestionwasnot used. Overall, reviewers supported the general directions of themanuscriptstheyreceived. Often,theauthorsmakepresentationstothesalesforcetoinstructthemhowtosellbooks.18Authorsareusuallycontractuallyobligatedtoprovidebetweensixandeightworkshopsorpresentationsasrequestedbythepublisherforthepurposeofsales.
Individual or group Roleauthors • prepare manuscript(s) and web content
• address editorial, senior management and reviewer comments• as per contract stipulations, offer presentations to sales force and potential customers
(directly to boards or at conferences)project manager or agent • assemble writing team
• conduct initial research to determine size of market and potential revenues• prepare proposal• approach publisher to accept proposal• approve layout• liaise with publisher to determine contracts, schedules, etc.• prepare (with graphic designers) and distribute marketing materials to potential customers
senior managers (usually vice president of a division, publisher, and/or a product manager)
• approve textbook concept to proceed• draft contracts• review manuscript and provide input• conduct market research (e.g., focus groups)
publisher marketing representatives
• sell textbook to teachers/schools/boards when complete
editor and/or managing editor • review all drafts of manuscript• provide feedback regarding style, content, etc.• ensure reviewer comments are addressed (and in some cases, summarize comments)
graphic designers • create layout of textbook (includes graphic images, organization, layout) based on direction of authors, editor and senior management
• organize web contentreviewers • usually comprised of a group of approximately ten practicing teachers, plus at least one
“expert” in an area such as assessment and evaluation• review “final” drafts of manuscript after they have been edited and approved by senior
Discussion Anexaminationofthepublishingindustryitselfandtheprocessoftextbookdevelopmentinprecedingsectionsrevealedseveraltroublingfeatures: ologopolistic structureandchoiceanddevelopmentprocessresultinginafilteredview.Inthesectionsthatfollow,Iwilladdresstheirimplicationsinlightoftheapproachestointeractionwithtextsandindoctrinationastheyrelatetodemocracyineducation.ThecaseImakeisstrictlyprima facie;theissuesIdealwithmayinvolvecompli-cationsthatarenotaddressedhere,andafulleraccountwouldhavetoconsiderobjectionstotheconclusionsIamadvancing.Industry Features—Oligopolistic Structure and Choice
Apple(1991,p.32)posesthequestion:“howdoesthepoliticaleconomyofpublishingitselfgenerateparticulareconomicandideologicalneeds?”TheoligopolisticstructurethatcharacterizespublishersservingOntarioresultsinlittlechoiceforteachers,whileleavingcontentandeditorialdecisionsinthehandsoffew.Thissituation,asitrelatestochildren’sbooks,hasbeenexploredintheliterature(see,forexample,Taxel,2002).Thenumberofpublishersisdecreasing.Thisgrantsafewprofit-makingpublishers(threewhoproduceover90%oftextbooksforOntario)enor-mousamountsofpowerbecausetheyareultimatelyabletodeterminewhatissaidintextbooks,aswellashowitissaid.This,inturn,allowsthemtobetheinterpretersofthecurriculumpolicy.Thishasbeenex-pressedasaconcernintheUS(see,forexample,Miller,1997),butnotexploredinCanada.Forelectivesubjects,thesepublishersdeliberatelyavoidcompetition,resultinginonlyonetextbookpercourse.Publishersareinapositiontodecidewhatperspectivesarerepresentedthroughtheirchoiceofauthors,andthroughtheireditorialauthority.Whatchoiceisleftforteacherswhowishtoorarerequiredtousetextbooks? Alone,theresultsofthepublishingoligopology(i.e.,lackofchoiceanddecisionsleftinthehandsofpublishers)arenotsignificant.Itisentirely possible for publishers to develop a multitude of textbooksthataddressavarietyofperspectiveswhichwouldbeconsistentwithademocraticvision.Theproblemis,asthefollowsectionswillreveal,thatthisdoesnothappen.Instead,theoligopolisticstructurereinforcesadevelopmentprocessthatresultsintextbooksthatcontainafilteredview.Becauseofthecombinedeffectofprocessandoligopolistic,teachersareleftwithlittlechoice,and,moreimportantly,withtextbooksthatpresentafilteredviewofcontentthatiscontrarytothepromotionofdemocracyintheclassroomorasawayoflife.
Laura Elizabeth Pinto 113
Development Process Features Resulting in a Filtered View
Textbooks, Apple (1991) contends, provide a filtered view whichembodiescertainvaluesand/orbiasesrelatedtoaparticularideology.Hecautionsthatdecisionsmadeforwhatofficialknowledgeappearsintextbookshavebeenmadeauthors,editorsandthoseinpositionsofpowerwithintextbookpublishingfirms.Forexample,theinformationtechnologyinbusinesscoursesforwhichIproducedtextbookscontainedagreatdealofbiasinfavouroftechnologyandthe“valuesandbenefits”oftraditionalmodelsofbusiness.19Thesedecisionsaremadewithinandresultfromaspecificprocessoftextbookdevelopment.Thissectionwillexaminetheimplicationsoffoursalientfeaturesoftextbookdevelop-mentwhichwereraisedearlier:(1)constraintsoftimeandpagecount;(2)adherencetocurriculumexpectations,(3)desireformarketabilityandprofitability;and(4)degreeandtypeofinfluenceofindividualsandgroupsinthedevelopmentprocess. The first salient feature of the textbook development process isconstraintoftimeandpagecountasitimpactsthefinishedproduct.Withoutcriticalreflection(whichisnotpossiblegivenwritingcondi-tions),authors inevitablydevelop content that simply reflectseithertheirownviewand/ortheconventionalviewpoints.Moreover,tokeepwithinpagelimitations,thepotentialforsimplistic,superficialcoverageoftopicsoccurs.Together,theseconstraintsleadtoaninitialmanuscriptthatembodiesaparticularviewandsuperficialtopiccoverage,whichmightcompromisedemocracyintheclassroom. Thesecondsalientfeatureofthedevelopmentprocessistheneedtoadheretoprovincialcurriculumexpectations.Giventhattheyaredrivenbycurriculumpolicy,textbooksnodoubtreflecttheintendedorunintendedperspectiveofthepolicymakers.20Onthesurface,policydocumentsforbusinessandinformationtechnologypromoteacareer-focus and perpetuate free-market beliefs. Overtly, the curriculum ispositionedtopreparestudentsfortheworkforce—apositionthatben-efitsemployers,possiblyattheexpenseofmarginalizedgroups.21Thepresenceofsuchexpectationsrelatingtobusinessskillsandcontent,inthemselves,legitimatethatknowledge.Theyclearlyprescribewhattopicsmustbeaddressed,butnothowtheyaretobeaddressed.Thisprovides leeway for interpretation of expectations within textbookswhichisheavilyreliantonauthorjudgment.Withoutcontentanalysis,wecannotdrawconclusionsabouthowauthorsandpublishersinter-preted these expectations. However, there is some evidence (see, forexample,thestudiesdescribedbyAyalon,2003)thattheinterpretationof curriculumexpectations into textbookcontent tends to reflect the
• Teacherswantarelativelyconcisetextbookthatisgearedto their perceived aptitude of students. The concise natureof the textbook isalso in linewithafinal factor: cost.Withlimitedbudgets,schoolsanddistrictspreferalessexpensivetextbook.
implicationsarisingfromtheneedformarketabilityfurthercontributetoafilteredview. Thefourthandfinalsalientfeatureofthedevelopmentprocessisthevariedinfluenceofindividualsandgroups(i.e.,publishers,editors,reviewers,authors).Apple(1996)contendsthatcurriculaaretheproductsofintenseconflicts,negotiations,andattemptsatrebuildinghegemoniccontrol by incorporating the knowledge and perspectives of the lesspowerfulundertheumbrellaofdiscourseofdominantgroups.Apple’svisionisfora“free,contributive,andcommonprocessofparticipationinthecreationofmeaningsandvalues”(1993,p.238)thatincorporatesthevoicesofavarietyofgroups,perspectives,andideologies.Whohasavoiceinthetextbookdevelopmentprocess?Howisthepowerdistri-buted?Whohasthefinalsay? Onthesurface,theinvolvementofmanyindividualsandgroupsintextbookdevelopmentappearstobeademocraticprocesswhichincludesmultipleperspectives.Itisimportanttotakenoteofwhothesevoicesareand,moresignificantly,howtheyareselectedtoworkonprojects.Thoughinsomecases,authorsproposeprojectsandinotherstheyarehand-pickedbypublishers,thedecisionofwhohastheopportunitytowrite isultimatelyup to thepublisher.Similarly, reviewersarealsopublisher-selected.Thisgivespublishersevengreaterpower—sincetheyareabletoselectparticipantsintheprocesswhomighthaveasimilarperspectiveandviewpoint.Givenpublisherparticipationandinputintheprocess,thereisreasontoselectauthorsandreviewerswhoreflectthepublisher’sperspectivetoexpeditetheprocess.Intheend,however,thepublisherhasthefinalsayinwhatviewpointisreflectedintextbookcontent.Thisimbalanceofpowerfordecision-makingisnotconsistentwithademocraticapproach. Therearetwodistinctaspectstothefilteringthattakesplace.Thefirsthastodowithahiddencurriculum(i.e.,valuesandideasthatarenotexplicitlystated).Thesecondconcernsthenullcurriculum—thatis,thecontentwhichisomittedinfavourofthethingsthatareexplicitlystatedintextbooks.IntheprojectsIworkedon,manyconceptswereover-simplified inorder tofitperceivedstudentabilitiesandorasaresultofpagelimitations.Still,otherconceptswerepresentedasingle,dominantperspective,overlookingcompetingpointsofview.
becomeactualdependsonthewayinwhichteachersandstudentsin-teractwithtextbooks. Thecasestudydiscussedherebegsthequestion:better teachers or better textbooks? Idonotattempttoanswerthisquestionfullyhere.Regardlessofcurriculumartifactsused,AppleandChristian-Smith’s(1991)oppositionalapproachtotextsisdesirabletofostercriticalthink-ingandco-constructionofmeaningsinclassrooms—actionswhichareessentialtodemocracyineducationandpreparationfordemocraticlife.If,asmanywillpresumebasedontheliteraturereviewpresentedearlier,mostteachersdonotengageinthisapproach,thendifferentpedagogies(not“better teachers”) aredesirable.This is oneway to counter-bal-ancetextbooksthatdonotreflectdemocraticprinciplesandpractices.Withoutquestion,bettertextbooksaredesirable.Indeed,morechoiceforteachersinOntariowouldrestoresomeautonomy.Inordertohavebetter(andmore)textbooks,significantsystemicchangestothedevelop-mentprocesswouldneedtotakeplace(e.g.,throughdifferentindustrystructure and/or external financial incentives, different processes ofdevelopment).Giventhecurrentenvironment,thisisunlikelytooccurintheforeseeablefuture.
2Siegel’s(1988)definitionofcriticalthinkingincludestwocomponents:anaffectivedisposition(empathy,openness,seekingalternativeperspectives,etc.)andasetofskills(rationalthoughtprocesses,evaluatinginformation,andmak-ingsoundjudgmentsaboutsituationsandinformation,etc.).Siegeldescribestheaimofcriticalthinkingeducationasfosteringrationalityandthedevelopmentofrationalpersons. 3Anecessarybutnotsufficientconditionforindoctrination. 4Siegel(1988,p.64)quotesSimon(1984,p.57)incharacterizingideologyastermin“semanticdisarray.” 5Animportantconsiderationisthatstudentsmustmasterconventionalwaysofthinkingwithindominantideologiesinordertofunctioninasociety.However,masteringwaysofthinkingandbeinginculcatedintoanideologyaredistinctfromoneanother.Studentscanandshoulddevelopanunderstandingofdominantideologies,whilestillquestioningthemwithintheirowncognitiveviewsinlightofcompetingideologiesandpointsofview. 6Somesubjectsmightbemorepronetotheinfluenceofideologyinthepresentationofinformationordiscussionofissues.Forinstance,socialsciences,careerstudies,civics,businessstudiesaredeeplyrootedinculturalhistoryandnorms—andavoidingideologies insuchsubjectareasisdifficult ifnotimpossible. 7Whatisimportanttodemocraticlifeishowwemakedecisions.Theymustbemadeinacriticalandreflectiveway. 8Databytextbookdivision(elementary,secondary,highereducation)isnotavailable. 9Publishersdetermineifotherbooksareindevelopmenteitherthroughconversationsatindustrymeetings,orthoughdiscussionswiththeirnetworksofpotentialauthorsandeducators. 10Thismay,inpart,beduetotheirsmallsize,andthereluctanceoflarge,nationalpublisherstoenterintotheirmarket. 11TheTrilliumlist,whichreplacedCircular14,isalistoftextbooksapprovedbytheMinistryofEducationforuseinOntarioschools.ApprovalisbasedonaseriesofcriteriaestablishedbytheMinistry,andreviewoftextbooksiscarriedout by the Ontario Curriculum Clearinghouse (OCC), a nonprofit organiza-tion.InordertobeontheTrilliumlist,publishersmustsubmitmanuscriptsorcompletedtextbooks(withanadministrativefee)totheMinistry,whothencontractstheOntarioCurriculumClearinghouse(OCC)toreviewandprovidearecommendationforapproval.Between1999and2005,CanadianpublishersbelongingtotheCanadianEducationalResourceCouncil(CERC)“boycotted”theTrilliumlistduetothehighcostofsubmittingtextbooksforreview.CERCisanindustryorganizationledbymajorCanadianpublishersincludingThomson,Pearson,andothers.IwasalertedtotheboycottbyaVicePresidentatPearsonEducationCanada;thiswasconfirmedbyadiscussionwithaseniormanageratThomson,aswellasdiscussionswithofficialsfromOCC. 12InformationtechnologywithintheOntariocurriculumreferstothestudyofcomputerapplications,informationmanagement,andimpactoftechnologyonindividuals,commerce,andsociety. 13Itisnotuncommonforpublisherstoattendteacher-conferencesandget
Textbook Publishing, Textbooks, and Democracy118
toknowpresenterswhomightserveaspotentialauthors.Publishersandagentsalsotendtoinformally“askaround”amongteacherstodeterminewhoseworktheyarefamiliarwith. 14ExamplesofselectedcurriculumexpectationsforInsights: Succeeding in the information age(developedforagrade9/10informationtechnologycourse)include(MinistryofEducation1998):
• analyze their development of information technology skills (e.g.,animationskills,graphicsskills)
• summarize,electronically,their informationtechnologyskills (e.g.,skills in electronic research and analysis, multimedia presentation,electronicprojectteammanagement)
Current Issues in Comparative Education, 1(2).RetrievedDecember2,2002,fromhttp://www.tc.columbia/cice/vol1nr2/aa142.htm
Apple,M.W.(2001).Educationalandcurricularrestructuringandtheneo-liberalandneo-conservativeagendas: InterviewwithMichaelApple.Curriculo sem Fronteiras, 1(1),i-xxvi.
Apple,M.W.(1979).Ideology and curriculum.London,UK:Routledge.Aronowitz,S.&Giroux,H.A.(1991).Authority,cultureandthepoliticsoflit-
eracy.InM.W.Apple&L.K.Christian-Smith,The politics of the textbook.London,UK:Routledge.
Bellous,J.(2001).Shouldweteachstudentstoresist?InJ.P.Portelli&W.Hare(Eds.),Philosophy of education: Introductory readings (3rdEd.).Calgary,Alberta:Detselig.
CanadianPress.(27August2003).Thomson-ownedNelsonbuysNorburyPub-lishing.Toronto Star (onlineedition).Retrievedon28August2003from<http://www.torontostar.com>
proachtoassesssocialengineeringprograms.Online Issues: Centre for the Study of Curriculum and Instruction, 6(1),November.
Kahane,H.&Cavender,N.(2002).Logic and contemporary rhetoric (9thEdition).Belmont,CA:Wadsworth.
Lammi,W.(1997).Thehermeneuticsofideologicalindoctrination.Perspectives on Political Science, 26,10-14.
McLaren,P.(1989).Life in schools.NewYork:Longman.Miller,M.(1997).Surprise!Nationalschoolstandardsexist:Butcurriculaare
established by textbook companies, not the government. US News and World Report, 123(19),35.
MinisterofPublicWorksandGovernmentServices. (2001).2000-2001 Book Publishing Industry Report.Ottawa,Ontario:CanadianHeritagePublish-ingPolicyandProgramsBranch.
MinistryofEducation.(1998).The Ontario curriculum, grades 9 and 10: Busi-
Laura Elizabeth Pinto 121
ness studies.Toronto,Ontario:TheQueen’sPrinter.MinistryofEducation.(2000).The Ontario curriculum, grades 11 and 12: Busi-
TheoryandResistanceinEducation.Educational Theory, 34(4),379-388.Sleeter, C. & Grant, C. (1991). Race, class, gender, and disability in current
textbooks.InM.W.Apple&L.K.Christian-Smith(Eds.),The politics of the textbook.NewYork:Routledge.
Solomon,R.P.&Allen,A.M.A.(2001).Thestruggleforequity,diversity,andsocialjusticeinteachereducation.InJ.P.Portelli&R.P.Solomon(Eds.),The erosion of democracy in education: From critique to possibilities.Calgary,Alberta:Detselig.
Taxel,J.(2002).Children’sliteratureattheturnofthecentury:Towardapoliti-caleconomy.Research in the Teaching of English, 37(2),145-190.
Zahorik,J.A.(1991).Teachingstyleandtextbooks.Teaching and Teacher Edu-cation, 7(2),185-196.