CA Assembly Votes to Limit Textbook Size to 200 Pages

I've heard it all now, limit text book size to 200 pages with a whole bunch of website links in the back of the text book.
As far as I know, the ones that really need the information usually found in text books do not have access to the internet. Is this the way "No child left behind" works. Give me a break.

This may even apply to novels and other literature.

Yesterday the CA State Assembly passed a bill that would outlaw textbooks in California schools that are over 200 pages. Before becoming law it must receive Senate approval and then be signed by the governator.

AB 756 would force publishers to condense key ideas, basic problems and basic knowledge into 200 pages, then to provide a rich appendix with Web sites where students can go for more information.


esposito.typepad.com...



[edit on 4-6-2005 by valkeryie]

There was a study done last year that showed that heavy back packs were causing back pain in school kids.

The mean weight of the backpacks was 10.6 lbs.
Reducing the size of the books may help to alleviate that problem.
www.childrenspine.us...

For subjects that require a lot of information, the books can be split into multiple volumes. I really don't have of a problem with this.

[edit on 4-6-2005 by AceOfBase]

I think this is rather excessive; however, I can see the sense in, for example, limiting the weight of a book and splitting it into multiple volumes. There is absolutely no reason to do this to novels/literature, however. It would be a horrible nuisance to have four volumes to "The Da Vinci Code", for example. I have 1000+ page textbooks, however, that would be more convenient to carry if they were divided into two.

I also don't like the idea of a textbook having 'internet-only' content. I have a few textbooks that have internet links, and its really annoying, especially since their websites usually suck, too.

10 years from now, there will be restrictions on the amount of syllables allowed in any given word used in the classroom.........

On the bright side, this might just be the kick-start the electronic book industry needs.

E-books would reduce the need for schools to budget millions of dollars each year for new text books, and that,s just to replace lost and damaged books that are already woefully out of date; "The current 48 states which make up the United States...".

Given the market provided by the educational system of a state the size of California, I could see an enterprising entrapeneur funding a pilot program to introduce E-books as a potential futre replacement for the old bound text.

I personaly like the idea, but I would prefer if they split it into volumes, I live in Washington State, and I have to carry 4 textbooks around, they are very heavy, we dont really need most of the pages, for instance in my history book, we only read about 100 pages out of the book in the whole year, and the book is 700 pages.

Also, if you dont live in the US, you really have no place in criticisizing this kind of thing, you try coming here and lugging 20lbs fo textbooks around all day.

[edit on 6/5/2005 by iori_komei]

Yep, for weight alone, this makes sense, when you have seven classes a day, and all of them have books, and all of them have homework, thats a massive load to bear when walking a mile (in the snow in no shoes ) home and back. Not every kid is a football player, not every kid can get a ride home from mom and dad, buses are not the norm.

Most of the extra pages go to complete waste in the text books because the subject matter is never covered in my 12 years of school we never even made it to World War II in the text books, I was always eager for a big discussion on nukes so I could show off all I'd studied privately, but it never happened, same old early American History: chris columbus to maybe 1900 bla bla bla.

Also, if you dont live in the US, you really have no place in criticisizing this kind of thing, you try coming here and lugging 20lbs fo textbooks around all day.

Other countries don't use text books?! oh dear...

I agree that some text books are too big, my physics text book is 1700+ pages and has loads of extra online content. The book is a nuisance, the covers curl and the pages get ruined and its excessively heavy.
The problem is that if you put things online you are compelling people to get computers they might otherwise not want, and getting a computer just so you can read a book you should have been able to buy in print form is a bit excessive. The multiple voumes idea is good but it would make the books dearer to make and hence dearer for us to buy...

Maybe books shouldn't be used in class and just for study at home and home work? Surely teachers know the courses they teach well enough that they don't need to rely on a book?

i agree if they were to remove all the stuff that never gets covered you could reduce the wasted weight and paper. i will say however that haveing stuff online is a bad idea. when i was in school i didn't have a tv. i failed several asighnments as it was fully expected that we all had tv's and so we were told we had to watch such and such show and do homework about it. kinda hard to do without a tv, teachers wouldn't even believe that i didn't have one.

Other countries don't use text books?! oh dear...

What I'm saying is, if yuor from say, spain, and you should'nt be critisizing what is done in California.



Actualy, saying what I said, is very unlike me, but I stick with it.

I do not like the idea of having only access from online.

Like drogo, I too do not have a television (i watch dvd's on my computer, but i do not get the news). When i tell my teachers my predicament, they usually tell me to go to a friends house, which in my opinion is rude. ("can i come over and watch the news at your house?")

I already have one teacher who gives assignments on the computer and will not let you turn them in as a hard copy. It was very frustrating when my Cat-5 cable broke and i couldnt get it fixed until a few days later.

---Pineapple

Textbooks shouldn't need to be excesively lengthy. A good textbook should have concise explanations, and just cover the important content. Encyclopedias and other books should be used for reference.

School textbooks are long for a number of reasons. First of all, they have to be politically correct, which means they need to balance the race's of the pictures. If the book is in any way political, they have to be careful not to leave out any POWERFUL groups point of view. Next, under the rubrick of the idiots know-nothings, who evaluate textbooks, more is better. So, they pack in lots of information. Besides, in the name of 'better' education schools keep getting mandated to teach various things, and if the book doesn't whatever crazy thing, the schools decide is important that year, they won't buy the book.

As far as readibility, it probably has to conform to the reading-level of the coresponding grade level. However, no one usually evaluates textbooks for being well-written books. It will be interesting to see how this law affects the publishing industry.

Well With this America is going to get even less intelligent.

As a high school student (yeah yeah... I'm little.) who actually likes to learn and doesn't want to cut content from the curriculum, I like the idea of smaller textbooks. In almost every class, every year, we get through about three quarters of the book, leaving a big chunk in the back that we never reached. However, I think it would make more sense to put them into seperate volumes instead of cutting out material from the texts. I get back aches from carrying heavy books and binders around all the time, and it'd be nice to have a bit of a break. The problem would be money. It's something schools seem to have a lack of.



P.S. My first post.


Edit: Okay, I guess I completely skipped the internet thing when I read the previous posts. I don't like the idea. Not everyone has internet access and schools don't have enough computers for everyone to use the internet at the same time. Textbooks need to be used in class, too. And I forgot to mention that 200 pages is ridiculously low.


[edit on 6/9/2005 by Ariana]