Schoolbooks Are Given F’s in Originality

Al new york times ^ | 7/13/06 | DIANA JEAN SCHEMO

[mathprof]

This is how the 2005 edition of “A History of the United States,” a high school history textbook by the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Daniel J. Boorstin and Brooks Mather Kelley, relates the cataclysmic attacks of 9/11 for a new generation of young adults:

“In New York City, the impact of the fully fueled jets caused the twin towers to burst into flames. The fires led to the catastrophic collapse of both 110-story buildings as well as other buildings in the area. The numbers of people missing and presumed dead after this assault was estimated to be 2,750.”

The language is virtually identical to that in the 2005 edition of another textbook, “America: Pathways to the Present,” by different authors. The books use substantially identical language to cover other subjects as well, including the disputed presidential election of 2000, the Persian Gulf war, the war in Afghanistan and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.

Just how similar passages showed up in two books is a tale of how the largely obscure $4 billion a year world of elementary and high school textbook publishing often works, for these passages were not written by the named authors but by one or more uncredited writers. And while it is rare that the same language is used in different books, it is common for noted scholars to give their names to elementary and high school texts, lending prestige and marketing power, while lesser known writers have a hand in the books and their frequent revisions.

[mathprof]

I guess there's not enough conspiracy theory or "Bush's fault" in the 9/11 excerpt. The Al new york times would probably be happier if one of the 9/11 descriptions would have been written by the U Wisc professor who says that the US gov blew up the twin towers.

The texts also probably don't live up to the liberal ideology when it comes to the 2000 election, since that's also mentioned.

[goldstategop]

Publik skrools are simply liberal propaganda factories for turning impressionable minds to mush.

(The Palestinian terrorist regime is the crisis and Israel's fist is the answer.)

[Kimmers]

I purchased William Bennetts' book, AMERICA THE LAST BEST HOPE.

I think this book will offer us a more accurate view on history and a far more enjoyable read.

I am planning on reading it as soon as I am done with Coulters book.

[mathprof]

I purchased William Bennetts' book, AMERICA THE LAST BEST HOPE.

 Thanks for the recommendation.  The family has a long-drive vacation coming up, and I'll probably get this from audible.com for the drive.
 

[Aquinasfan]

the largely obscure $4 billion a year world of elementary and high school textbook publishing

You don't want to know how sausage is made.

[twigs]

I've purchased it too, but have not had a chance to read it. I look forward to it. I try to avoid modern history textbooks. They tend to be poorly written, boring and inaccurate. I think Bennett is exactly right--history is composed of very exciting stories and the American story is the second best in the history of the world. It's made up of courageous men and women who made incredible decisions and carried them out. It should be told like that.

[Kimmers]

You are so welcome, the little that I have read it seems really enjoyable.

My friend saw him interviewed on FOX and I guess his goal was to make history enjoyable.

[netmilsmom]

>>I purchased William Bennetts' book, AMERICA THE LAST BEST HOPE.<<

Isn't that the one that he is doing in a children's version?
I'm sure buying THAT one!

Even with Homeschooling, the liberal stuff comes in. I need to give the kiddies the truth!

[Kimmers]

I just heard from a fellow freeper about a book called

"A PATRIOTS HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES"

He felt it was a better book and is available on Amazon.

[meowmeow]

And written by Freeper LS. It's on my summer reading list after Godless.

[The Great RJ]

The mediocrity of school textbooks comes from many sources. Publishers first sanitize the books so as not offend anyone of any belief. Secondly, the books, especially history texts, must be made politically correct. For example, the history of the American War of Independence cannot just talk about the founding fathers, but must give women and minorities coequal roles. Obscure women and minorities that would rate little more than a foot note in any real history must be given equal importance and text to figures like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Third, liberal icons like global warming and humans destroying the planet must be taught even if there is no science to support those claims. Lastly the texts must be dumbed down, after all high school students on average can read at only about a 6th grade level and many of their teachers are hardly intellectuals having spent their 4 years of college taking how to teach classes and little of the classes they will be teaching.

[WOSG]

I am going to be looking into
"A PATRIOTS HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES"
for me and the kids. Freeper LS is a coauthor. It has interesting Amazon reviews.

I bought a "Reader's Companion to American History" some time ago, it is written in encyclopedia form with various entries, and just found leftist claptrap on their cultural history of colonial era - full of 'capitalist' and 'hegemony' and cultural marxist view of things. Likewise, entry on nuclear power was biased. Two of several very annoying entries (although they did okay on Patrick Henry and some other entries, just some of the entries are giveaways to bias). I wouldnt have bought it if I knew it had that kind of bias.

[VOA]

Here's a re-post (from previous threads) I often post when the subject of
horrible state of history teaching comes up.
And I'll now call my expert witness, writer and historian David McCullough:

"We are raising a generation of young Americans who are by-and-large historically
illiterate. And it’s not their fault. There have been innumerable studies,
and there’s no denying it. I’ve experienced it myself again and again.
I had a young woman come up to me after a talk one morning at the University of
Missouri to tell me that she was glad she came to hear me speak, and I said
I was pleased she had shown up. She said, “Yes, I’m very pleased, because
until now I never understood that all of the 13 colonies – the original
13 colonies – were on the east coast.”

Now you hear that and you think: What in the world have we done? How could
this young lady, this wonderful young American, become a student at a fine
university and not know that?

I taught a seminar at Dartmouth of seniors majoring in history, honor
students, 25 of them. The first morning we sat down and I said, “How many
of you know who George Marshall was?” Not one. There was a long silence and
finally one young man asked, “Did he have, maybe, something to do
with the Marshall Plan?” And I said yes, he certainly did, and that’s a good
place to begin talking about George Marshall. "

Find under the heading "Our Failure, Our Duty" at:
http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2005/April/

[LS]

You will find PHUSA---from the comments of any non-ultra-leftists---to be one of the best written books in a long time. I say that because that's what everyone tells me, even those who've read my other books, and they are right.

Further, you will find it anything BUT an "encyclopedia." It is not for elementary kids, but we do have teaching guides, study questions, etc.---a whole "teacher's aide" section on our website---for help for homeschoolers: www.patriotshistoryusa.com.

The Amazon reviews by the lefties were utter spam: about four came out at the same time earlier this year, which was an obvious campaign to drive down the rating, and so some of my friends, including a couple of Freepers, wrote some short reviews, too. The guys to look at are Buffington and Ryan. They are top 500 Amazon reviewers and very fair.

Larry Schweikart (LS)

[WOSG]

Yes, Larry, I saw right through the leftist reviews.
Anyone comparing you to Zinn's work, pro or con, is praising with faint damns. :-) (FYI for others: Zinn is a leftist, Maoist, who wrote a "People's History of the United States" that takes the 'anti' view of American history.)

FWIW, in high school (late 70s) I got my take on US history from Henry Steele Commager's History on my own. And I was in an AP class that read up on Charles Beard, Hofstader and others. The class main history book was by Thomas Bailey, an old edition before schools made texts full of pictures graphs etc. I thought it was a good text at the time. This was a much older edition (probably 40 years old now), so it wont be the version you reviewed at AEI, but similar.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/B00005VDF8/ref=cm_rev_next/102-5125212-5107361?ie=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=283155&s=books&customer-reviews.start=21

Somehow I saw through it all and modified the saying "History is the polemic of the victor" into my own quip:
"American History is the polemic of the Liberal."

I especially like this comment made in an inverview - as Coolidge and Cleveland are IMHO 2 forgotten good Presidents:
http://www.patriotshistoryusa.com/nr1.htm
"Schweikart: Besides Coolidge, historians almost always leave Grover Cleveland off these lists, and he was a great president. He was the last true "small government" Democrat...ever. He fought the Army's pension funding (which had gotten completely out of control) and clung to the gold standard, to the chagrin of his leftward-moving party. Mike and I put Cleveland in the top six or seven presidents."

I'm looking forward to reading your history book.

LS, thanks for your efforts in balancing the American story
in favor of the Patriots!

[LS]

1) Commager was the college book I used, too, and while it was liberal/left, it wasn't horrible: the U.S. was justified to enter WW I and righteous in WW II, the Cold War was real, there were excesses in the 1800s but the titans of industry were necessary, etc. Fortunately, they didn't revise it much.

2) Kennedy was ok until they started writing about Reagan, then they got ridiculous. In fact, Bailey and Kennedy is what I use with overhead presentations when I talk about bias in the Reagan years---it's that obvious.

Recent revisions fo Bailey and Kennedy, with some woman added in, have gotten consistently worse.