There is another interesting side to this story. Large states have an enormous impact on how textbooks end up. Texas, in fact, always is mentioned as the key state. Because the publishers ant their books approved by those states education dept. they tailor the content and "beta test" the books there. Then the rest of the country is left without a choice, because all the books (at least all the ones from the major publishers) are trying to attract that small demographic: the Texas State Textbook Committee, or what ever they are called. Needless to say, everyone has figured this out and this small group of people is targeted by intense lobbying efforts, especially from the Religious Right. I think NPR had a story on this.

Cf. Emily's review of this book on her blog.

Below is the NPR story I reffered to. I noticed they also did a story yesterday on the Language Police

http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1147295

Texas School Books

Listen to Morning Edition audio

July 26, 2002


NPR's John Burnett reports on the highly politicized process of selecting public school books in Texas. For the past 30 years, social conservatives have become a formidable force in the textbook selection process, prompting critics to charge that publishers are self censoring.

You don't know why Polo's excluded ?

Yeah, yeah, I remember now - can't refer to polo because it favors the ruling class. Only refer to "universal" experiences (whatever those might be - using the bathroom, perhaps?)

Glad I remembered - now I can ridicule the notion with a full understanding, rather than just going with the notion that any "prohibitied" word found on the same list as "snowman" and "crazy" is worth supporting.

Go polo!

Oh I remember this one. Jim, that's not that silly at all. They used to use examples from Polo and Yachting in the SAT, and there was a real problem with students having no clue what these were. That's not PC, that's just common sense. If none of your readers have engaged in the activity, and few know what it is (how many Nintendo games are there on Polo ?) then exclude it. And I say this, despite the fact that polo is one of the many contributions of South Asian culture to the pasty faced folk out there.

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree.

Look, depsite my noble birth, I've never played or seen polo, nor do I know the rules. I don't know anyone who has even seen a polo match. I have a sense that it has something to do with horses, that Argentians like it, and that the water variant does not involve horses for reasons that I suspect relate to them tending to drown.

All of this has absolutely nothing to do with whether it should be allowed to be referred to in a textbook - a concept that I find silly.

What little I know about polo I know from, well, reading. And for a lot of kids, the bulk of their reading happens in school. So, if you want kids to know what the heck polo is, you better mention it at some point, or they will never know about polo.

Look, there are two huge problems with the logic that we shouldn't refer to polo in a school textbook simply because some kids (or even - let's say it - "poor kids") haven't heard of it:

1. If it is never taught, they will never hear of it.

2. If we follow the general rule (kids shouldn't be taught that which they don't experience), then by the same logic, "rich kids" shouldn't have to learn about poverty.

The idea that we should not teach things that people don't know is (in my mind), completely contrary to the nature of education.

Maybe we shouldn't teach civics. Most people don't know the name of their elected Congressman.

Uh, I mean Congressperson.

I have some more textbook omits, Jimpy.

"Tennis" should be elminated now! After all, rackets start at $30 and 6 balls will run you $5.50. Plus the local courts - if there are any - may not have functioning nets. Or the baselines may be too chipped to be clearly seen. Or it may be too dangerous to walk over there and play. And yo, even the Williams sistahs learned to play in the relatively lush environs of Long Beach, Calif. - not exactly East St. Louis.

And let's please drop "golf". We all know what even cheap clubs and greens fees run. And Tiger, hardly born to disadvantage, grew up in Orange County, Calif. surrounded by top-notch public links and had a smoother stroke at the age of 6 than I'll ever have. And besides, Tiger strenuously denies that he's even black - which means there are few or no American "People of Color" on the PGA Tour, which means golf must be unattainable to non-white minorities, which means we must pretend the game doesn't exist!

And, please, how 'bout "football"? Only the strong and fast and athletic few can play, and few high school players make it to the collegiate level, and only a fraction of those get to the pros. And it's all men, for christsake! Let's have compassion for the chubby, short weak, nerdy, geeky, snail's-pace boys who shall be forever tormented by the word "football" lest we remove it from their pages!

Here's a few more words we must elminate now: passport, air travel, all foreign country names, boardroom, shareholder, wine glass, macadamia nut, civics - oh wait, you already got civics...

Alas, the problem with politically correctifying language for disadvantaged children is that at the end of the day it's precisely such liberal thinking that keeps them down in society. Damn that Law of Unintended Consequences!

Sure Jim. There are lots of things you can explain about. For example, there's cricket which is a hugely popular sport in many parts of the world. But in examples, often you want to assume that the other person knows what you're talking about rather than having to explain it all. I'm all in favor of explaining things to students and opening them up to the wide world of things they've never encountered. My point is simply that assumptions that polo and yachting are not a part of our common discourse is a reasonable thing to do. Should we talk about weird things that rich people do ? Only when it serves a clear educational purpose. Quite frankly, there are alot more important things to explain to a student than polo and botox.

p.s. if you want to use a polo like example, you'd be better off talking about Quiddich.

I think there might be some confusion about Teaching vs. Testing here. Although no one should argue that it is wrong to teach about polo, yachting, the Russian Revolution, or how a Xerox machine works, it might not be fair to give everyone a test on these subjects. Testing, not teaching, is where the left gets angry. If knowing about Polo makes a 20 point difference on the SAT or ACT, and that makes a difference in your U. Mich application score, then it is pretty clear that is unfair. Anyone would be hard pressed to say Polo was important to success at college. Polo is an extreme example, but is impossible to draw the line between what is useful knowledge that should be universally taught and what is not. This is the inherent problem with nationwide standardized testing.
On the Teaching side, you will never get 100% agreement on what text books should include. It is probably for the best that are evolving to be the blandest they can be, this will force educators to tailor their instruction and use non-text book resources in schools. Education suffers when class is nothing more than a regurgitation of what McGraw Hill has to say on a subject.
BTW, I have long espoused a Federal Right to an Education. This would ensure all children were educated to a minimal standard and with a National consistency.

Testing, not teaching, is where the left gets angry.

Unfortunately, Patrick, what Ravitch is trying to show is that liberals' original objections (it's not fair to ask a test question that assume syou know the rules of lacrosse!) have morphed into less-reasonable demands to apply to textbooks and other materials. The Little Princess would be right out, even though the whole point is that her wealth isn't what matters. The liberal textbook expurgators seem to believe that poor children aren't aware that they're poor, which is ridiculous. I do a reading program with formerly homeless children, and even then 7-yr-olds will start blunt conversations about their families' housing crises. to deprive them of worthwhile literature to avoid damaging their "tender" sensibilities isn't going to help.

...this will force educators to tailor their instruction and use non-text book resources in schools.

Good teachers will. Bad teachers won't. And even good teachers might not be able to afford other books.