What's So Wrong with Textbooks Anyway?

[PeterPan]

I'm just jumping to the end here.  BJU Press High Test Scores | High Test Scores  A few more key things about the BJUP philosophy?  They feel the teacher should be integral to the process, so their textbooks, unlike Abeka or other publishers, are not MEANT to be handed to the student to use alone.  The tm contains essential portions of the lesson.  That may be partly what you're resonating with.  

 

Another important point is that they update their materials regularly.  The high school sciences are constantly being rewritten and updated.  They did a major revamp of their math, bumping it up.  If you're liking it, you're NOT crazy.  One of the good things about BJU is that they're very cognizant of achievement testing and you can KNOW that your kids have covered what they need to cover.  For some people, that's really important!

 

Remember, textbooks are what you make of them.  Dynamic teachers do MORE than the textbook.  You could use a textbook and use it as a launching point for all the things you DISAGREE with!  The textbook is what you make of it.  

 

And yes, there are some people who have issues with BJU as BJU.  A *lot* has changed in the last few years, and there's some water under the bridge there.  I'm just acknowledging that is the case that it's an issue for some people.  And if it's an issue for you, peace, there are plenty of other options.  However BJU materials, overall, are extremely high quality, fresh, updated, and they have a very distinct educational philosophy (the importance of the teacher, the importance of analyzing things from a Christian perspective, that we're here to do more than fill in blanks) and strong academics that make them consistently popular.  Your kid can be a National Merit Scholar with them, and he can be a National Merit Scholar without them.  They're just a choice.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I didn't read all the responses.  I see nothing wrong with them.  I don't prefer them for certain things, but really at the end of the day you have to go with what works for you.  The pro of textbooks is everything is all right there in the book.  You don't need multiple resources.  The con is that some textbooks turn an otherwise interesting subjected into a chore. 

[J&JMom]

Haven't read all the posts yet, but I have used textbooks from day one. And three years in, I have not regretted my decision one bit. I even use public school textbook publishers instead of 'homeschool' ones.  I like the open and go nature, the scope and sequence covers what is needed, and the variety of resources available far exceed what others can offer (audio support, digital support,  virtual labs, tools, quiz/testing and differentiation and scaffolding for all learners), not to mention no need to edit for doctrinal content.  And I can get all of these bonuses cheaply with older editions on eBay and Amazon. Now I do supplement with tons of hand-ons projects, related fiction and nonfiction read alouds and field trips, but the bulk of the learning is textbook based. 

Edited March 20, 2016 by J&JMom

[Peaceful Isle]

I usually use what I like. It might be textbooks, or online courses, or living books, or even "behind" textbooks.

 

I try different approaches that I read about , for a while. Sometimes I love them, and sometimes I don't. That's the beauty of homeschooling. You can chose what you like.

 

I wouldn't discredit a textbook because of where it came from. If it calls you, and will make your life easier, I say do it. Life is too short to use curriculum that is not working for you, just for the fact it is popular, or whatever.

 

Everyone is different, and each family has their different standards and preference towards curriculum. I think no one should go against their heart and feelings about a book or publisher.

 

Some say Oak Meadow is cultish, and a Christian shouldn't use it. I'm a Christian and plan to use it next year. It doesn't bother me. It called me. ;)

 

I have used many BJU online subjects this year because I needed a break for health reasons. The kids did great and scored wonderfully on their testings.

 

All in all, do what is good for your family. And remember, that might change from year to year, and that's okay too.

[ktgrok]

skipping the controversial stuff, I will say that I also have come to really enjoy textbooks. But it depends on the textbook. I really really like the Catholic Textbook Company history books. I also like a lot about Nutgrass's Exploring America books and in general like that they include a lot of readings from primary sources as part of the course (each level comes with a separate book that is an anthology of essays, documents, songs, poetry, etc). I think doing that helps to bring in some of the best bits of the living books method, while also being easy to use. 

 

That said, we do a mix :) Science is mostly living books and documentaries until we get to high school, then Apologia plus documentaries. History is a text of some sort plus documentaries, historical fiction, etc. 

[GeorgiaH]

I like BJU Science (especially DVDs), BJU Writing and Grammar (in addition to Rod & Staff and MCT), and BJU Literature. I really like Catholic Textbook Company history books. I do not agree with many of BJU's moral philosphies or their YEC teachings, but my son is old enough where we can discuss these matters and respectfully (and/or adamantly) disagree. If I were able to find other textbooks that offered the good points that BJU offers, without the controversial issues, I would select those texts. However, I have yet to find a comparable product. (They may be available, but I haven't discovered them yet.) But that is another reason why I love this forum - I learn so much! I appreciate all the thoughts and opinions. 

[Alessandra]

Much of my experience is with ps. No textbooks (except math) until middle school. Then textbooks for science, history, and foreign language 9and math, but not LA). So, based on that, I like textbooks, agree with much of what you say.

 

Not thing I wanted to comment on was evaluating textbooks. There are websites where various scientific groups evaluate textbooks, mainly of accuracy. You can also look at schools you admire and see what they are using. I want to give you two examples of textbooks I looked at, one excellent and one awful.

 

One book I looked at (I followed along with the lessons during the year, so I know the book well) is Holt Science and Technology Physical Science. Six people are listed as chapter writers; 8 lab writers 30 academic reviewers, 1 safety reviewer; 38 teacher reviewers. On the staff credits page, there are almost 50 people, copy editors, photo editors, book design, etc. The book is well written, well illustrated, and (I think() as accurate as similar textbooks. It is actually a fun book to learn from.

 

Another book I looked at was a general science text with a low lexile reading level for special needs students. No author is listed. Badly written, almost no illustrations, and misleading. Example: no illustrations, none, for photosynthesis. Even my de's Cub Scout manuals have illustrations for photosynthesis! Another example: book says an atom is made up of 4 parts -- protons, neutrons, electrons and nucleus. Yes, all are in an atom, but putting it that way is confusing. Oh, physical science is the study of matter. Did they forget about physics? Obviously, no one is checking this book.

 

I do not know if number of authors/reviewers is an established criterion for judging a textbook, but I always look to see who has contributed or reviewed a text. Ds's high school bio text (Miller Levine) has 2 authors, several more consulting authors, and 57 reviewers/high school reviewers. The book is wonderful, btw.

 

So, if I see a book by a 'homeschooling mom,' I am leery. 

 

But, the downside of (school) textbooks is that they presuppose some knowledge on the part of teachers. Cost could be another negative, especially if you include all the extras. Also, some materials may have restricted -- teacher-only -- sales.

 

One other point, obvious, but I don't want to leave it out. IME, good teachers use the textbook as part of the class. Lessons are built around the textbook subjects, but there is additional material and projects. In science, labs, problem sets, sometimes a book review. In history, use of primary sources, comparisons of multiple sources, powerpoint and trifold board presentations, field trips, if appropriate.

 

Personally, I would never use BJU type materials. Others have expressed why not better than I ever could. I also don't like books by authors who self identify as Christian and then go on to say that they present a balanced worldview. YMMV, I understand that, but I just had to speak to that type of 'red flag' book.

 

ETA 

One big difference that I consistently noticed in homeschooling was use of good documentaries. I would get bunches of things from Library, skim through them, and then end up buying many series so we could watch at leisure. I used documentaries for some lessons. Example: putting places mentioned on a map, making a timeline, and (most challenging for us) taking notes on key points. Distinguishing key points is not always easy, lol. Documentaries would have benefitted my ps child too, but there was not enough time to watch everything.

 

Edited March 20, 2016 by Alessandra

[justasque]

...

And literature...I used to get so ticked off to read one chapter from some classic book, and then a snippet from another...I kept waiting to get to the real books, but never did. I don't even understand having a textbook for literature--again, maybe it works in a classroom with a teacher to lead group discussions, but why on earth not just hand your kid the whole book, read, and discuss? ...

This was actually a key component of the University of California's case in which they said that several texts, among them an ABeka literature text, were insufficient to prepare high school students for college-level work.   You might enjoy reading the critique of the text, at http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/stearns/expert_witness_otter.pdf  The author makes the same points you do, with specific examples from the text.  It's worth a read - start at the bottom of page 3 if you want to skip to the specifics.  

[fairfarmhand]

I like the idea of Charlotte Mason and Classical schooling.

 

I think its great to include lots of resources and projects.

 

But for me and my family (which includes four children over a 10 year age span) I need something that lays it all out there for me.  If it's not prepared ahead of time it won't get done.

 

I did well with all my kids in the early years, but as I was moving toward upper level stuff with my olders it just took so darn long to plan lessons, find all the resources I needed, gather the supplies, etc.

 

I found it was easier to start with a well designed, reliable, factual, interesting textbook as a spine and add the fun extras that I wanted to the curriculum. The main thing I have to guard against is getting bogged down in "we must finish this book by the end of the year."

 

Now for literature, I prefer using complete texts as a majority of my work, and adding in snippets from a textbook to give at least SOME exposure to what colleges expect from graduates. So I choose complete texts of the most interesting, classic works that are most compelling to our family and grab bits o fthis and that.

[marisolstice]

This was actually a key component of the University of California's case in which they said that several texts, among them an ABeka literature text, were insufficient to prepare high school students for college-level work.   You might enjoy reading the critique of the text, at http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/stearns/expert_witness_otter.pdf  The author makes the same points you do, with specific examples from the text.  It's worth a read - start at the bottom of page 3 if you want to skip to the specifics.  

That was very interesting reading--Thank you!

After all these years...I feel avenged  :laugh:

[Bluegoat]

Maybe having three kids has fried my brain, but I seem to remember several of my university literature courses leaning heavily on Norton Anthologies.....we did read some full length texts as I recall, but we read more excerpts than books, and I don't know that it's unusual in a university literature course.

 

Yes, this does happen, and its really somewhat controversial.

 

Anthologies of course can be great if they bring together a nice selection of whole texts, or sometimes even parts, that would otherwise be difficult for students to access, or prohibitivly expensive. 

 

But there is a tendency sometimes for profs to mostly use selections and this is especially popular in thematically arranged classes.  I suspect this is in part because thematic based courses seem to be popular among students, and it can be easy for the teacher, especially if they are only being paid for that course.  People seem to feel too that they are covering a lot by seeing parts of so many texts.

 

But it isn't a great way for an undergraduate to really learn about the books, and they are really relying on the interpretation of the person doing the selecting.

[justasque]

This was actually a key component of the University of California's case in which they said that several texts, among them an ABeka literature text, were insufficient to prepare high school students for college-level work.   You might enjoy reading the critique of the text, at http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/stearns/expert_witness_otter.pdf  The author makes the same points you do, with specific examples from the text.  It's worth a read - start at the bottom of page 3 if you want to skip to the specifics.  

 

 

That was very interesting reading--Thank you!

After all these years...I feel avenged  :laugh:

 

I thought you might.  

I think the link is worth reading for anyone who is teaching a middle or high school college-prep Literature course.  It does a good job of explaining what is expected (and what would be inadequate).  

 

Maybe having three kids has fried my brain, but I seem to remember several of my university literature courses leaning heavily on Norton Anthologies.....we did read some full length texts as I recall, but we read more excerpts than books, and I don't know that it's unusual in a university literature course.

 

The UC requirements for college-prep high school English courses state that, "Acceptable courses must require extensive reading of a variety of literary genres, including classical and/or contemporary works. Reading assignments must include full-length works. Excerpts from anthologies, articles, et cetera, can be supplemental but cannot constitute the main component of reading assignments."

 

In the link quoted above, the author compares the ABeka text to two others, one McDougal Littell and one Norton, to show how the ABeka text does not meet this requirement but the other two do.  The use of excerpts CAN be acceptable; the author explains why the excerpts and their framing material in the ABeka text are not.  For anyone who is selecting English textbooks for middle or high school, it's well worth a read.  Pages 3-13 are the most relevant, and it's not difficult reading.

[tinkgumby]

I resisted textbooks at first, but it's what my boys genuinely prefer.  And I tried BJU and Apologia and such, but they also prefer public school textbooks (Holt, Prentice Hall, etc.) - go figure!  As long as they're learning, I'm happy.  (:

[Penelope]

With science, I think the question is - what is the object? Fundamentally the object is nature, what it is, how it works, what laws move it. As a discipline it has particular methods and skills associated with it. What is not wanted is for students to mistake factual knowledge about things they have learned from nature itself, from experience of it. When they are younger, they probably will not really understand that the abstractions of science are not nature but really just models of it, and they may also

The other thing I would say is that a science book by one author - be it more text like Fabre or one with lots of pictures and activity ideas like Durrell's book, is a bit like having a talk with a person who happens to be an expert. it's quite rare to find a textbook like that, and in my experience textbooks are really at their best when there is in fact such a person to teach you. There is a reason university courses don't just give you the text and sets some tests though that seems to be what it is coming to at times.

I liked this whole post.

 

But this part made me think about some of the homeschooling books that are really more like textbooks but they try to have the living book "feel" by using a chatty, conversational style. I think sometimes this is an attempt to help the student's understanding, but sometimes it may also be an attempt to "be Charlotte Mason-y" and mimic a living book. I often don't really like this style in more modern books because it seems forced, trying to be something it is not.

 

I think of living books as books that have content and ideas, but aren't even trying to cover a specific breadth of material for a school subject. Biographies, general interest books delving into one particular aspect of a topic deeper than a textbook has room for, etc. I think these types of books are often best used in conjunction with a textbook or some sort of unifying text at upper school levels, though.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Penelope

[Bluegoat]

I liked this whole post.

 

But this part made me think about some of the homeschooling books that are really more like textbooks but they try to have the living book "feel" by using a chatty, conversational style. I think sometimes this is an attempt to help the student's understanding, but sometimes it may also be an attempt to "be Charlotte Mason-y" and mimic a living book. I often don't really like this style in more modern books because it seems forced, trying to be something it is not.

 

I think of living books as books that have content and ideas, but aren't even trying to cover a specific breadth of material for a school subject. Biographies, general interest books delving into one particular aspect of a topic deeper than a textbook has room for, etc. I think these types of books are often best used in conjunction with a textbook or some sort of unifying text at upper school levels, though.

 

Yes, I think this is true.  The fact is that there is something of an art to producing a living book, and it probably doesn't just come from seeing a need.  It needs to have that living spark.  Some textbooks can have that, and some non-textbooks won't.  I think one element is that there is an idea that holds together a living book - it has a kind of logic or coherence.  Textbooks are usually more like field guides in a way when they are really useful, and are too often produced just to fill a perceived need to provide, say, an overview of a historical period. 

Edited March 21, 2016 by Bluegoat

[Arcadia]

I have only used secular textbooks and find them convenient as a buffet spread/springboard for interest studies. I also find them useful for starting foreign languages because I would miss out topics and some grammar if I am teaching without a guide.

 

While I enjoy trade books, I have a child who won't have read as widely if he has not read broad but not deep books first. For example this kids isn't into vegetables so if he picks cookbooks, he would go for the steak ones and ignore the vegan ones. If he has read a generic cookbook, he might try cooking some mix or vegetarian dishes because the photos look enticing. Some kids go round opening doors, some kids only peep at doors that are already open.

[Zoo Keeper]

 

I thought you might.  

I think the link is worth reading for anyone who is teaching a middle or high school college-prep Literature course.  It does a good job of explaining what is expected (and what would be inadequate).  

 

 

The UC requirements for college-prep high school English courses state that, "Acceptable courses must require extensive reading of a variety of literary genres, including classical and/or contemporary works. Reading assignments must include full-length works. Excerpts from anthologies, articles, et cetera, can be supplemental but cannot constitute the main component of reading assignments."

 

In the link quoted above, the author compares the ABeka text to two others, one McDougal Littell and one Norton, to show how the ABeka text does not meet this requirement but the other two do.  The use of excerpts CAN be acceptable; the author explains why the excerpts and their framing material in the ABeka text are not.  For anyone who is selecting English textbooks for middle or high school, it's well worth a read.  Pages 3-13 are the most relevant, and it's not difficult reading.

 

Thanks for the link; that was a very good analysis of the pros and cons of the book. 

 

We had some A Beka/BJU high school lit texts given to us.  After reading the books through, I sold or gave away most of them.  I didn't think that they were college prep (used on their own).  It's not just about Christian/secular viewpoint, it's the readings chosen, and what is done with them.

[Caviar]

Nothing!  If it gets used, and the children learn from it, use it!  The best response I have read to what is the best curricula?  It's the ones that get used!  If the textbooks are being used, great!

[EKS]

Scientists think some dinosaurs may have breathed fire. (Um, no they don't.)

 

:lol:

 

Um, really?  Could you point me to the reputable scientific journal that published this article?

[Bluegoat]

:lol:

 

Um, really?  Could you point me to the reputable scientific journal that published this article?

 

Yeah, I know.

 

But thinking about this clarifies for me my discomfort.  Even if this kind of stuff has been taken out of subsequent editions, I don't think I could actually trust a publisher like this to have a reasonable level of discernment about what actually counts as science, and what isn't.  In fact I would say it makes me seriously doubt their commitment to anything but promoting a particular set of ideas about YEC.  The only way something like that could end up in a textbook is if they were willing to print whatever they could get away with.

[SparklyUnicorn]

:lol:

 

Um, really?  Could you point me to the reputable scientific journal that published this article?

 

Here you go.  They can't put anything on the Internet that isn't true!

 

[HomeAgain]

You know the sad thing?  When a textbook makes these outrageous claims, it calls into doubt Christianity in the reader's mind.  If something that could.not.possibly.be.true is the Christian viewpoint, then readers look harder at their faith and create divisions within themselves.  For that reason alone I'd stay away from anyone who purports to tell me how to believe in faith instead of just giving me facts, and let ME decide how the facts coexist with my faith.

[regentrude]

Maybe having three kids has fried my brain, but I seem to remember several of my university literature courses leaning heavily on Norton Anthologies.....we did read some full length texts as I recall, but we read more excerpts than books, and I don't know that it's unusual in a university literature course.

 

But many of the Norton Anthologies contain the FULL text of most works, not just abridged versions.

 

 

[ktgrok]

But many of the Norton Anthologies contain the FULL text of most works, not just abridged versions.

 

Yup. Those things are MASSIVE!

[SparklyUnicorn]

Oh yes I have 2 of those anthologies.  They are the full stories.

In college though I took one lit class.  I still have the book.  There are mostly short stories and poems.  I wasn't a lit major though so it probably was just some intro to lit class.  I'd expect an upper level lit class to read full novels.