Flipping through the pages of Bangladesh’s higher secondary textbooks these days is quite a strange experience. Even the stable and proven truths of science seem to be rearranged again and again. What was considered true last year may become false this year. When a new edition comes out, one often finds old information replaced with entirely different numbers. To students, the textbook feels less like a book and more like a scientific laboratory, where each year pieces of information are rearranged as if in an experiment.
There is no shortage of examples in the biology textbooks. Previously, it was written that a newly generated hydra takes about three weeks to separate from the parent hydra and start an independent life; the latest edition now claims it takes only four to seven days. The length of the male urethra also seems to change with each new edition—one version noted it as 18 to 19 centimeters, while the latest claims it is 18 to 22 centimeters. The number of bones in a newborn has also altered: where it once stated 300, now it says 270. This raises questions—are the hydra’s life cycles really changing every year, or have the number of bones in a baby’s body suddenly decreased? Or are these simply the results of hasty writing and irregular review? Or are these frequent textbook updates merely a tactic to boost new book sales?
For students, science should be a stable and reliable body of knowledge. But if textbook facts keep changing, whom can they trust? The information they learn one year becomes obsolete the next, which is not the true nature of scientific knowledge. The effects are not just psychological confusion but also financial pressure. Parents are forced to buy new books every year, and teachers struggle to adapt to the frequent changes right after getting used to the previous content. For university entrance exams, students are left to wonder which version’s data will be considered correct—the old or the new—creating needless anxiety and confusion.
The primary beneficiaries of these frequent changes are the commercial coaching centers. Their role is especially significant in this context. When they prepare MCQ test papers, they include information from previous editions alongside the latest figures for the same question, forcing students to memorize answers from both editions. As a result, their business grows further, as they persuade students that “success in exams is impossible without the most updated information.” In this way, the constant changing of textbooks and the commercial interests of coaching centers have become complementary to one another.
Yet, the real beneficiaries—the students—remain deprived. They must endure confusion, financial strain, and extra mental stress. Have policymakers even considered this reality? Is the true aim of education the stability of knowledge, or is it merely to perpetuate a commercial cycle under the guise of constant change? If education is genuinely for the welfare of students, then it is high time to reconsider these irregular changes and the commercial tendencies linked to them. When education is reduced to a business rather than a source of knowledge, the true value of science is lost, leaving only confusion and pressure.
It’s essential to restore science to its rightful place. Book changes are certainly possible, but they must be well-planned, long-term, and properly vetted. Unless the tendency to treat textbooks as test sheets by continuously altering basic scientific truths is stopped, students will learn only uncertainty—not knowledge.
Md. Iftekhar Hossain
Medical Student, Cox’s Bazar Medical College |
Leave a comment