Are textbooks really necessary?

[middleagedgamer]

Is it absolutely, positively necessary for the students to have textbooks?

I mean, can't the teachers just be provided with the information they are required to teach, and then, teach it to the students?

In history, the teachers lectures, and the students take notes, and give custom-made tests.
In math, the teachers show students how to work the problems, and issue homework assignments that the teacher writes, herself.
In English, she can show how to correct sentences, yadda yadda yadda. She can write her own tests.

With textbooks as expensive as they are, are they even really necessary? Couldn't they just do it without textbooks? Just lectures and custom-made tests?

 

[obvious Child]

Is it absolutely, positively necessary for the students to have textbooks?

I mean, can't the teachers just be provided with the information they are required to teach, and then, teach it to the students?

In history, the teachers lectures, and the students take notes, and give custom-made tests.
In math, the teachers show students how to work the problems, and issue homework assignments that the teacher writes, herself.
In English, she can show how to correct sentences, yadda yadda yadda. She can write her own tests.

With textbooks as expensive as they are, are they even really necessary? Couldn't they just do it without textbooks? Just lectures and custom-made tests?

Okay. How do you study outside of class if you don't have a computer handy? And no kid is going to rely entirely upon notes.

 

[middleagedgamer]

Okay. How do you study outside of class if you don't have a computer handy?

Go to the library and rent a computer.

Also, they can record the lectures with audio tape.

And no kid is going to rely entirely upon notes.

Yeah, because they don't have to. Their textbooks are often sufficient notes.

This will have the added benefit of making the kids have note-taking skills, which can come in uber handy later in life.

 

[Cilogy]

Is it absolutely, positively necessary for the students to have textbooks?

I mean, can't the teachers just be provided with the information they are required to teach, and then, teach it to the students?

I see your point, but then teachers would need to spend more time on it. Which means more time in school by either extending the day or the entire school year. Consequently teachers will demand pay raises.

Textbooks make things a whole lot easier. The pitfall is the actual content of the book.

A huge positive is that it encourages reading more rather than relying on just visuals and hearing lectures.

 

[obvious Child]

Go to the library and rent a computer.

I didn't know libraries rented laptops. Where does this happen?

Also, they can record the lectures with audio tape.

Uh, tell me how that would work for science, especially equation based sciences.

Yeah, because they don't have to. Their textbooks are often sufficient notes.

This will have the added benefit of making the kids have note-taking skills, which can come in uber handy later in life.

Methinks you have not taken biology in a while. There is no way in hell notes can substitute for a bio book. Much less a physics one.

 

[middleagedgamer]

I see your point, but then teachers would need to spend more time on it.

Oh my god! Heaven forbid teachers actually do their damned jobs that we pay them our hard-earned money to do!

Which means more time in school by either extending the day or the entire school year. Consequently teachers will demand pay raises.

Not necessarily.

Teachers still have to create their own lectures; why do they have to use textbooks as a backbone?

Textbooks make things a whole lot easier.

And a whole lot more expensive.

The pitfall is the actual content of the book.

And the price.

A huge positive is that it encourages reading more rather than relying on just visuals and hearing lectures.

NOTES can be read!

 

[middleagedgamer]

I didn't know libraries rented laptops. Where does this happen?

My old college's library used to rent them.

Besides, I was talking about desktops.

Uh, tell me how that would work for science, especially equation based sciences.

Coupled with notes, it would work.

Methinks you have not taken biology in a while. There is no way in hell notes can substitute for a bio book. Much less a physics one.

How so? When I was in high school, my physics teacher taught me how to do Newtonian physics without any textbook. The textbook was there because the school board said we needed it, but it was purely there for show, not for go.

 

[Orion]

A lot of the notes that teachers have likely come from their university level studies and a lot of that is too in depth for schooling. Also, in a lot of districts, the notes that they provide are already given to them by the school board as part of standardization. Some districts would allow them to deviate, others not.

Sometimes principals make questionable choices in texts, either because of political reasons or they failed to account for the grade level it'd be taught at. That fact aside, textbooks are necessary. They condense information into an accessible format that's in one place. I think the internet is a good supplement but it's hard to find websites that give you as much focus in a convenient format.

 

[middleagedgamer]

A lot of the notes that teachers have likely come from their university level studies and a lot of that is too in depth for schooling.

How do you figure?

Also, in a lot of districts, the notes that they provide are already given to them by the school board as part of standardization. Some districts would allow them to deviate, others not.

Do you think I condone that?

Teachers should be free to teach in a way that plays to their strengths.

Sometimes principals make questionable choices in texts, either because of political reasons or they failed to account for the grade level it'd be taught at.

Which is why it should be left up, entirely, to the individual teachers.

That fact aside, textbooks are necessary. They condense information into an accessible format that's in one place.

If it's in ONE place, then why do so many classes have more than one textbook?

 

[Orion]

How do you figure?

That's what happened to me.

Do you think I condone that?

I wasn't being personal, just stating a fact.

Teachers should be free to teach in a way that plays to their strengths.

I agree... and they pretty much are, but the way you teach is not the same as the content you teach, or the material that you teach it from. So while they can flex their talent, they sometimes are confined to a specific... script... shall we say.

Which is why it should be left up, entirely, to the individual teachers.

Well, they are using school budgets to buy the textbooks, and I think that needs to be run by administration. In a lot of schools, the admin would naturally ask the teachers for their opinions on certain choices, so they do get to have input in many cases. Depends on the school and the district.

If it's in ONE place, then why do so many classes have more than one textbook?

For the same reason that multiple books are bought per subject at the university level: the teachers may need to draw on the strengths of different authors when addressing certain points. Textbooks are a great go-to reference but they're still ultimately written by people, and one person can't cover all angles. One author may cover the economics of an event in history, while the other looks at the sociocultural effects, for example.

Textbooks are way more in depth than the internet, and are handy.

 

[middleagedgamer]

I agree... and they pretty much are, but the way you teach is not the same as the content you teach,

Ok, I apologize for the straw man.

However, the content of their teachings needs to be standardized. Teachers need to teach our kids this, this, and that. They are forbidden to teach this, that, or the other, but anything that is not expressly listed is optional.

An algebra teacher should teach her kids how to isolate variables, etc. That kind of stuff just comes with the package.

or the material that you teach it from.

I think teachers should be allowed to teach from whatever material they choose, instead of being bound by a pre-chosen textbook that can easily cost over a hundred dollars, apiece.

So while they can flex their talent, they sometimes are confined to a specific... script... shall we say.

Yes, and a rather unnecessary one at that.

Well, they are using school budgets to buy the textbooks,

Which means that, without textbooks, they can either lower the taxes, or pay the teachers a bit more.

a lot of schools, the admin would naturally ask the teachers for their opinions on certain choices, so they do get to have input in many cases. Depends on the school and the district.

If one school district manages to do this, and is successful, hopefully, it can cause a domino effect in other districts.

For the same reason that multiple books are bought per subject at the university level: the teachers may need to draw on the strengths of different authors when addressing certain points.

They can do that with their own, custom-made textbooks and teaching materials.

Textbooks are a great go-to reference

So is Google.

and one person can't cover all angles.

Teachers can swap information and ideas over the Internet, can't they?

One author may cover the economics of an event in history, while the other looks at the sociocultural effects, for example.

Teachers can pull all of that information together, without spending thousands of dollars on a set of textbooks. They can merely relay that information to their students.

Textbooks are way more in depth than the internet, and are handy.

More in-depth than the Internet?

Dude, try doing a google search for "hair color pigments." You can six hundred fifty-three thousand search results! And, that's just for hair color pigments!

 

[Fiddytree]

They are not necessary per educator. They are necessity for a macro-level approach to education.

 

[middleagedgamer]

They are not necessary per educator. They are necessity for a macro-level approach to education.

What do you mean?

 

[Gipper]

They are to some, not to others. Except for a few math classes and classes that was very homework-dependent, I never bought books for my classes. Or if I did, I did the "one-older" method. If my economics book was in its 11th edition, I'd go to Amazon and buy the 10th. For one of my finance books, the current edition on Amazon was 185 bucks (used but great shape) and the book's previous edition was 9 bucks. I bought the 9 buck book. If you feel a need to study, it's almost identical. They may have just added a few words and changed chapters around.

And if you need to do homework, just do like I did - tell the professor you "left your book somewhere" and see if he will make a copy or post it on BlackBoard.

 

[Hoplite]

I think teachers should be allowed to teach from whatever material they choose, instead of being bound by a pre-chosen textbook that can easily cost over a hundred dollars, apiece.

They can do that with their own, custom-made textbooks and teaching materials.

Textbooks create standardization. The problem with letting teachers choose is that some kids will get a great education, some will get a good one, others will get a terrible one.

Likewise, who do you expect to cover all these teaching materials the teachers will need? Teachers already cover a large amount of what they use out of their own pockets, how is the school supposed to pay for 50+ copies of several hundred different books? Schools get discounts for buying textbooks in bulk, yes it's expensive but not NEARLY as expensive as letting teachers select their own at the grade school level.

So is Google.

Ah yes, because it's on the internet, it must be true. A brief glance around here will tell you most ADULTS cant tell a good source from a bad one and are often too lazy to actually figure it out. What makes you think teenagers are going to care any more than anyone here does?

Also, internet and computer access is much more widespread today than it ever has been but that doesnt change the fact that not everyone has access to a computer. Yes, school libraries will often have computers, but if you have a school of 3,000 students when only 10-20% of them have computers at home, how do you provide computers for the other 80-90%? And this is not a made up number, my fiancee teaches in LAUSD in inter-city schools, this is a very realistic number.

Public libraries sometimes have computers, however they cant handle the overflow from four or five different schools in the area ON TOP of the average user going in daily to check email and such.

The internet is a great resource if you know how to use it and have access to it but it is no substitution for a textbook for the average middle and high school student.

Teachers can pull all of that information together, without spending thousands of dollars on a set of textbooks. They can merely relay that information to their students.

Something else you have to consider is different modalities of learning. Some students do not learn well by listening to a lecture and taking notes. Others dont learn well reading from books. For me personally, note taking has always been a problem because I can either focus on the notes or on the lecture in which case I miss most of the lecture because I'm too worried about copying everything down. In college classes that was a big problem and most professors do not allow audio tapes to be made during class.

Some students simply learn better by reading it out of a book and by having three avenues of teaching open (Listening, writing notes, and reading out of a book) you have a greater chance of being able to teach more students.

Homework is also an important consideration: without a book, where do you get the information from? Yes there are websites with practice problems but what if you have students who cant get to the internet or who simply cant use the internet? Desktop computers are stationary and laptops are expensive, how do you have a kid do their homework if they arent physically around a computer?


Textbooks are a frustrating but necessary part of education, like it or not

 

[Bodi]

Is it absolutely, positively necessary for the students to have textbooks?

I mean, can't the teachers just be provided with the information they are required to teach, and then, teach it to the students?

Yes, the information is provided in textbooks...

 

[Bodi]

Oh my god! Heaven forbid teachers actually do their damned jobs that we pay them our hard-earned money to do!

So now we get to the root of the issue, you have disdain for teachers. Gotchya...

Hell, ever since textbooks were invented teachers haven't done their job, sounds like a great racket. :lol:

Not necessarily.

Teachers still have to create their own lectures; why do they have to use textbooks as a backbone?

Textbooks are independent of lectures... they are another source of information.

And a whole lot more expensive.

Not once teachers have to start making millions of hand-outs to off set the lack of textbooks, and hand-outs aren't usually re-usable, so more trees are chopped down as well.

NOTES can be read!

...So can textbooks.

Originally Posted by middleagedgamer
I think teachers should be allowed to teach from whatever material they choose, instead of being bound by a pre-chosen textbook that can easily cost over a hundred dollars, apiece.

Teachers aer allowed to teach from material they choose. Teachers don't only hand over a textbook and say read this and make lectures from the text book. How ridiculous! You should spend a day with a teacher and gain some perspective...

Teachers can swap information and ideas over the Internet, can't they?

They already have been doing this for years... check out one site.

ERIC – Education Resources Information Center - World’s largest digital library of education literature

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Is it absolutely, positively necessary for the students to have textbooks?

I mean, can't the teachers just be provided with the information they are required to teach, and then, teach it to the students?

In history, the teachers lectures, and the students take notes, and give custom-made tests.
In math, the teachers show students how to work the problems, and issue homework assignments that the teacher writes, herself.
In English, she can show how to correct sentences, yadda yadda yadda. She can write her own tests.

With textbooks as expensive as they are, are they even really necessary? Couldn't they just do it without textbooks? Just lectures and custom-made tests?

Well I imagine that teachers just don't have the time to write what could easily and more conveniently - and accurate as well as being available when the teacher is not - be written in a book.

I always used my textbooks when I was in school - I read things that weren't assigned. I was just interested and self driven.

 

[middleagedgamer]

Consequently teachers will demand pay raises

And, why is that, necessarily, a bad thing?

First of all, teachers are underpaid as it is.

Second, if they want pay raises, how about taking it out of the money that we are not spending on textbooks?

Think about it: If a textbook costs $100 apiece (which isn't, exactly, hard to come by), that means that a class of 30 students requires $3,000 in textbooks, and that's not even including the teachers' edition. Multiply that by seven classes at a time, and that's $21,000 per year, per teacher, and that's not even counting the classes that are only for one semester.

So, if teachers want a pay raise to accommodate this new responsibility of having to write their own material, let's give 'em fifteen thousand! We're still saving six grand a year, and that's per teacher! Pass those savings on to the taxpayers.

In my state, the average salary of a teacher is $30,000. This means they would get a 50% pay increase!

So, tell me, would YOU feel insulted if you got a 50% pay increase at your job, just to be empowered to teach in a way that caters to your own strengths? All they asked of you is that you actually cover A, B, and C, stray away from X, Y, and Z, but as long as you did all of that, you can do it in any manner you wish, and we'll pay you 150% of your previous salary.

Are you actually telling me that you'd turn that down?

So, if we abolish textbooks, our kids get a more streamlined education, the teachers get the pay raises that they've been deserving for years, and get empowered to teach in a manner that plays to their strengths (rather than bureaucratic regulations do it for them), the school district saves money, and that saved money can get passed on to the taxpayers in the form of a tax cut. EVERYBODY WINS!

...well, maybe not the textbook authors, but who gives a crap about them?

 

[middleagedgamer]

Well I imagine that teachers just don't have the time to write what could easily and more conveniently

They can't write the material in the summer, leading up to the start of the new school year?

Besides, once they have the material, they'll only have to go back and make minor changes each year, as new information becomes available.

and accurate as well as being available when the teacher is not

I don't know how your school district does it, but in mine, if the teacher is out, the substitute teacher doesn't just pick up where the real teacher left off; she hands out work that the students do that isn't part of the actual curriculum. So, the teachers not being available is a moot point, with or without textbooks.

I always used my textbooks when I was in school - I read things that weren't assigned. I was just interested and self driven.

So, you're saying that they're necessary because no one has ever thought to not use them?

Let me put it this way: When I was in college, I had a speech class. We had textbooks, but we didn't use them. The books were there for show, not for go. They were a good sixty bucks well wasted, and we only got thirty of that back when we sold the books back at the end of the semester.

The same occured when I was in college and we had English Composition (1 and 2, alike). The "Writers' Guide" that we had to buy for both classes (we only actually bought it for the first one, though) wasn't actually used nearly as extensively as the teachers' lectures.

History was another good one. The professor actually stated that the textbook is optional, because it is a supplement to, but not a replacement for, coming to class. This encouraged attendance and punctuality, as well as note-taking if you didn't have a good enough memory.

In my high school, my physics teacher drew diagrams on the board to show us how to do it, and he often gave us tests that were hand-written and photocopied. We did just fine in that class. We had the textbooks, but they stayed inside our desks 99% of the time, and we only pulled them out when we needed a reference; we never relied on them the way we relied on the teacher.

High school English was another one. I don't think we even HAD a textbook, then! The teachers all gave their own lectures and created their own tests with Microsoft Word. It all worked just fine (you can tell, by my vocabulary, that they did a good job).

So, I ask you to please actually clarify for me: Specifically, what can textbooks do that good teachers can't do, themselves?

 

[Fiddytree]

What do you mean?

Not every teacher needs a textbook, as they can be a hindrance or irrelevant, but the education system as a whole benefits immensely from them. The questions that always needs to be asked are: 1) What do we want our young people to learn? 2) In order to accomplish #1, is it entirely necessary to ask educators to more or less reinvent the wheel?

 

[middleagedgamer]

the education system as a whole benefits immensely from them.

How so?

1) What do we want our young people to learn?

The state Board of Education can set those ground rules, and teachers should have to hit those high points. Why do they need help, especially when I have justified, mathematically, that it is, financially, more prudent to empower the teachers to do it their own way, instead of forcing them to adhere to a textbook that they might not even agree with.

2) In order to accomplish #1, is it entirely necessary to ask educators to more or less reinvent the wheel?

How would empowering teachers to do it their own way "reinvent the wheel?"

 

[Aunt Spiker]

They can't write the material in the summer, leading up to the start of the new school year?

Besides, once they have the material, they'll only have to go back and make minor changes each year, as new information becomes available.

Teachers DO spend countless hours coming up with lesson plans. Every teacher decides how exactly to approach classtime and works up their plan accordingly. Some teachers probably prefer heavy textbook reference, others most likely don't. It's a personal choice which might be guided by school standards.

Expecting teachers to write out every single thing every year seems exhausting - so much easier to have a book filled with the information readily available for the teacher to incorporate into the lesson.

Books are reused as much as possible - at least in my kid's school - and only replaced when most of the books become damaged or ruined in some way (missing pages, etc). The books are updated every year - but not purchased new every year just because of a few minor changes. In fact, unless you're discussing college and what not, grade school teachings don't change continual except for in subjects such as history, which is always being rewritten, and science, which is always changing.

So, books like math and english are reused year after year until it becomes necessary to purchase new ones.

I don't know how your school district does it, but in mine, if the teacher is out, the substitute teacher doesn't just pick up where the real teacher left off; she hands out work that the students do that isn't part of the actual curriculum. So, the teachers not being available is a moot point, with or without textbooks.

This, then, is a flawed practice which needs to change. When I was in school our books were used heavily and we relied on the books to keep subs on track with what we were learning. As well as homework assignments and full, in depth reading in class.

So, you're saying that they're necessary because no one has ever thought to not use them?

Schools have been taught in various areas without textbooks for centuries. Like in places in Africa where there are missions to actually deliver textbooks to children so they can learn more efficiently.

They're used for a reason. It's not like they're detrimental - but using them makes things easier and the information more reliable.

Seems to me that you, personally, just don't value textbooks for what they are. Also, you've never taught anyone and you don't realize the difficulty of planning out lessons and having to rely on smaller handouts that don't cover the overall scope of information.

Let me put it this way: When I was in college, I had a speech class. We had textbooks, but we didn't use them. The books were there for show, not for go. They were a good sixty bucks well wasted, and we only got thirty of that back when we sold the books back at the end of the semester.

The same occured when I was in college and we had English Composition (1 and 2, alike). The "Writers' Guide" that we had to buy for both classes (we only actually bought it for the first one, though) wasn't actually used nearly as extensively as the teachers' lectures.

History was another good one. The professor actually stated that the textbook is optional, because it is a supplement to, but not a replacement for, coming to class. This encouraged attendance and punctuality, as well as note-taking if you didn't have a good enough memory.

In my high school, my physics teacher drew diagrams on the board to show us how to do it, and he often gave us tests that were hand-written and photocopied. We did just fine in that class. We had the textbooks, but they stayed inside our desks 99% of the time, and we only pulled them out when we needed a reference; we never relied on them the way we relied on the teacher.

High school English was another one. I don't think we even HAD a textbook, then! The teachers all gave their own lectures and created their own tests with Microsoft Word. It all worked just fine (you can tell, by my vocabulary, that they did a good job).

So, I ask you to please actually clarify for me: Specifically, what can textbooks do that good teachers can't do, themselves?

See - you're thinking college, I'm thinking Grade school because my kids are in school, I'm applying this to them and to me when I was their age.

I, however, bought and kept all of my college textbooks and wouldn't consider just selling them back. I still read them and reference them often. To me it was hundreds of dollars well spent - a nice addition to my library.

What your issue seems to be is that you spent your personal money and didn't use the books - and that happened repeatedly (in the same college?) So, my question to you is why don't you take this issue up with the school itself? Those individual teachers when you realized they weren't really looking to the books that you spent your money on?
Because your school had a different approach doesn't mean it was A) efficient for all students to learn by B) ideal C) a waste for other people.

My history teacher last year wrote a very lengthy version of each chapter with different information in it than what could be found in the textbooks. It might have been possible to read only his lectures and not the textbook chapters - but I read both because, no matter how thorough he tried to be it was impossible for him to cover every bit of info that was in the textbook.

In my colleges we heavily referenced every book I purchased. In my history class I took it upon myself to read my textbook - sure, the books were far too lengthy to be able to cover all the material (suggesting that a shortening of the book in order to make it more affordable might be reasonable). It's a mater of personal responsibility to read the textbooks when you're in college.

Sounds to me like your college's overall view didn't value the textbooks that they required. Which is a shame, there's a world of information in your textbooks in the scope which no teacher could ever cover.

 

[middleagedgamer]

Teachers DO spend countless hours coming up with lesson plans. Every teacher decides how exactly to approach classtime and works up their plan accordingly. Some teachers probably prefer heavy textbook reference, others most likely don't. It's a personal choice which might be guided by school standards.

Expecting teachers to write out every single thing every year seems exhausting - so much easier to have a book filled with the information readily available for the teacher to incorporate into the lesson.

Books are reused as much as possible - at least in my kid's school - and only replaced when most of the books become damaged or ruined in some way (missing pages, etc). The books are updated every year - but not purchased new every year just because of a few minor changes. In fact, unless you're discussing college and what not, grade school teachings don't change continual except for in subjects such as history, which is always being rewritten, and science, which is always changing.

So, books like math and english are reused year after year until it becomes necessary to purchase new ones.

Okay, let me put it this way:

Teachers can buy one (ONE) textbook for their own use, and use that as a reference with which to create their own lesson plan.

That does not mean that each individual student needs a textbook. If a school district has 10,000 students, and they each take 7 classes per year (that's not even including semester classes), that's 70,000 textbooks that we DON'T need. If each textbook costs $100 (which isn't, exactly, hard to come by, these days), that's $700,000 (seven hundred thousand dollars) that they are wastefully spending.

The $150 Teachers' Edition textbook can be multiplied by 7 to create an optional cost of $1,050 per year, that they can take out of their salaries (which are now $15,000 more than they used to be) in order to pay for their own "assistance," if you will.

This, then, is a flawed practice which needs to change.

How so? The substitute teachers don't know what is being taught; they're independent contractors that work whenever needed, and often work with multiple schools. How are they supposed to keep up with each class's curriculum?

If the teachers leave material for the substitute teacher to hand out, then the sub has to use that material; it's only if the teacher doesn't leave any instructions that the subs get to wing it.

When I was in school our books were used heavily and we relied on the books to keep subs on track with what we were learning.

So, how were the subs supposed to know that you were actually telling the truth about what pages the teacher wanted you to do?

The students cannot be trusted, like that. The teachers need to leave the assignments, themselves.

As well as homework assignments

That the teachers can probably create, themselves.

and full, in depth reading in class.

Nothing that can't be replaced by asking the teacher questions.

They're used for a reason. It's not like they're detrimental - but using them makes things easier and the information more reliable.

Maybe they have some good points.

But, do you honestly expect me to believe that the good points outweigh the bad, and that the good points can't be replaced by other good points from not having them?

Seems to me that you, personally, just don't value textbooks for what they are.

WHAT ARE THEY? Honestly, I do not recall a SINGLE class that has actually put textbooks to good use, and I have a pretty good memory, and can remember a lot of nit-picky details about my kindergarten class!

Also, you've never taught anyone. And you don't realize the difficulty of planning out lessons and having to rely on smaller handouts that don't cover the overall scope of information.

How the hell do you know that?

See - you're thinking college,

I'm also thinking grade school; go back and actually READ that portion of my post.

I'm thinking Grade school

So am I.

because my kids are in school,

Same

I'm applying this to them and to me when I was their age.

That makes two of us.

I, however, bought and kept all of my college textbooks and wouldn't consider just selling them back. I still read them and reference them often. To me it was hundreds of dollars well spent - a nice addition to my library.

Well, then, obviously, you would have bought them, anyway, just on the professors' recommendation.

What your issue seems to be is that you spent your personal money and didn't use the books - and that happened repeatedly

Yeah, because the teachers saw about as much usefulness in the textbooks as I do.

(in the same college?)

And the same grade school.

So, my question to you is why don't you take this issue up with the school itself?

What makes you think I haven't already pitched the idea?

Those individual teachers when you realized they weren't really looking to the books that you spent your money on?

See above.

Because your school had a different approach doesn't mean it was A) efficient for all students to learn by

Considering that most of the students passed (and my high school had a 100% graduation rate; absolutely no drop-outs), I'd say, yeah, it was pretty efficient.

My history teacher last year wrote a very lengthy version of each chapter with different information in it than what could be found in the textbooks. It might have been possible to read only his lectures and not the textbook chapters - but I read both because, no matter how thorough he tried to be it was impossible for him to cover every bit of info that was in the textbook.

Then, the textbook was beneficial.

If you actually took two seconds (just TWO SECONDS) to read the title of this thread, I asked if textbooks are really NECESSARY!

Sounds to me like your college's overall view didn't value the textbooks that they required. Which is a shame, there's a world of information in your textbooks in the scope which no teacher could ever cover.

The teachers covered the high points that they were supposed to cover, according to the standards set by the Board of Education; that is good enough.

You, on the other hand, seem to take a "knowledge is power" kind of approach to learning. You would probably classify yourself as a "lifelong learner," correct? Well, that's not everyone. In fact, it's not even a majority; self-proclaimed "lifelong learners" are a very small percentage of the population.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Okay, let me put it this way:

Teachers can buy one (ONE) textbook for their own use, and use that as a reference with which to create their own lesson plan.

That does not mean that each individual student needs a textbook. If a school district has 10,000 students, and they each take 7 classes per year (that's not even including semester classes), that's 70,000 textbooks that we DON'T need. If each textbook costs $100 (which isn't, exactly, hard to come by, these days), that's $700,000 (seven hundred thousand dollars) that they are wastefully spending.

The $150 Teachers' Edition textbook can be multiplied by 7 to create an optional cost of $1,050 per year, that they can take out of their salaries (which are now $15,000 more than they used to be) in order to pay for their own "assistance," if you will.

Soooo - your solution is to get rid of textbooks.
It would make more sense, however, to urge the printer's to be less costly and things of that nature. Shortening the textbooks to a more reasonable load of material included would be more ideal.

How so? The substitute teachers don't know what is being taught; they're independent contractors that work whenever needed, and often work with multiple schools. How are they supposed to keep up with each class's curriculum?

If the teachers leave material for the substitute teacher to hand out, then the sub has to use that material; it's only if the teacher doesn't leave any instructions that the subs get to wing it.

So, how were the subs supposed to know that you were actually telling the truth about what pages the teacher wanted you to do?

The students cannot be trusted, like that. The teachers need to leave the assignments, themselves.

Well - my schools and your schools obviously function very differently, here. All of my subs when I was in school taught something along the lines of what we were learning so it's not impossible for it to happen. Even for unexpected illnesses.

You don't trust the students - you trust the teacher's existing lesson plan.

That the teachers can probably create, themselves.

At what cost of time? Time is money - it seems silly to require someone to do work that a book already has figured out, organized and even calculated the answers to.

Nothing that can't be replaced by asking the teacher questions.

Yep, this is true. How do you conclude that in class, during reading, the teacher cannot be asked a question?

Maybe they have some good points.

But, do you honestly expect me to believe that the good points outweigh the bad, and that the good points can't be replaced by other good points from not having them?

I feel the good outweighs the bad. I guess we just disagree.

WHAT ARE THEY? Honestly, I do not recall a SINGLE class that has actually put textbooks to good use, and I have a pretty good memory, and can remember a lot of nit-picky details about my kindergarten class!

My schools and self approach this differently, then, because I always read my textbook chapters - always referred to my books for math assistance in understanding principles when at home doing homework.

I fail to see how taking textbooks out of the equation would be beneficial

How the hell do you know that?

Well - correct me if I'm wrong - but I deduced this by noting that you never referred to your personal teaching experience as to why textbooks are unnecessary.

If you were a teacher and felt this way I might consider things from your view. But you have no experience in this field and are just assuming you understand what it takes to write up a full year's worth of in class and homework assignments that are indepth and thorough enough to replace a textbook.

I'm also thinking grade school; go back and actually READ that portion of my post.

Fair enough.

So am I. Same That makes two of us.

Alright, good, we're on the same page.

Well, then, obviously, you would have bought them, anyway, just on the professors' recommendation.

Maybe.

Yeah, because the teachers saw about as much usefulness in the textbooks as I do. And the same grade school. What makes you think I haven't already pitched the idea? See above.

Unfortunately the books were likely required due to standards set by the college board. That's a crappy loophole that I feel for you on. IF it's not going to be used then it shouldn't be required - each individual professor should be able to call the shot on that.
My personal like for books aside, that just sucks.

Considering that most of the students passed (and my high school had a 100% graduation rate; absolutely no drop-outs), I'd say, yeah, it was pretty efficient.

Graduation rate is one thing

Then, the textbook was beneficial.

If you actually took two seconds (just TWO SECONDS) to read the title of this thread, I asked if textbooks are really NECESSARY!

Yes, necessary - yep - I do believe my point is centered around my belief that they're necessary.

The teachers covered the high points that they were supposed to cover, according to the standards set by the Board of Education; that is good enough.

Oh yeah - the good old Board of Education and their middle 'acceptable' standard. I feel that people should aim to excel as much as possible and not just be content with a minimal passing grade.

You, on the other hand, seem to take a "knowledge is power" kind of approach to learning. You would probably classify yourself as a "lifelong learner," correct? Well, that's not everyone. In fact, it's not even a majority; self-proclaimed "lifelong learners" are a very small percentage of the population.

Yep - knowledge is power and worth the cost. I believe this because it is true.

No, though, I'm not a 'lifelong' learner as in I'll always be attending college- I have a specific goal and I'm aiming for it and find myself fortunate to be able to attend college while raising my children and doing other things in my life. So, I'm making the most of this once in a lifetime opportunity and gleaming it for all it's worth so I can benefit full when I graduate and move on.

In retrospect I wish my desire for a decent education didn't wane in high school - putting it in the backseat for a while turned out to be a bad idea.