My view is that a text should supply sufficient information to get a handle on a subject or an area of study. It can't provide activity - that's a teacher's job - and besides, if I saw an "active book" I'ld probably shoot it on principle. The teacher's business is to persuade students to think, help them take in and apply information logically and critically, the text's task is to inform the thought process.
Courses where the "material" is in part or as a whole a matter of opinion: history, politics, history, anthropology, history, economics, etc. create a problem for this process for several reasons. The biggest is that special interest groups, i.e. minorities, "authorities," text book authors, etc., each have their own take on things and think it is as reliable as gravity. School boards, being elected bodies, as a rule are not made up of well-educated literate people with a feel for the fuzziness of much of what we (as our own special interest group) take for granted. Consequently, in Kipling's words they are often "lead by the loudest throat." The history of India, which has recently played such a part in California educational debate for instance is so immense and complex that even the inhabitants of India cannot agree on large parts of it. It is absurd to expect the California State Board of Education to be able to identify a good, well rounded book on Indian history that does not peeve someone. They listen to the loudest throats and cross their fingers in hopes the loud ones aren't whack jobs.
I'm not certain this can ever be mitigated let alone fixed.