How realistic is it for schools to publish their own textbooks?

Photo: Rawpixel

The Neon cooperative plans to work with teachers and schools to produce ‘better, cheaper and more sustainable’ textbooks. How do existing publishers view this?

According to media reports, a revolution is about to take place in Dutch education. The Nederlands Onderwijsinstituut – Neon for short – wants to operate as a non-commercial publisher and, in collaboration with teachers and school boards, release new teaching methods and textbooks within two years that are ‘better, cheaper and more sustainable’ (NOS Journaal, 5 November). Neon wants to produce tailor-made school textbooks that align perfectly with the core curriculum objectives and allow teachers to easily adapt, add or remove sections themselves. Costs are to be reduced by adopting a ‘print on demand’ model, which would put an end to the current practice of ‘throwaway textbooks’. Bionieuws asked a number of publishers of existing biology teaching series for their response: does Neon have a new winning formula, or are there pitfalls lurking beneath the surface?

Bernadette Kruijver, portfolio manager for Science at Malmberg Publishers and publisher of Biologie voor jou (bvj)

‘Let me start by saying that it is a good thing for teachers to have a choice of methods that best suit them. Biologie voor jou is the most widely used series, but for the lower secondary years teachers can currently choose from at least five different series, for example. The impression given in the media is that publishers rain their materials down on schools from above, but we have always worked with writing teams made up of practising teachers. Moreover, we are in continuous contact with hundreds of schools that test our method revisions in practice. Our experience is that you quickly need three to four years to revise and update a series, if you don’t want to compromise on quality and reliability. Introducing a new series from scratch within two years is extremely ambitious. Teachers have little time, and pulling them out of the classroom to develop materials themselves increases workload. Tailoring every book to the specific wishes of an individual teacher also sounds very appealing, but it drives up costs enormously. It is simply more efficient to produce a book for the largest possible group. At the same time, teachers can choose for themselves how they use the bvj materials. You can switch flexibly between print and digital. And as for throwing away textbooks: a school can simply collect the bvj books at the end of the year and reuse them. This also helps to keep costs down. It would be wonderful if more schools came forward to take us up on this.’

Rick Pötgens, portfolio manager for Exact Sciences at ThiemeMeulenhoff and publisher of Vivo and 10voorBiologie

‘What I find very positive is that Neon too is bringing the role of teachers in the development of learning materials firmly into the spotlight. In their vision I recognise many of the same principles that we also take as our starting points for Vivo and 10voorBiologie. My own view is that publishers have a role primarily in developing learning materials – in close consultation with education – which teachers can then deploy as they see fit, supplemented where necessary by their own material. It is not the textbook but the teacher and pupils who make a lesson a success. The series and learning materials should above all facilitate that process. Neon may be a new competitor, but I also see a great deal of common ground in terms of a shared vision of education. From my own experience – we have now been working for around four years to introduce Vivo in pre-vocational secondary education and the lower years of senior general and pre-university secondary education – Neon’s timeline is certainly ambitious. Producing a new series for secondary education in a short space of time would be a remarkable achievement.’

John Arnold, publisher of Bricks Biology (bilingual education) and Symbiose (lower secondary) at EduHint

‘In itself, it is a perfectly good initiative that keeps everyone on their toes. For my part, I see no publisher monopoly – rather a narrowing of supply caused by years of contraction. To blame the publishers for everything is rather simplistic. And it is a shame that their case rests on a caricature of the current situation: “teaching methods would have a debilitating effect on teachers” – not exactly a pleasant thing to be told as a teacher. And what counts as expensive? The figure of €320 per pupil per year cited has not been increased since 2009, and is not spent entirely on learning materials either. The ongoing contraction of the educational market also means that smaller markets, such as practical or special education, are less well served. I also have questions: if teachers have too little time to prepare their lessons, where is the development time for Neon materials supposed to come from? By removing those capable of producing it from the classroom? That strikes me as a drain that does the quality of education no good. Meanwhile, the flexibility, customisation and sustainability being sought are already possible now, but are rarely requested or are frustrated by inflexible agreements between school boards and intermediaries. I therefore wonder whether the proposed solution will actually resolve the quality problems in education.’

Gijs van Hengstum, publisher of Biologieles at Exact Educatie

‘Neon has certainly made a spectacular entrance, and it is very positive that they are calling into question the price and sustainability of textbooks. But one can of course raise doubts about how novel and feasible it all is. VO Content is also a cooperative platform and has been offering digital teaching materials through its Stercollecties for around fifteen years – materials that teachers can incorporate into their own lessons. So far, however, this has proved to be a relatively small niche. The price they mention for a teaching series – €10 to €20 per pupil per year – sounds very attractive. But that does not include the costs the school must bear for printing the materials itself. Are you going to do that yourself as a teacher, or do you ask the caretaker to print it out? Most schools have no time for that, and having textbooks printed to order is expensive in small print runs. Precisely now that new core objectives are being introduced, you need a team with considerable experience and a range of skills to develop teaching materials for them. Getting that done for biology with three people in two years is very ambitious indeed – especially if you want to be the best.’