I have just finished skimming the entire Packard report, and I would like to
make a few observations. It is actually impossible to read and understand
without copies of the books in hand. By necessity you must be able to see
many of the errors to be able to understand all of the comments. Reading it
in pieces, and skimming the detailed comments about each book is possible.
It could make good bedtime reading. The catalogs of errors could be read as
a joke book as long as you don't get upset about the serious consequences.
They have many extended stories covering how the authors tried in vain to
find out who wrote the texts, and what the authors qualifications were.
These stories parallel some of the textbook adoption narratives that have
been discussed on this list, and remind one of a Kafka novel.
The review seems to contain few errors, but as with any document one or two
crop up. One which I noticed is calling Minds on Physics a text published
at the 8th or 9th grade level. It (MOP) actually contains problems which
are challenging to AP physics students, while it does contain many lessons
which could be used for lower grade students.
The personalities of the reviewers are certainly in evidence, and sometimes
they are overly rigid and pedantic. One example that comes to mind is the
reviewer who objected to the statement "Black absorbs sunlight better than
any other color.". The objection was that black is the absence of color,
and not a color. This particular statement is only one possible
interpretation, and can be hotly debated. Technically black is the absence
of light, but according to the "classical" paint mixing it is the
combination of all primary colors. Color can also be defined as a
distinguishable point on a color wheel. Under this definition black (the
null point) is just another color. However, this pedantic bent hit with
deadly accuracy when the same reviewer pointed out that "purple-people
eaters" are not necessarily purple because they eat purple-people.
They did make some comparisons that might be construed as recommendations.
One book was called more error free, and another was reluctantly proclaimed
to be the best of the reviewed books. Meanwhile they found that some older
editions were actually much better than the current ones. As a result this
report in combination with the Project2061 report might be useful to schools
considering texbook selection. The report should alert districts to the
fact that it is much easier to get publishers to correct texts before
adoption than after.
A web site is promised with all errors cataloged, but there is no reference
to where it will be. Since such a site is a large undertaking, I suspect
that it will take some time to assemble it. I hope they can get it ready
soon, so that teachers can use it.