Action Resulting from CEAFU's Textbook Bias Study.

Institution	National Right to Work Committee, Fairfax, VA.
Titel	Action Resulting from CEAFU's Textbook Bias Study.
Quelle	(1978), (52 Seiten)Verfügbarkeit
Beigaben	Tabellen
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Activism; Adoption (Ideas); Business Correspondence; Educational Objectives; Educational Problems; Equal Opportunities (Jobs); History Instruction; Labor Legislation; Letters (Correspondence); Political Issues; Publishing Industry; Secondary Education; Social Studies; Textbook Bias; Textbook Evaluation; Textbook Selection; Unions; United States Government (Course); United States History + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Aktivismus; Politischer Protest; Ideas; Ideenfindung; Educational objective; Bildungsziel; Erziehungsziel; Equal opportunity; Equal opportunities; Job; Jobs; Chancengleichheit; Beruf; History lessons; Geschichtsunterricht; Labor law; Arbeitsrecht; Brief; Politischer Faktor; Sekundarbereich; Gemeinschaftskunde; Lehrbuchkritik
Abstract	The document contains letters of complaint sent by Concerned Educators Against Forced Unionism (CEAFU) to boards of education and publishers regarding inaccurate and/or unfair coverage of the right to work issue in high school social studies textbooks. Examples of complaints filed with boards of education are presented for state-adopted textbooks and for district-adopted textbooks. Because of the difficulties involved in corresponding with individual districts, CEAFU staff members have concentrated most of their efforts at the state level in 20 states which have adopted objectionable textbooks. Priority states are identified and a list of complaints to be filed in the near future is included. A sample is presented of the 22 letters of text evaluation sent by CEAFU to publishing companies. Letters of reply by six publishing companies conclude the document. Textbook publishers indicate that they are willing to review CEAFU evaluations of their texts and that they agree to take CEAFU criticisms into consideration in future publications. (DB)
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2004/1/01