There are two sides to this argument. For using open source textbooks, this is a significant cost reduction in the long run and hopefully more states will choose to go down this path in the future. As we have seen with open source software in the past decade, support and use from the community are the biggest factors in further development on a project. If nobody uses it, it gets dropped fairly quickly. It is no surprise that Texas is one of the first to do this. Texas has been innovative for decades in finding ways to reduce costs, and finding ways to ensure that every school funded by the state has the equipment and resources needed not only to function, but to excel. This is just another step in the right direction, one that other states will surely follow, as they seem to with a lot of ideas first introduced in Texas. The publishers of propriety books have a strong hold on curriculum in US schools, but in Texas there is a long running way to ensure that garbage stays out, and only the best gets in, this is just the next step
However, part of what makes the system work so well in Texas is the open review and input from the community on which books to use. Bypassing this review undermines a great deal of what put Texas near the top in public education in the US. The legislature understood a long time ago that great ideas and input come from anywhere, and they adopted a system which provides a means for those ideas to be heard. Compare this to states like Illinois where the union runs every aspect of public education, and as they've acquired more power in the past 15 years with a weak legislature the quality of education has plummeted. Power to the point that the legislature rejected a $200m DONATION to fund charter school programs because the teachers' union was against it. The misnomers from some about Darwin being left out, and revisionist teaching are simply uninformed accusations based on watching too many movies and not enough truth. Come with facts, not Hollywood. Come with reality, not ignorant misconceptions.
Hopefully, this law can be reviewed and the community review process be included rather than bypassed. Though open source books are a great idea and hopefully more prevalent in the future, it is not worth undermining an excellent system to get there, especially when the two can work just fine together.
There are two sides to this argument. For using open source textbooks, this is a significant cost reduction in the long run and hopefully more states will choose to go down this path in the future. As we have seen with open source software in the past decade, support and use from the community are the biggest factors in further development on a project. If nobody uses it, it gets dropped fairly quickly. It is no surprise that Texas is one of the first to do this. Texas has been innovative for decades in finding ways to reduce costs, and finding ways to ensure that every school funded by the state has the equipment and resources needed not only to function, but to excel. This is just another step in the right direction, one that other states will surely follow, as they seem to with a lot of ideas first introduced in Texas. The publishers of propriety books have a strong hold on curriculum in US schools, but in Texas there is a long running way to ensure that garbage stays out, and only the best gets in, this is just the next step
However, part of what makes the system work so well in Texas is the open review and input from the community on which books to use. Bypassing this review undermines a great deal of what put Texas near the top in public education in the US. The legislature understood a long time ago that great ideas and input come from anywhere, and they adopted a system which provides a means for those ideas to be heard. Compare this to states like Illinois where the union runs every aspect of public education, and as they've acquired more power in the past 15 years with a weak legislature the quality of education has plummeted. Power to the point that the legislature rejected a $200m DONATION to fund charter school programs because the teachers' union was against it. The misnomers from some about Darwin being left out, and revisionist teaching are simply uninformed accusations based on watching too many movies and not enough truth. Come with facts, not Hollywood. Come with reality, not ignorant misconceptions.
Hopefully, this law can be reviewed and the community review process be included rather than bypassed. Though open source books are a great idea and hopefully more prevalent in the future, it is not worth undermining an excellent system to get there, especially when the two can work just fine together.