textbook publishing, textbooks, and democracy

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

• a“studentedition”ofabookwhichisatraditionaltextbookdesignedtobeusedbystudents;

• ateachers’guide(TG)whichprovidessuggestedinstructionalstrategiesintheformoflessonplansexplaininghowtousethestudentedition,black-linemastersthatcanbephotocopiedandusedwithstudents,andassessmentinstruments(e.g.,rubrics,tests,etc.);and

• anaccompanyingwebsitetoprovideinformationand/orlinksforstudentsandteachers.

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.

Approaches to Textbook Use

AppleandChristian-Smith(1991)describethreewaystorespondto,


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,


basedonsuchcommunications,thatsometeachersusethelessonplansandcontentprovidedwithoutquestioningthem.Third,teachersmaynotbeawareof,nortrainedtofacilitateandencourage,criticalinquiryamongstudents.Theymayevenbeuncomfortabletakingacriticalap-proach.SolomonandAllen(2001,pp.231-232)assertthat,intheteachereducationliterature,theteachingprofessiontendstobeconservativeand“maybepredisposedtoreproducingsocialorderratherthandis-ruptingit.”Ifthisisthecase,teachersmayfeelmostcomfortablewithadominatedornegotiatedapproach.Fourth,theincreasingpressureonteacherstobeaccountableformeetingprovinciallyimposedcurricu-lumexpectationscanbeaddressedbyusingatextbookthatisdeemeda“100%match”totheOntariocurriculum.Finally,recentchangestotheOntariocurriculumleftmanyteachersunsureofspecificcontent,1possiblycausingthemtofeeltheneedtorelyonatextbook.

Textbooks, Textbook Use, and Indoctrination

Indoctrinationisaconstantdangerbecauseitthreatenseducationandhence,democracy.HareandPortelli(2001,p.119)describeitasaneducationalissuethatis“problematicandelusive.”Indoctrinationiscontrarytocriticalthinkingasaneducationalideal2andisinconsistentwitheducationforempowermentandeducationfordemocracyaswell(see,forexample,Siegel,1988,andHare&Portelli,2001).AccordingtoSiegel(1988,p.89)indoctrinationoccurswhenteacherspassonbe-liefstostudentsinwaysthatdonotencourage(oractivelydiscourage)studentsfrom“activelyinquiringintotheirrationalstatus.”Onthisconception,textbooksareripegroundforindoctrination—depending,ofcourse,onwhetherteachersencouragestudentstoassesstherationalstatusofclaimsbasedinthetext.SiegelquotesThomasF.Green,whosays(1988,p.80):

When,inteaching,weareconcernedsimplytoleadanotherpersontothecorrectanswer,butarenotcorrespondinglyconcernedthattheyarriveatthatansweronthebasisofgoodreasons,thenweareindoctrinating;weareengagingincreatinganon-evidentialstyleofbelief.

Lammi(1997)providesthefollowingaccountofindoctrination,whichaddressesthepotentialroleoftexts:

[In]thepresenceofmaliceaforethought,indoctrinationisanintentionalprogramofcoercionanddeception.Onecaneasilyrecognizeandcon-demnsuchpractices,buttheclarityofthislimitingcaseismisleading.Isitnotpossibletoindoctrinatebywayofreasonedargument,evenwithoutwishingtodoso?Ithasbeenpointedoutthatiftoindoctrinatemeanstoproduce“doctrinaire”studentsinthesenseofdogmatic,closed-


mindedgraduates,manyawell-intentionedteacherhasindoctrinatedagainsthisorherwill.Indoctrination,then,maynotrequireintent.Itmaynotevenrequireanindoctrinator.Textsmayindoctrinate,alsoindependentlyoftheirauthors’intentions,ifthestudentapproachesthemwiththerightcombinationofreverenceandmisunderstanding.(1997,p.13).

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,


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


multipleperspectivesthatmustbetakenintoaccountifschoolingistobedemocratic.Theimpactoftextbooksondevelopmentofcognitiveviewsthroughthehiddencurriculumcannotbeignored.

Context: Textbook Industry Overview In1999,theCanadianbookpublishingindustrygeneratedover$2billioninrevenues(includingdomesticandexports),employingcloseto7,000people (MinisterofPublicWorksandGovernmentServices,2001).Domestically-soldtextbooks(elementary,secondary,andhighereducation)accountedfor$267millionofthatrevenue.8Thesefiguresillustratethattextbookpublishingisindeedabusiness—andasabusi-ness,itreliesonprofitabilityandefficiency. Ofimportanceisthewaythatpublishersstructuretheiroperations.Thereareseveralformsofdivision.First,largepublisherstendtohavedivisionsbasedonthetypesofbookstheyproduce:highereducation,schooldivision,children’sbooks,tradebooks,andscholarly/reference/professional/technical.Publishersalsohaveadditionallinesofbusinessthatincludeprofessionallearningandtechnology.Outsourcingand“vir-tualteams”areafeatureofmodernpublishing.Manylargepublishersonlyretaincoreemployeesandhireprivateindividualsandfirmsonaper-project,contractbasistoundertakevariouspartsoftheprocess,includingdesign,editing,andsoon. Asecondstructuralfeatureoftextbookpublishersistheirdivisionofimprints.Justaslargecorporationshavemultiple“brands”thatlabeltheirproducts,publishersmaintain“imprints”—labelsunderwhichbooksarepublished.Imprintsoftenrepresentsmallerpublishersthathavebeenboughtoutbylargerpublishers,butthenamesremainintact.Forexample,Pearson,alargemultinationalpublisher,ownsandpublishesthewell-knownimprintsPenguin,Prentice-Hall,andAddison-Wesley.ReadersoftheseimprintsmaynotbeawarethatPearsonwasinvolvedinthepublication,becauseitisonlytheimprintthatappearsasthebook’slabel.Publishersuseanimprintwhentheybelievethetopicofabookisalignedtotheimprinttradition. Sinceasearlyas1991,thenumberoforganizationsinthetextbookindustryinternationallyhasbeendecreasing(seeApple,1991).Consis-tentwiththistrend,Canada’spublishingindustryhasevolvedfromacompetitivemodelwithmanyorganizationstoanoligopolycharacterizedbyveryfew,largecompanies.Asisthecaseinmanyindustries,largerandmorepowerfulcorporationsfindthatitisintheirinteresttoswal-lowthecompetitionthroughmergersandacquisitions.Whereasin1995,therewere14publishersproducing textbooks forOntario secondary


schools,in2003therewereonlyfive(seeFigure1).Ofthosefive,three(Thomson,McGraw-HillRyerson,andPearson)aremajorplayers,togeth-eraccountingforapproximately92%ofthemarket.ItisimportanttonotethatonlyThomsonisCanadian-owned,asillustratedinFigure1.ThoughThomsonwasincorporatedinCanada,itsheadofficeislocatedintheUnitedStates.

Figure1.StructureofCanadianTextbookIndustry


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


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.

Aggressive Timelines

Inmyexperiences,authorswerefacedwithaggressivetimelines.Eachstudenteditionmanuscriptwascompletedforeachinlessthansixmonths.OnetothreeadditionalmonthswereprovidedtodevelopTGsandwebcontent.Thiswasambitiousgiventhatauthorshadfull-timeprofessionalcommitmentsinadditiontowriting.Thereasonsfortheseaggressivetimelinesweretwofold.First,curriculumexpectationswerereleasedandnewcourseswereofferedimmediately.Thisdidnotgivepublisherssufficientlead-timetodevelopbooksbeforecoursesstarted.Therefore,inordertocreateandselltextbooksbeforeteachershadanopportunitytodeveloptheirowncurriculummaterials(thuspossiblyreducingsales),manuscriptshadtobecompletedquickly.Second,onceatextbookwasapprovedfordevelopment,thepublisherwasanxious


tobeginsellingitandgeneratingrevenues.Inmyexperience,authorsworkedfeverishlytomeetdeadlines.

Curriculum Expectations

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.


Inkeepingwiththedesiretobemarketable,publishersseektoproducebooksthatwouldappealtoindividualsandgroupswhomakepurchasedecisions(i.e.,teachersandschoolboards).Thisresultsinadesiretoavoidcontroversialcontentandtoaddresstopicsinwaysthatteachersfindrele-vantandpracticalforuseintheclassroom.Throughmarketresearch(intheformofquestionnairessenttopracticingteachers,focusgroups,andtelephoneinterviews),publishersgetinsightintotheformthattextbooksshouldtakeevenbeforetheyarewritten.Whilemakingpresentationsacrosstheprovinceonbehalfofpublishers,Ilearnedthatinthecaseofinformationtechnologybooks,manyteacherswerenotconfidentintheirownknowledgeofthesubjectandwantedatextbookthat“presentsthefacts”whichtheydonothavethetimetoresearchorlearnontheirown.Thissuggeststhat,insomecases,teachersmayrelyheavilyontextbooksforcontent.Asthedevelopmentprocessbegins,publishersseekfeedbackfromteachersbyhavingthemreviewandcommentontablesofcontentsaswellasdraftsofmanuscripts.Ononehand,seekinginputfromthoseinthefieldandensuringthattheirperspectivesareheardbyauthorsap-pearsdemocratic.Ontheotherhand,itcancontributetoareinforcementofthestatusquoifteacherssimplywanttextbooksthatreflectcurrentpractice,topics,andperspectives. Theimpactofmarketabilityisillustratedbythenegotiationofwhatsoftwaretocoverinaparticulartext,astruggleIexperiencedonallthreeprojects.Forthefirsttwobooks,theissuewasdeterminingthebreadthofofficeproductivitysoftwaretocover(i.e.,whichbrandsofwordprocessing,spreadsheet,andpresentationsoftware).Wedeterminedthatthestudenteditionwouldaddressthosesoftwareapplicationpackagesthatmarketresearchconductedbythepublisherrevealedweremostfrequentlyusedbyteachers.Thiswasnotdifficulttodo,sincemuchofthecontentwasthesame,regardlessofsoftwareused.Forthethirdbook,theissuearoseofwhichprogramminglanguage(s)shouldbecovered.Thepublisherex-plainedthatthetextbookmustaddressthepreferencesofthemajorityofteachersasotherwiseitwouldnotbeviabletoproduce.

Varied Influences

Manyindividualsareinvolvedinthetextbookdevelopmentprocess.Eachhasaroletoplayintermsofinfluencingthecontentoftextbooks.ThekeyparticipantswhohadinfluenceonthecontentaresummarizedinTable1. Thoughtheauthorspreparedfirst-draftmanuscriptsindependently,oncemanuscriptsweresubmittedtotheeditorandseniormanagementdialogue began to take place over how curriculum expectations were


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

management and provide written feedback

Table1:ParticipantsintheTextbookDevelopmentProcess.


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.


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


statusquo,dominantperspective.Asaresult,adherencetocurriculumexpectationscancontributetoafilteredview,dependingonhowtheyareinterpreted.Ifcurriculumexpectationsareaddressedwithmultipleviewpoints,abalancedapproachmayresult.Textbookscouldconceivablybestructuredinawaythatactivelyencouragesstudentstochallengeviewspresented.Giventheconstraintsexperiencedbyauthors,thisdidnothappenintheprojectsIworkedon.Instead,timeconstraintsandpagelimitationsledtoaproductthataddressedallexpectationsinatraditionalandconventionalway(i.e.,contentpresentedasone-sided“facts”)thatdidnotencourageincorporationofalternateperspectivesnoropposition.Becausedemocracyreliesonsharedunderstandingsanddueconsiderationofavarietyofperspectives,thisisproblematic. Thethirdfeatureoftheprocessrelevantistheimpactofmarket-abilityandprofitabilityoftextbooksasitrelatestocontentandlength.Inorderforatextbooktobemarketable,itmustappealtotheteachersandschoolboardswhowillpurchaseit.Thereareseveralfactorsthatareconsideredtoaddressconsumerdemand:

• Teachersmustfeelcomfortablewiththecontent.Forinforma-tiontechnology, teacherstendtoprefer (asdiscussedearlier)textbooksthatareinformation-rich,asmanydonotfeelconfi-dentintheirownknowledgeofthesubjectmatter.Thisresultsinaproductthatpresentsinformation,thoughnotnecessarilyactiveinquiryaboutcontent.

• Publishersseemtobelievethatteachersprefera“middleoftheroad”approachthatminimizesthetreatmentofcontrover-sialissuesandreflectsconceptsandmaterialthatteachersarefamiliarwith(asindicatedbytheEmployabilitySkillsexamplecitedearlier).Thisisconsistentwiththeliteraturethatportraysteachersasaconservativegroup(see,forexample,Solomon&Allen,2001).

• Teacherswantarelativelyconcisetextbookthatisgearedto their perceived aptitude of students. The concise natureof the textbook isalso in linewithafinal factor: cost.Withlimitedbudgets,schoolsanddistrictspreferalessexpensivetextbook.

Whencombined,thesefactorslendthemselvestoatextbookthatprovidesinformationas“fact”(asperceivedbytheauthorsandthepub-lisher)thatisdesignedtobeuncontroversial.Pagelimitationsreducethedegreetowhichalternateperspectivescanbeexplored,aswellastherelativedepthinwhichanygivenconceptcanbeexplored.These


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.

Implications for Democracy in Education

Thelimitedchoiceandaproblematicdevelopmentprocessresultintextbooksthatreflectafilteredview,together,havepotentiallytroublingimplicationstodemocracyintheclassroom.Whetherthoseimplications


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.

Conclusion ThispaperprovidedinsightintothedevelopmentprocessofthreetextbooksforOntario.Itrevealedsomeproblematicissuesinthestructureofthepublishingindustry,thetextbookdevelopmentprocess,andthewaysinwhichteachersandstudentsinteractwithtextbooks.ThestateoftextbookproductionasIhavedescribed,andtheproductsitcreates,resultsinafilteredviewthatreflectsdominantideologies,potentiallysuperficialcontent,andverylittlechoiceforteacherswhowishtoreflectdifferentviews.Thisfilteredview,whenpairedwithuncritical inter-actionintheclassroom,canleadtoindoctrinationandclosed-minded-nessinstudentswhichiscontrarytoademocraticvisionineducation.AppleandChristian-Smith(1991,p.15)contendthatclassroomsoughttopromoteconditionsforademocraticprocessbywhichstudentsandteachersparticipateinthecreationofmeaningsandvaluesthoughtheoppositionalapproachtointeractingwithtexts,particularlysincethetextbookindustry,initscurrentstate,willlikelyremainunchanged.

Notes 1Forexample,intheinformationtechnologyinbusinesscourses,develop-mentofmultimediaproducts,e-commerceande-businesswereaddedasstrandsofstudy.Thesehadnotbeenpartofthecurriculumpriorto1998.


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


toknowpresenterswhomightserveaspotentialauthors.Publishersandagentsalsotendtoinformally“askaround”amongteacherstodeterminewhoseworktheyarefamiliarwith. 14ExamplesofselectedcurriculumexpectationsforInsights: Succeeding in the information age(developedforagrade9/10informationtechnologycourse)include(MinistryofEducation1998):

• analyzetheethicalissuesconcerningtheuseofelectronicinforma-tion;

• determinecriteria toevaluateWebsites in termsofvalidity,bias,andusefulness;

• describecareeropportunitiesrelatedtoinformationtechnology;

• describewaysinwhichrecentchangesininformationtechnologyhavehadapositiveand/ornegativeimpactonbusiness,workingconditions,andotheraspectsofpeople’slives;and

• investigateanddescribelegalissuesrelatedtoelectroniccommuni-cation.

15Thoseexpectationswere(MinistryofEducation2000):

• analyze employment opportunities in the information technologysector

• summarizeemploymentopportunitiesintheinformationtechnologysectorthatrequirethesuccessfulcompletionofrelatedpostsecondaryprograms

• describespecificpostsecondaryprogramsthatwillpreparethemforemploymentintheinformationtechnologysector

• forecast,electronically,emergingemploymentopportunitiesforinfor-mationtechnologygraduates

• assesstheirinformationtechnologyskillsandcompetencies

• 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)

• demonstratetheirinformationtechnologyskillsinsamplesoftheirwork

• create,electronically,aneducationplantotakethemfromsecondaryschooltoemployment

16TheConferenceBoardofCanada’s(2000)EmployabilitySkillsProfilewas


originallydeveloped(andrevisedin2000)basedonextensiveconsultationswithCanadianpublicandprivatesectororganizations.Summarized,theyare:

• Fundamentalskills(communication,informationmanagement,prob-lemsolving,andnumeracy);

• Teamworkskills(workingwithothers,participationinprojectsandtasks);and

• Personalmanagementskills(positiveattitudes,responsibility,adapt-ability,continuouslearning).

17Thisisdespitesomecontroversyonthetopic.Forexample,Hyslop-Margison(2000)cautionsagainstplacingemphasisontheConferenceBoard’sEmploy-abilitySkills,suggestingthattheycontributetoaformofsocialengineeringthatworksinfavourofcorporateinterests. 18Thisinvolvedexplainingthenatureofthecoursesinwhichthebookswouldbeused,outlininghowthesebookscouldhelpovercomepossibledifficultiesorchallengesofteachingthecourses,addressingthecurriculumexpectations,andassessingstudents.Theauthorsprepared“frequentlyaskedquestions”sheetsforthesalesforcetopreparethemtoaddresspossiblequestionsthatteachersmaypose. 19Thetextbooksoveremphasizedthebenefitsofcommerceandtechnology,whileunderemphasizingalternatives,issuesofethicsandsocialresponsibility,andpotentiallynegativesocietalimpactsthroughtheselectionofexamplesandthewaythatmaterialwaspresented. 20Thismighttakedifferentformsfordifferentsubjectareas,thoughhereIwillonlyfocusonbusinessandinformationtechnologycourses. 21Applecontendsthat“wearechangingeducationintoacommoditytobepurchased”(2001,p.xii).Whenthecitizenandthestudentbecomeconsumers,actionsandperceptionsoftheselfaretransformedintowhatoneconsumes,notwhatonedoes.Thisputsanonusontheeducationsystemtoprovideaneconomic“payoff”totheinputs(i.e.,taxpayerdollarsandindividualeffort)bywayofalucrativecareer.Withoutadoubt,this isevidentinthecurriculumpolicythatdrivestextbookcontent,andmoreovertlyintextbookcontentitself.Theyreinforceacapitalistideology,perpetuatingahiddencurriculumthatgiveshighprioritytotheprivatesector.

ReferencesApple,M.W.&Christian-Smith,L.K.(1991).Thepoliticsofthetextbook.InM.

W.Apple&L.K.Christian-Smith,The politics of the textbook.London,UK:Routledge.

Apple, M.W. (1992). The text and cultural politics. Educational Researcher, 21(7),4-11,19.

Apple,M.W.(1993).Thepoliticsofofficialknowledge:Doesanationalcurriculummakesense?Teachers College Record, 95(2),222-241.

Apple,M.W.(1996).Cultural politics and education.NewYork:TeachersCol-


legePress.Apple,M.W. (1999).Rhetorical reforms:Markets, standards,and inequality.

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.

Ayalon,A.(2003).Whyisruraleducationmissingfrommulticulturaleducationtextbooks?The Educational Forum, 68(1),24-31.

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>

ConferenceBoardofCanada.(2000). Employability Skills 2000+.Ottawa,On-tario:ConferenceBoardofCanada.

Coté,M.(1995).Publishandperish.Canadian Forum,October1995.Dove,M.K.(1998).Thetextbookineducation.The Delta Kappa Gamma Bul-

letin, 64(3),24-30.GaramondPress.(2000).Canadiancollegepublishing:Whoownswhom?Retrieved

on12October2003from<http://garamond.ca/wow2.htm>Giroux,H.A. (1983).Theory and resistance in education.SouthHadley,MA:

Bergin&Garvey.Hare,W.&Portelli,J.P.(2001).Philosophy of education: Introductory readings

(3rdEd.).Calgary,Alberta:DetseligHoney,K.(2002,April18).Schoolstoreceive$65-millionforbooks. Globe and

Mail,A2.Hyslop-Margison,E.(2000).Alternativecurriculumevaluation:Acriticalap-

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-


ness studies.Toronto,Ontario:TheQueen’sPrinter.MinistryofEducation.(2000).The Ontario curriculum, grades 11 and 12: Busi-

ness studies.Toronto,Ontario:TheQueen’sPrinter.MinistryofEducation.(2002).Trillium list.Retrievedon12October2003from

<www.edu.gov.on.ca>Moulton,J.(1994).Howdoteachersusetextbooksandotherprintmaterials?

Improving Education Quality Project.Retrievedon10October2003from<www.pitt.edu/~ginie/ieq/pdf/textbook.pdf>

PeopleforEducation.(2001).The 2001 secondary school tracking report.Toronto,Ontario:PeopleforEducation.

Rozycki,E.(2001,26March).Textbooks as tools.Accessedon25July2003from<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/erozycki/Textbooks.html>

Schug,M.C.,Western,R.D.&Enochs,L.G.(1997).Whydosocialstudiesteachersusetextbooks?Theanswermaylieineconomictheory.Social Education,61(2),97-101.

Siegel,H.(1988).Educating reason.London,UK:RoutledgeSimon,R.I.(1984).Signpostsforacriticalpedagogy:AreviewofHenryGiroux’s

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.

textbook publishing, textbooks, and democracy

Documents