NationStates

As always, any feedback is appreciated!

Little Red Textbooks

Validity: Has an education system. Educational authority is localized (don't know how one would check for this- Devolution works if nothing else, I guess).

Description
A coalition of students and well-connected parents has threatened to publicly defame your government unless you agree to hear out their concerns that @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ school curricula have become too politicized.

Option 1
"Dàguó spends the equivalent of 30 billion @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ a year on its nuclear arsenal. Feeding a starving Tasmanian child costs 45 @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ a year. How many starving Tasmanian children could be fed if Dàguó gave up its nuclear arsenal? And the answer is zero, because they'd spend it all on conventional weapons!" exclaims @@RANDOMNAME@@, reading off an exam that @@HIS@@ son got full marks on. "Local school boards are actively trying to brainwash our children, and we can't stop it without your support. Take power away from local governments and mandate that all school materials and lesson plans be approved by an impartial central committee, with stiff fines for politicized teaching."

Effect: plans for teachers' retirement parties often die in committee

Option 2
"And who gets to decide what constitutes 'politicized teaching'? Some faceless @@CAPITAL@@ bureaucrat?" asks school board member @@RANDOMNAME@@, who's held @@HIS@@ position for the past 40 years. "Schools exist to prepare our children for adulthood, right? How can you accomplish that without instilling in them the values of their community? We're the ones best suited to craft curricula for our children, and you ought to keep it that way. You wouldn't accuse a parent of trying to 'brainwash' their kids at the dinner table, would you?"

Effect: writing "@@LEADER@@ did it" is an acceptable answer to exam questions on natural disasters

Option 3
"Sounds to me like this is a local problem," suggests public relations consultant @@RANDOMNAME@@, who says spinning in place helps @@HIM@@ think. "Centralizing education will put us squarely in the crosshairs of anyone complaining about the state of education, not to mention tick off local powerbrokers. So here's what we do: we issue a statement promoting political activism, reiterate our commitment to devolved government, and offer free toolkits to activists. The complainers are happy, the local authorities are happy, and we can all get back to our business."

Effect: the government maintains that its inaction is someone else's problem

Option 4
"This baby can fit so much propaganda in it!" says advisor and former used car salesman @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, slapping the top of a textbook. "We should retain local power over education, so long as we get to decide what materials they use. We'll cram every course full of patriotism, subliminal messages, and subtle allusions to your greatness. Those parents will get their wish: local school boards can't brainwash their kids if we're doing it instead!"

Effect: studies show that "@@LEADER@@'s intern" is the most popular career aspiration among five-year-olds

Reserved.

What would "publicly defaming" @@NAME@@ entail (unless I've missed something)? Pretty good issue otherwise.

The debate over who controls textbook content is definitely a real one. There is one existing issue on the topic of textbooks (#1278 A Textbook Cover-Up?), but as that focuses on that exclusion of a single hot-button issue, rather than a more generalized policy towards oversight, there is probably room for both.

I think Devolution is probably a reasonable policy to check for in this context, though school curriculum isn't always centrally controlled even in very centralized governments, so things could be written to fit either model if you wanted.

Thoughts related to the issue:

Description:

The word defamation usually refers to illegal, or at the very least illegitimate, claims – slanderous or libelous claims, conspiracy theory nonsense, the like. Threatening to "publicly defame" would basically be blackmail, and could quite possibly be prosecuted both for the threat and for the defamation if they did it. One could say "publicly speak against your government" as well, though that requires a check for public protest laws. I think one might want to have this group doing something other than threatening the government directly – that's just a bad move on their part, and definitely raises the questions of both "who cares?" and "how will you do that from prison?" in many nations.

Option 1:

I would probably move the dialogue tag earlier in the option, to make it clear that the speaker is quoting from the school material they object to. Took me a minute to figure out what foreign nuclear weapons had to do with textbook content. It also needs nested quotes – "'text here'" would be the usual style.

I'm not sure that teachers' retirement parties would fall under school materials and lesson plans, nor that it would risk having political content, so the effect text is a bit curious – it's at a grander scale of effect that the option text suggests would occur.

Option 2:

This option doesn't do anything - "keep it this way" is the same as a dismiss button. The speaker needs to propose some change to the present situation.

Option 3:

I'm not sure how this text makes the complainers happy – it says to promote the thing they are objecting to (politicization of things), and takes the current state of affairs and pushes it farther down the opposite path they are requesting. Honestly, this proposal sounds like what the Option 2 speaker should be asking for. I'd probably combine the two. Random aside – what is a toolkit for an activist in this case?

Option 4:

This one conflicts with itself a bit – maintaining local power while at the same time saying you're going to centrally control it all is opposite-land. I'd go all out – take central control, and then do the propaganda thing the speaker suggest. It does what the plaintiffs request (centralizing control) and then pulls a switch on them by propagating the same thing nationally that was done locally in the past.

Option 1- but local govts. Are writing text books, text book publishers are. Take the iasue up with them

Australian rePublic wrote:Option 1- but local govts. Are writing text books, text book publishers are. Take the iasue up with them

Depends where you are. Textbook publishers sometimes do whatever the local governments tell them to, in order to make sure their books get picked for large contracts. In the United States for example, the Texas board of education has tremendous influence over the content of textbooks, and can basically censor or rewrite things that are used all over the country, because they have a large enough market share that the publishers will do whatever they say in order to get the sale. Since the books Texas influences are one of only a handful of choices nationwide, children all over the country are frequently subjected to history books re-written to remove the contributions of progressives, hype up the importance of guns and religion, and generally promote an openly and unabashedly conservative political stance.

Verdant Haven wrote:Since the books Texas influences are one of only a handful of choices nationwide, children all over the country are frequently subjected to history books re-written to remove the contributions of progressives, hype up the importance of guns and religion, and generally promote an openly and unabashedly conservative political stance.

And vice versa

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/13/795995543/analysis-finds-big-differences-in-school-textbooks-in-states-with-differing-poli

Verdant Haven wrote:Depends where you are. Textbook publishers sometimes do whatever the local governments tell them to, in order to make sure their books get picked for large contracts.

As you correctly mentioned here, the publisher will publish whatever they're told to, in order to get the contract. What I found interesting from my link is that it is the same publisher producing totally different material depending on the state government.