Corporate Mofo: In Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman, famed physicist Richard Feynman describes serving on a committee vetting science textbooks for the state of California. Most of the committee members didn't even read the books-one reviewer even recommended a textbook consisting entirely of blank pages. How the books got chosen is no mystery, though-Feynman describes how the textbook companies sent flowers to his family, and even took him around San Francisco trying to get him laid. How accurate is this description how of the textbook industry operates?

TP: I can tell you that the then-president of the [textbook company I worked for]. . . bragged in a 1998 departmental meeting of having manipulated the system to pre-sell a social studies textbook. He did this by soliciting the opinion of the Gablers, a conservative couple with a powerful role in Texas adoptions, getting their responses and incorporating them into the final product before officially presenting the book. Other than this, I can only say that as in any other big money operation that goes on in the dark, all kinds of shenanigans are going on.

CM: How are textbooks sold in this country? How are they adopted?

TP: You almost answered your own question: They are not sold, they are adopted. In other words, a basal textbook (the kind we get in elementary school) is not purchased but rather adopted by a committee, generally speaking. Many states have adoption committees but only Texas and California exert real influence, because the other adoption committees have learned to rely on Texas and California to lead the way. The participation of most state adoption committees comes in something called correlations, detailed specifications for textbook that are really just mind-numbing reiterations of Texas and California, with face saving alterations and local preferences.

CM: And these are the books that children use in school every day?

TP: I suppose we could say the lucky children do. Only because so few children in this country get the pleasure of opening a brand new textbook. I have no figures on this but my received impression from 17 years in the industry is that very few kids are actually getting new books. I don't know why that is.

CM: What part do special interests play in this selection process?

TM: The committees that do the adopting are nominally drawn from across the community, but wind up being governed by whichever special interest has the energy and organization to rule. Within the last two decades this concerted effort has come from the right, politically. Which makes sense, given that any group that favors diversity will lack the concerted focus of single agenda. Even if a group from the left had focus, it would splinter on a variety of issues, while the Rightist agenda can concentrate like a laser on certain central issues: creationism, the evils of homosexuality, a particular approach to patriotism. Also these conservative elements traditionally have a solid basis in the community, broad connections in church affairs and local politics. The influence from this quarter is more deeply felt and respected, as a recurring force to be reckoned with, than urgent voices from the margins. Even though substantial numbers of the conservative and churchgoing clearly object to the rough edges of the bible-banging agenda (who wants their kids to grow up functionally illiterate?), their voices are lost in the mix. The conservatives come back year after year, they get heard.

CM: Who are the largest textbook publishers? Is it a big field, or do only a few companies control it?

TP: The other big operators are McGraw-Hill, Houghton Mifflin, Holt, Prentice Hall, Harcourt, and about three or four others. In the end game, however, there aren't that many players because the stakes are too high for everyone to compete. McGraw has an edge because they are part of larger company, they can offset losses and provide a capital boost because unlike such companies as Houghton, they are not solely a textbook publisher. . . So they can bring resources to bear that force other competitors from the field, in the same manner that someone in a poker game who had a major backer could bet more daringly or have more staying power. . . .

CM: And just what are the stakes in this game?

TP: The street value of a single adoption is tens of millions of dollars. But that isn't the whole story. Picture it this way: Much in the same way as you will buy the stereo that your audiophile geek friend buys, after months of research, so, too, will states buy the textbook Texas buys. Because they Texas has this apparatus in place to vet a textbook, other states spare themselves the cost of research by following suit. So if a publisher wins Texas, they win Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, etc. And these days, even northern states are picking up on Texas adoptions, because the general trend has gotten more conservative. Thus winning Texas may net you $20 million, but getting all these other states is pure gold. On top of this domino effect, consider that if you can win consistently at a game with those kinds of stakes, investment will follow on. Investment capital will see you as a sure bet, and as if it was a fixed horse race, they will pour their money into your coffers.

CM: Let's talk about how these books are produced? Who creates them? There's an illustrious list of authors on the cover, but what role do they have in this process?

TP: The authors lend cache to the product. Some of them promote a particular academic or pedagogic slant. They don't write a word.

CM: So, whereas you would think that professional educators, historians, or scientists were creating these textbooks, it actually it was-who?

TP: McGraw Hill declared a policy by which all current employees would become Kelly Temps, thus erecting a legal barrier that allowed McGraw to imagine the people it obliged to work on its premises were not entitled to employee treatment. They weren't temps, but pure professionals. It was in the company's interest to make sure that the IRS and the Department of Labor didn't sniff out that they were exploiting a workforce.

CM: Why do you think the company has this employment policy?

TP: They undertook the policy purely to avoid responsibility for paying professionals to create a highly profitable product. If you could do it, and your sole interest was making money, you would, too. Until you got caught. Which they did.

CM: Was the company's employment policy in violation of labor laws?

TP: Absolutely.

CM: What did you do about it? And how did they react?

TP: We pointed this out to them in 1998. We did it collectively and effectively. We organized, used company email and a GeoCities Web site they could not find to broadcast information about company profits and practices. We educated fellow workers about their rights, and borrowed office space and other assistance from the National Writers Union, a local of United Auto Workers Union. We held meetings.

After three months, management capitulated and ejected Kelly. It helped that in May of 1998, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that Microsoft's business practices in Seattle were also unconstitutional, and that in fact anyone who controls your place of work, your hiring and firing, your raises, and the product of your work is de facto your employer.

CM: Why is it so difficult to organize knowledge workers for collective bargaining? Doesn't being a white-collar worker preclude joining a union?

TP: It's hard in textbooks, anyway, because the workforce is so young. They don't know about labor laws or issues and tend to assume they don't have any rights at all. Older workers are concerned for their jobs because they have children or mortgages to protect. Both groups are scared and generally unaware of the protections that are in place to allow for collective bargaining.

CM: What is it about creating a textbook, or any printed material, for that matter, that requires specialized knowledge? Why can't anyone do it, like learning to operate the espresso machine at Starbucks?

TP: Interestingly, you would think that highly skilled educators, historians, etc. would be required, but given the detailed format provided by adoption committees, making a textbook is like filling out a complex form. You need professionals, but you don't need good writers, much less educators. That has been taken out of the hands of the publishers (and to their minds, good riddance). When textbook adoption committees tell you EXACTLY what you want, what you need is a task force that can fill out the form. That still takes skill, but not creative skill. Except to the degree that if you really did do it just as they asked, the result would be embarrassing.

To put it at its most drastic, these books are intended as crib sheets so students can pass standardized tests. The better their scores on these tests, the higher the rating of the schools they attend. The higher the school rates, the higher the real estate values go in the community that pays the taxes for the schools. Everyone wins when the students score high. The icing on the cake? The same publishers that make the textbooks do the testing! Now REALLY everyone wins. Except nothing is more tedious or conducive to high drop out rates than the tedium of cramming for tests, and the inevitability of failure for students who don't do well on them. In Edison schools, kids who don't perform well are actually excluded from taking the tests, to raise the average. These kids are classed as learning-disordered. This is the heart of the matter: Education that becomes all about testing becomes a factory. The best and the brightest, generally, will not do well in this environment. The more standardized this system becomes the more of these bright students will be carved out of the process, or lose their marbles.

CM: In the end, does the practice make economic sense? Does it make social sense?

TP: No on both counts. In the short run publishing companies will make billions of dollars, but that doesn't equate when measured against the long term losses in economic viability and loss of social stability that widespread illiteracy creates. Kids who cant read or analyze problems will ultimate become adults with the same dysfunction. This will wreak havoc in society. It is already starting to. When students are obliged to learn phonics up through the sixth grade (the focus should shift to reading stories at about grade three, according even to conservative academics) because this is what Texas has been told to believe is right, they sour on the whole idea of reading. When they are taught to pass tests instead of to enjoy history and literature, they sour on learning. We can't blame the kids; it's us.

CM: As you see it, what is the purpose of education in today's society?

TP: The purpose is the same today as it was yesterday: To provide the future. A future we want. This sounds simple, and in a sense it is. We want to inculcate our children with the values we have, as a society, so that the world we understand and valorize will continue to exist. That's all. If, in doing that, certain individuals realize a personal voice or become Einsteins or Joyces, so much the better. But we educate to perpetuate what we value. If kids don't learn to love to read, not just learn phonics or sets of test questions, that culture will not survive.

CM: Where do you see this trend heading in the future?