Some time ago I had the opportunity to write chapters for high school science textbooks. My editor offered me the job because I was known to be an innovative teacher.

     Shortly into the project, I was given a template to fill in. Apparently this is common practice to make sure that teachers do not stray too far from the norm. So I was chosen for being innovative ... then was asked to conform.

     As I wrote I noticed logic gaps as I moved from templated topic to topic. I suggested additions that would bridge the gaps but these were quickly vetoed - they were not specified in the school curriculum therefore they didn't belong. As I wrote I also revisited concepts as reminders before forging on to new ideas. This was quickly removed by my editor. I pointed out that it was good teaching practice to be somewhat repetitive but was told that any good editor would remove  repeated sections. I started to wonder why they needed a teacher to write the text. Was I there just so they could say 'written by teachers' on the front cover?

     One of my jobs was to write a section on sexual reproduction. At first I was given free license, they wanted it to be daring and tackle several concepts that were avoided in other high school texts. I began writing and had several sections flensed out when the Catholic school board got involved (apparently they are a major purchaser of textbooks). At first they removed any reference to birth control and clitorises then eventually they wanted removal of any reference to coitus or penises ... Eventually they only wanted reference to pregnancy, but I was left with no way to get there.

     Textbooks are often political documents that reflect what a curriculum committe decides that children should be taught. I try not to teach children, I try to teach developing adults and try to teach them the concepts and thinking skills that will be important to their adult futures.