Joy Masoff’s book Our Virginia: Past and Present, published by Five Ponds Press, a book for fourth-graders in Virginia, falsely claims that thousands of African-Americans fought for the South in the Civil War. Of course some did. Slaves don’t have much say in such things. But what Masoff has written is not true. That her book should contain such errors ought not to be surprising, since she is not a trained historian and made her claim on the basis of something she found on the internet. Fortunately this book was not given to children in Rockbridge County [where I live] as far as I know. But it is an issue that should still concern us here. It certainly concerns our Governor, who has ordered a review of Virginia’s textbook adoption system.
Some people are calling this a great opportunity for children to learn not to believe everything they read. But how are children to learn if they question everything their teachers say? Or everything they read in state-approved textbooks? Are fourth-graders supposed to fact-check the material we ask them to read? If so, how exactly are they supposed to do it? If they learn anything from this sorry episode it should be not to trust material they find on the internet, where anyone can post anything.
So should we take them to the libraries at VMI or Washington and Lee [the two local colleges] so they can do their own research? I think they might be a little young for that.
This is not a learning opportunity or “teachable moment” for our children. It is a wake-up call for parents and anyone else who cares about the education of young Virginians. We need to get amateurishness and propaganda (where do you think Masoff got her ‘information’ from?) out of the classroom. And it is important too that our children learn that there is such a thing as truth, that one source is not just as good as another, and that there are facts, not just different opinions. It would be nice if the people in Richmond realized this too and chose a textbook written by a real expert next time.
Any suggestions for improvement will be gratefully received.
UPDATE: the letter was published and several people have said they liked it. Tomorrow (Wednesday) I'll find out whether anyone has responded.
Wonderful. (Your response, not the situation.)
ReplyDeleteAs for improvements, anything you can do to make a letter to the editor shorter is probably a good idea.
Thanks, Matthew. It would be nice if I could make it punchier, but I can't see anything I want to cut.
ReplyDeletethe rhetoric in the second paragraph seems a little off. your point seems good—that unchecked doubt about what teachers or state-approved curricula say undermines the whole point of primary-level education—but the way you phrase it could sound to some people, especially the opposing side, as if you're saying it's bad for children to question their teachers (including when their teachers are indoctrinating them in the official version of the facts).
ReplyDeletei would also change the point about the internet there. it's true that one weakness of the internet is that anyone can say anything on it, and so some of the checks that are effective offline against mendacity and irresponsible perpetuation of ignorance and error aren't so much in effect. but you don't want to sound like you're questioning the right of people to say what they think. i think it might be better to focus on the textbook author's irresponsible methods. a person who is told they have to say something about african-americans in the civil war, and who HASN'T said anything and fixes it by looking it up on the internet, isn't doing history. they're doing what college students do when they cheat on their homework or try to crank out garbage at the last minute. and that's not a whole lot different from someone writing a science textbook who needs some material and looks up 'facts' on the internet without checking them against her scientific training, or someone who writes a math textbook and takes some exercises from someone else without checking the answers to make sure they're correct.
you could re-frame the last paragraph along the same lines. amateurishness is bad where expertise is needed, but appealing to the value of experts is unfortunately not rhetorically neutral. 'facts' over 'opinions' is better—you might link it more closely to the way in which the textbook content is obtained a la what i said above. elementary school children are at the stage where they're being taught the difference between facts and opinions. no adult should look at the way the author manufactured her textbook content, here, and think she had found out the facts. it would be harmful to expose children to that level of carelessness.
Thanks, j.
ReplyDeleteI'll see whether I can come up with something that takes your suggestions into account without getting too long.
Perhaps this will please no one, but here's a revised version:
ReplyDeleteJoy Masoff’s book Our Virginia: Past and Present, published by Five Ponds Press, a book for fourth-graders in Virginia, falsely claims that thousands of African-Americans fought for the South in the Civil War. Of course some did. Slaves don’t have much say in such things. But what Masoff has written is not true. That her book should contain such errors ought not to be surprising, since she is not a trained historian and made her claim on the basis of something she found on the internet. Fortunately this book was not given to children in Rockbridge County schools as far as I know. But it is an issue that should still concern us here. It certainly concerns our Governor, who has ordered a review of Virginia’s textbook adoption system.
Some people are calling this a great opportunity for children to learn not to believe everything they read. It’s certainly good for students to ask questions of their teachers, and to question any attempt to indoctrinate them. But education also depends on trust. Before they can ask good questions, children need to accept the authority of their teachers. How are children to learn if they question everything their teachers say? Or everything they read in state-approved textbooks? Are fourth-graders supposed to fact-check the material we ask them to read? If so, how exactly are they supposed to do it? They are too young to conduct their own research in historical archives or college libraries. And if they learn anything from this sorry episode it should be that good research is based on reliable sources, not carelessly chosen websites. The internet is a great thing for freedom of expression. It is also a kind of jungle, in which children (and Joy Masoff) need to learn to tread carefully.
This is not a learning opportunity or “teachable moment” for our children. It is a wake-up call for parents and anyone else who cares about the education of young Virginians. We need to get carelessness about the truth and propaganda (where do you think Masoff got her ‘information’ from?) out of the classroom. And it is important too that our children learn that there is such a thing as truth, that one source is not just as good as another, and that there are facts, not just different opinions. It would be nice if the people in Richmond realized this too and chose a textbook written by a real historian next time.
(i see that my comment keeps getting longer. sorry, i don't mean to pile on and prevent you from sending your letter. i'm just very interested in the rhetoric of situations like these.)
ReplyDeletei still think there's a problem in the second paragraph. i'm not sure how to solve it, though—it's tough. i think that by transitioning from 'not to believe everything they read' to 'question', you put yourself in a delicate place, because you have to specify a difference between good questioning and bad questioning in a context where the reasons questioning is good or bad pertain to several different parties, questioners, purposes, and authorities (thus multiplying the possibilities for inadvertent or willful misunderstanding of your point).
the way that this jumps out most at me is in the sentences, 'how are children to learn if they question EVERYTHING their teachers say? or everything they read in state-approved textbooks?' although as a trained philosopher you're likely to think of the opposite of 'everything' as 'some things', it looks like something whose opposite people will associate with NOTHING. that is, your position together with your wording invite misidentification with the position, 'never question the official, expert view of history and the expert control over education', i.e. probably the kind of thing most effective at eliciting the resentments of the extreme other side.
the 'fact' / 'opinion' opposition plays into that, too, since 'opinion' is a term for labeling legitimately held beliefs in contexts where the facts or truth are unclear or not yet known with certainty, or in contexts where belief is thought to be a matter of choice or liberty and everyone is entitled to their own (perhaps with the presumption that in public/state-overseen contexts, they're even entitled to have representatively held opinions reflected in institutions, textbooks, and so on). opposing non-facts as opinions opens you up to another misunderstanding a la 'see, they're trying to suppress our beliefs!'. i think you're controlling against that by talking about propaganda, but when 'opinion' comes back in it might contribute more to legitimizing the thing you're opposing (thus making you sound like you're opposing something legitimate), especially since 'propaganda' is a word people might be inclined to de-emphasize as part of a partisan strategy of over-statement on your part.
who are the 'some people' calling this an opportunity for children to learn not to believe everything they read? it sounds like not just a thoughtless response, but one made in bad faith, which might have something to do with why it's hard to rebut without the entanglements or inadvertent over-commitments that it's intended to draw out.
if it's so good for children to have opportunities to learn not to believe everything they read, then clearly virginia schoolboards ought to start ordering textbooks that intentionally contain badly researched material. students will never be able to practice a healthy skepticism if we give them books that only contain well-researched facts.
Thanks, j. I don't think I'm going to change it much more, but I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I might steal some of your final paragraph too.
ReplyDeleteThere are several people who have said this is a good thing, and I think they probably are all guilty of bad faith. The headline in the paper was "Textbook's Mistake A Lesson, Say Educators." The best response might be just your last paragraph, in fact. That would be short and to the point without getting into the tricky area I have wandered into.
OK, letter sent. I honestly think that just j's last paragraph might well have made a better letter, but I couldn't bring myself to take it.
ReplyDeleteHere are the last two paragraphs, with the slight changes I made:
Some people are calling this a great opportunity for children to learn not to believe everything they read. It’s certainly good for students to ask questions of their teachers, and to question attempts to indoctrinate them. But education also depends on trust. Before they can ask good questions, children need to accept the authority of their teachers. How are children to learn if they question everything their teachers say? Or everything they read in state-approved textbooks? Are fourth-graders supposed to fact-check the material we ask them to read? If so, how exactly are they supposed to do it? They are too young to conduct their own research in historical archives or college libraries. And if they learn anything from this sorry episode it should be that good research is based on reliable sources, not carelessly chosen websites. The internet is a great thing for freedom of expression. It is also a kind of jungle, in which children (and Joy Masoff) need to learn to tread carefully.
This is not a learning opportunity or “teachable moment” for our children. It is a wake-up call for parents and anyone else who cares about the education of young Virginians. We need to get carelessness about the truth and propaganda (where do you think Masoff got her ‘information’ from?) out of the classroom. And it is important too that our children learn that there is such a thing as truth, that one source is not just as good as another, and that there are facts, not just different opinions about the facts. It would be nice if the people in Richmond realized this too and chose a textbook written by a real historian next time.
one thing is for certain, this is a case where you don't want to consult the internet too much.
ReplyDeleteYes, it seems almost inevitable that something in my letter will turn out to be incorrect, and it will be something I got from the internet. I'll let you know if that happens.
ReplyDeleteat least no one was ever under the illusion that the editorial page was the paragon of fact.
ReplyDeleteTrue. Now I won't feel so bad if I screw up.
ReplyDelete