Textbook Censorship

Authored by Lee Rakes & Nicole Lien

When dealing with the issue of power and control over school curriculum, a salient and pervasive issue that concerns teachers, administrators, and students alike is the censoring of information in textbooks. The K-12 textbook industry is largely relegated to four corporations, being Pearson, Vivendi, Reed Elsevier, and McGraw-Hill, with revenues in 2001 of more than $4 billion (Ravitch, 2004). These four corporations have several publishing companies that fall under their title. For example, Pearson owns Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley, Scott Foresman, Silver Burdett, Ginn, Prentice Hall, Modern Curriculum Press, Globe Fearon, and NCS. Driving the sales necessary to produce that $4 billion figure are the nearly 15,000 school districts in the United States. Texas and California comprise nearly 20 percent of those 15,000 districts, and thusly a great deal of influence about what subject matter is permitted or omitted in the textbooks they choose. Their sheer size coupled with the fact that they develop lists of approved texts from which local school districts can select (as do twenty-three other states) generates competition among publishers to create texts that will make the state-approved list.

As a publisher in the public education market there is incentive to produce textbooks that the largest market share is likely to adopt, in this case Texas and California, and then give the option to other states of either taking or leaving those texts. This option of take it or leave it is implemented because creating new materials would be too expensive to incur a desirable profit. “Publishers hope to recoup the costs of a big program from the sudden gush of money in a big adoption state, then turn a profit on the subsequent trickle from the ‘open territories’” (Ansary, 2004). Those companies that failed to make the list in these elusive two states are stuck recouping their loss for the next several years, usually six. Publishers who fail to make the approved textbook list for Texas and California struggle financially, thus making it even more difficult for them to compete in the next cycle of adoptions. As a result, there are only four publishers that capture a large percentage of the market. Knowing this, activist groups and other disgruntled individuals target the texts being produced and adopted in these two states due to the measures these publishers are willing to go to ensure sales. The result is textbook content printed in a manner to prevent any controversy, to the point even of self-censorship by the publisher. This self-censorship leads to distortion and outright omission of information; altering perceptions of history, science, and literature presented within texts they produce (Delfattore, 1992).

Several litigious activities have contributed to the current state of affairs regarding these censorship activities, including Mozert v. Hawkins County Public Schools, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, Aguillard v. Edwards, Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, Farrell v. Hall, and Virgil v. Columbia County School Board. Each of these cases were fueled by local controversy and strongly supported and financed through powerful national organizations capable of providing the resources and clout necessary to generate animosity over textbook content (Delfattore, 1992). Each of these organizations is comprised of religious fundamentalists who are not content with the fact that ideas and information contrary to their own beliefs is being promulgated in public schools. Some of these organizations include Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, Moral Majority, American Family Association, Educational Research Analysts, and The National Legal Foundation.

In Mozert v. Hawkins County Public Schools (1984) Tennessee parents were concerned that the Holt-series of books used by elementary teachers that included “Cinderella,” “Goldilocks,” and the “Wizard of Oz,” violated their fundamental religious beliefs and instead promoted secular humanism. The court did not rule in favor of the plaintiffs in this particular case. However, it did result in a self-censorship from the publishers who were responsible for these “controversial” works through the removal of most of the content that had been deemed inappropriate. In McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982) and Aguillard v. Edwards (1987) the pressing issue concerned evolution (considered secular humanism, and thusly a religion by fundamentalists) and the right to teach creationism (thereby balancing religious teachings). McLean’s verdict determined that the teaching of creationism violated the establishment clause, while Aguillard’s ruling made the teaching of creationism outright unconstitutional.

The Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County (1987) case initially resulted in the removal of forty-four history, social studies, and home economics textbooks from public school classrooms due to their violating the Establishment Clause, having been deemed as promoting secular humanism. The verdict was eventually overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, citing that Mobile, Alabama schools could use textbooks which purportedly promoted secular humanism so long as those texts were found to promote important secular values (tolerance, self-respect, etc). Farrell v. Hall (1987) and Virgil v. Columbia County School Board (1989) both involved school boards that had banned literary classics such as Lysistrata, Macbeth, and the Autobiography of Ben Franklin because they contained “vulgar” material. In both cases the court held that school boards could indeed prohibit material they believed too vulgar for students from entering classrooms.

To summarize, the textbook industry is one which is partially driven by the whims of individuals and activists who take issue with content that runs contrary to what they--individuals and activists--consider appropriate for America’s youth. Influence from both liberal and conservative camps work to exert control over textbook content. However, there is particular salience for religious fundamentalist groups such as Educational Research Analysts and Concerned Women for America, due to their involvement in some of the more prominent litigations that have resulted in textbook censorship. Their influence, along with that of various other groups, organizations, and individuals have culminated to ensure publishers redact content that may cause controversy or potentially offend anyone one sect of the population.

An example of such redaction may be considered when evaluating textbooks that laud the accomplishments of Helen Keller, who was born both blind and deaf and eventually overcame her disabilities with the help of her teacher Ann Sullivan. What generally is not printed in public education textbooks, however, is the fact that she was a radical socialist, joining the Socialists Party of Massachusetts in 1909 (Loewen, 1995). This example along with the aforementioned litigious activities highlight the self-censorship publishers employ to avoid any potential conflict that may arise from extremists on either side of the political continuum. This in turn produces texts that are as dull and bland as the fundamentalist to whom they cater, and consequently epitomize drudgery and disconnect by those charged with reading and teaching from them. In the end, if the intention is to discover the true depth of topics surrounding such disciplines as literature, science, and history, or simply not keel over from sheer boredom, considering alternatives to textbooks allocated for elementary and secondary education in the United States should be endeavored.

Notes:
Delfattore, J. (1992). What Johnny shouldn’t read. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Loewen, J. W. (1995). Lies My Teacher Told Me. New York: Touchstone.
Ravitch, D. (2004). The language police: How pressure groups restrict what students learn.
New York: Vintage Books.
School Data Direct Retrieved December 2, 2009 from:
http://is.gd/5aKDF

Social and Economic Goals of Schooling

Social & Economic Goals of Schooling

The social goals of schooling can be thought of as behavior management, or even behavior suppressant in some circumstances, whereby students are taught values through schooling systems to become better citizens. Horace Mann was one of the first pioneers of the idea of social improvement via schooling, with the intention to stop or at least decrease the rate of crime by instilling moral values through a curriculum. The contention that moral values could be taught in a secular institution saw a backlash from religious groups, most notably from the Catholic Church, which set out to create its own school system. Their contention was that the teaching of moral values was not to be endeavored by secular institutions due to the shaping of behavior, which could not be achieved to the appeasement of all religious groups. The contrary, namely the elimination of moral and religious teaching, was deemed unacceptable due to education being viewed as irreligious, leading the Catholic Church to form its own educational institutions.

Still today schooling in American society is viewed as a viable means by which to alter and shape the behavior of its citizens, through what are often suppressant and controlling modalities, especially concerning sex education and sexual behavior. Not only is there an active agenda by government programs to push for programs that alter perceptions of acceptable sexual behavior, behavior involving food consumption has also been endeavored to produce this ideal of what American households ought to be. All three of the mentioned behaviors, crime stoppage, abstinence, and food consumption free from kitchen drudgery, have failed to some extent or another; creating instead a country that imprisons more individuals than any other civilized nation on Earth, a ballooning teen pregnancy rate among poor adolescents and minorities, and the spawning of the fast food industry that heavily contributes to a population 60% or more of which is considered to be obese or overweight. “Mission Accomplished.”

The economic goals of schooling are essentially the objectives set forth by eduwonks and policy makers to ensure the success of the United States in a global economy, one that requires workers who are lifelong learners, adaptive, and conforming to the needs of their respective organization at the time. While this sounds peachy, it does have some issues that need to be addressed, namely the determination of the purpose of schooling and by extension education. Is the purpose to get a paying job? To live a richer and fuller life? Or is the achievement of happiness the ultimate ends? To that I would contend that achievement of happiness is the ultimate goal, but probably could not be achieved without the paying job, which certainly affords a richer and fuller life.

Human Capital

Human capital, in terms of schools, is concerned with value of the students contained therein insomuch that those students can attain and maintain employment upon their graduation from their educational institution, thereby contributing to the economic growth of their community and nation respectively. The Human Capital Model is diamond shaped with investment in schools leading to an educated workforce, which will lead to increased productivity, which in turn will lead to economic growth that will fund more investment in education and ultimately schools again. For this model to work learners need to be adaptive, compliant, obedient, conforming, passive, and unwilling to join labor unions who work to improve worker’s rights. Though the aforementioned are not requisite to America’s ability to compete in a global economy necessarily, or the outcome of a lifelong learner, they are undoubtedly the objectives of many schools and certainly the desired outcome of many organizations. Why else would they find credibility and presence in schools if the end result were not so?

Of note here too, is the theme of societal control, or at least the shaping of behavior by educational institutions for ends not explicitly stated, such as the rituals of conformity demonstrated by the hours of operation, walking in a straight line, a bell which denotes when to begin and end, obedience, the need to be able to follow directions, etc. All of these rituals are preparing Americans to become sorted through the human capital model of progress set forth by the wealthiest and elite, whom control not only most of the wealth among this nation’s citizens, but also control the direction and applicability of educational attainment. The problem is that this issue is an implicit one, with the vast majority of schooling participants not knowing about the agenda set forth for them and the remaining others not caring, as their end-goal is the attainment of employment that affords the American dream.

I would contend that many individuals, those with formal educations at institutions of higher learning and those with high school diplomas and every happenstance in between would agree that the ascertainment of a paying job is a worthy endeavor and that using education as a means to attain it is worthwhile. However, I would also contend that while this end is worthwhile to endeavor, it is not the sole purpose for which an education should be attained, nor is it the sole means by which happiness can be ascertained, though in America it seems that a simple life is one relegated to and for the poor or unworthy. I hope that in my teaching efforts that I can keep this issue in mind, being consciously aware that respect and behavior management or control are not necessarily the same thing, and that the classroom should be one that is conducive to learning, not structured to tailor to the needs of some corporation or organization whose primary concern is a productive, obedient, passive individual who performs a service and nothing more. Rather I would prefer to shape minds that are skeptical and inquisitive, in addition to adaptive and creative lifelong learners, which I do believe to be a valuable asset to both organizations and individuals alike.

References

Spring, J. (2009). American education (14th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.