Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, June 10, 2009
Books The First of Many
Posted by Paul Constant on Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:18 PM
"Dis vay! I vill point you to der fyootchah!"
California Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger (years later and I still can't fully accept the weirdness of typing that phrase) wants California's school textbooks to go digital next year.
"It's nonsensical and expensive to look to traditional hard-bound books when information today is so readily available in electronic form," Schwarzenegger wrote...Schwarzenegger points out that California last year set aside $350m for school books and argues that even if teachers have to print out some of the material, it will be far cheaper than regularly buying updated textbooks.
I hate to say it, but the man's right.
1
Eh, it's bound to happen someday. I know that my back would've preferred electronic textbooks during high school and college.
2
My mom (who is a 5th grade teacher in CA) would be against this. They already have a difficult time getting the districts IT department to do anything decent on the ONE computer in her classroom. The headache of having to support even more?
No thanks.
While I agree that this seems like a great idea, I just don't see it being thought all the way through.
No thanks.
While I agree that this seems like a great idea, I just don't see it being thought all the way through.
3
Each device to READ the electronic books on costs what? And will be obsolete how quickly? Not to mention how many of these electronic book readers will be destroyed by kids just being kids. And yes, "my reader crashed" will become the excuse of the year, when they aren't actually crashing. Seems like it's not time for something like this.
6
Um, someday maybe. It isn't a bad idea in theory.
But the concept presupposes that every single child in the state has easy access to a computer at home, as well as internet access. Which we all know is bullshit. Some kids don't even get three meals a day, much less own a computer with internet access. One of the difficulties of public education is that we are obliged to teach ALL children, and to treat them equally. What do they propose to do with poor kids that don't have computers?
But the concept presupposes that every single child in the state has easy access to a computer at home, as well as internet access. Which we all know is bullshit. Some kids don't even get three meals a day, much less own a computer with internet access. One of the difficulties of public education is that we are obliged to teach ALL children, and to treat them equally. What do they propose to do with poor kids that don't have computers?
7
I've yet to see decent IT in primary education. They just don't have the budgets, it's not the fault of the IT people.
What really needs to happen is to cut out the publishing mafia. There's almost nothing that's taught through high school that couldn't be taught using libre texts. This stuff doesn't change that much.
What really needs to happen is to cut out the publishing mafia. There's almost nothing that's taught through high school that couldn't be taught using libre texts. This stuff doesn't change that much.
8
Arnie is very wrong here, although the reason why is counterintuitive. Textbooks cost the state about $40 per student per year. Here's the math: Average cost per book is $65, 4 books needed per student (math, science, reading, social studies or whatever four classes a student is taking), and each books lasts 7 years in California (length of adoption cycle). So, $65 times 4 books divided by 7 years is $37/year per student. The Sony reader costs $400 bucks and has a grayscale readout. It would need to last 10 years to be as cheap as textbooks, and that's not even counting the cost of curriculum materials. The cheapest computers cost maybe $300 and would last maybe three years on average per student. That's $100/year. As soon as computers become standard for each student and you can remove the cost of the hardware from the equation, I would expect electronic formats to dominate print. Until then, I would expect us to be stuck with print.
9
Arnie is wrong because the cost of hardware alone, not even including educational software, far exceeds that of printed textbooks. Here's the math: A typical textbook program costs a school $65/student and a school buys 4 books for each student. The books in California last 7 years (the length of the adoption cycle in that particular state). So $65 times 4 books divided by 7 years is $37 per student per year. The Sony reader mentioned in the article costs $399 and would need to last 10 years to be cost competitive without any software. The cheapest computer would be maybe $300 and might last 3 years (lots of wear and tear from kids). That's $100 per student per year WITHOUT the cost of software. So @7, it's not the publishing mafia here that's the problem, it's the delivery system that's expensive, and the big textbook publishers are the only ones who can afford the huge upfront investment in the three Ps, printing, postage, and paper.
I'd love to see textbooks go electronic but I wouldn't expect it to happen until you can remove the cost of hardware from the equation.
I'd love to see textbooks go electronic but I wouldn't expect it to happen until you can remove the cost of hardware from the equation.
11
@4 LLRH,
Anonymous and Proud! said it. They already don't have the budget to staff a decent IT department to handle what is there. Arnie seems to be thinking "oh look how much we can save" but not realize that the other side of that cost is outrageous.
Anonymous and Proud! said it. They already don't have the budget to staff a decent IT department to handle what is there. Arnie seems to be thinking "oh look how much we can save" but not realize that the other side of that cost is outrageous.
12
@4 LLRH,
Anonymous and Proud! said it. They already don't have the budget to staff a decent IT department to handle what is there. Arnie seems to be thinking "oh look how much we can save" but not realize that the other side of that cost is outrageous.
Anonymous and Proud! said it. They already don't have the budget to staff a decent IT department to handle what is there. Arnie seems to be thinking "oh look how much we can save" but not realize that the other side of that cost is outrageous.
13
@8 - You're also not including the fact that even the electronic copies of books aren't free either. Each copy would probably have to be licensed because there is still a substantial cost that goes into writing the textbook.
14
@13: Yes, I made that point. The cost of hardware even WITHOUT the cost of software exceeds the cost of printed books.
15
This way school boards can expurgate things they don't want.
Like evolution, the South losing the Civil War, stuff like that.
Congrats!
Like evolution, the South losing the Civil War, stuff like that.
Congrats!
16
Paul,
For as much as you purport to read you have improperly spelled the guv's last name. Don't you gots the google or spellcheck on that 'puter? Is it laziness?
For as much as you purport to read you have improperly spelled the guv's last name. Don't you gots the google or spellcheck on that 'puter? Is it laziness?
17
@8/9: Four subjects? Are you kidding? I had 8 or classes depending on the quarter (several with multiple books) in high school. I know that's not typical, but usually high school students have at least 6 classes, and many classes require multiple texts (especially English, political science, and history).
Yeah, it's probably still significantly cheaper than the IT and hardware costs combined with the cost of the electronic text books, but it has to be a heck of a lot more than $37/student.
Yeah, it's probably still significantly cheaper than the IT and hardware costs combined with the cost of the electronic text books, but it has to be a heck of a lot more than $37/student.
19
PAUL-
Ironic that on a post regarding education you mispelled a proper name.
Were you educated in California?
Ironic that on a post regarding education you mispelled a proper name.
Were you educated in California?
21
This would sure eliminate the whole "geography textbooks still include the Soviet Union" problem.
They should put tests etc. in electronic form, too, so teachers don't have to worry about their "paper quota" or spend their own money on copies.
They should put tests etc. in electronic form, too, so teachers don't have to worry about their "paper quota" or spend their own money on copies.
22
@17: Those extra classes probably didn't use books that go through the typical adoption process in California. California uses an adoption system up through 8th grade then acts more like an open-territory state in high school. This means that high school books are not necessarily purchased every 7 years, not all topics go through the adoption process, etc. But still if you assume 9 books per student per year (a lot of classes), that would make the costs of the books $83/student per year--still lower than any existing hardware WITHOUT factoring in the cost of software. It is counterintuitive but the numbers show that books are the cheapest way of delivering content right now. Arnie is wrong and he's looking for an easy fix.
23
Also, the presumption is that the reason textbooks are expensive is because they're hardbound on paper. I suspect that isn't true, any more than it is for every other form of media distribution. They take a lot of work by a large number of people to create and update.
24
One of my college book publishers uses online-also content, including homework and the whole book (maybe they all do). To get access to it, you gotta buy the brand new edition.
I am not opposed to this idea exactly, but it's not going to lower the price. The publishers will still put out new editions as frequently as they can get away with, and they'll have to spend money on infrastructure, websites, traffic... which probably isn't cheap.
I am not opposed to this idea exactly, but it's not going to lower the price. The publishers will still put out new editions as frequently as they can get away with, and they'll have to spend money on infrastructure, websites, traffic... which probably isn't cheap.
25
I think this would work better than the doubters suppose. It wouldn't be that difficult to develop reader software for cell phones combined with a video output that can be plugged into a computer or TV. Students used to texting could have their textbooks with them at all times using devices most own or could easily afford to buy. On TV or computer the software could render the textbooks with standard layout and pictures. On phone display alone it would format text only or minimal pictures to account for display size. Upgrades in hardware wouldn't cause any more problems than buying a new cell phone does today. The real expense would be in the software, just as it's in the published content today. The downsides are those of any electronic format: It's not as comfortable to read from a screen, you're subject to power failures, software is bug-ridden, it's too easy to publish low-quality content, etc.
But really, it kind of misses the point for a few reasons. One, textbooks are bad not primarily because they're heavy objects but because they're poorly written, designed by committees, and selected by school officials with little to no expertise in the subject. They're often out of date because schools don't have money--but that's a matter of underfunding schools in certain districts rather than the content of the textbooks at the time they're written. It's a gimmick rather than a solution. The solution is to change how we fund public schools and how we select school curriculum.
But really, it kind of misses the point for a few reasons. One, textbooks are bad not primarily because they're heavy objects but because they're poorly written, designed by committees, and selected by school officials with little to no expertise in the subject. They're often out of date because schools don't have money--but that's a matter of underfunding schools in certain districts rather than the content of the textbooks at the time they're written. It's a gimmick rather than a solution. The solution is to change how we fund public schools and how we select school curriculum.
26
What Arnold is conveniently ignoring is that, in a pinch, a school district can continue to use outdated books if, say, the State of California is in a budget crunch and slashes funding for public education. If the schools go all electronic, they will be fucked in the ass the next time and every time thereafter the government can't balance the budget.
And most of the time, no, you don't have to have the most up-to-date information. Most history classes barely get past the '70s. There aren't enough fundamental changes in science to justify spending millions to buy new science textbooks every few years; students won't cover such advanced science until they get into college.
And most of the time, no, you don't have to have the most up-to-date information. Most history classes barely get past the '70s. There aren't enough fundamental changes in science to justify spending millions to buy new science textbooks every few years; students won't cover such advanced science until they get into college.
27
Why am I the first to note the, um, oddity, of the Austrian bodybuilder/ California Governor making what looks distinctly like a nazi salute on the day a white supremacist shoots up the DC Holocaust museum?
Not saying the Guvernator is a nazi, just saying the image choice is a bit...awkward.
Not saying the Guvernator is a nazi, just saying the image choice is a bit...awkward.
28
(To be clear--yes, I understand it is a stock image and not a pose the Governor struck today. It's awkward timing for the image choice though.)
29
If that's *really* and Arnie quote, it should be transcribed accordingly:
"Eets nonsensikel ahn expehnsif to wook at twadishinawl haaad-bawoond books when informaaashin iss zo wehdiwee avawabal in ewektwahnik faahm"
"Eets nonsensikel ahn expehnsif to wook at twadishinawl haaad-bawoond books when informaaashin iss zo wehdiwee avawabal in ewektwahnik faahm"
30
Not that anyone's paying attention to this string now, but I decided to try to verify my math above by finding out how much California spent last year for books and dividing it by the number of enrolled students in California. The number spent, according to the Guardian article, was $350,000,000. The number of enrolled students in California, according to the site link below, is 6,275,469. When you divide the total spent by number of students, you get $350,000,000 / 6,275,469 = $56/student, which is very much in line with the approach I took. So if you can get an electronic solution in place for equal to or less than $56/student, you can save California cash. Best of luck, Arnie. And, Paul, Arnie is wrong, not right. Although I wish it wasn't so.
http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/…
http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/…
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (30) RSS