The section regarding textbooks and the conflicting agencas of the teachers (use what is good and what works) and the principals (use the new shiny ones) remind

The section regarding textbooks and the conflicting agencas of the teachers (use what is good and what works) and the principals (use the new shiny ones) reminded me of Richard Feynman's stint on a textbook selection committee: http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm Compare this from the article: "[T]he standard geometry book for Fairfax County, which is used in schools around the country, tries to explain what a mathematical point is by analogy to pixels on TV screens, which are not in fact point-like." With This: "[T]he books were so lousy. They were false. They were hurried. They would try to be rigorous, but they would use examples (like automobiles in the street for "sets") which were almost OK, but in which there were always some subtleties." Feyman continues: "The definitions weren't accurate. Everything was a little bit ambiguous -- they weren't smart enough to understand what was meant by "rigor." They were faking it. They were teaching something they didn't understand, and which was, in fact, useless, at that time, for the child."