Thomas Kuhn draws the distinction between textbook history of science and history of science proper. The question addressed in the paper is whether Kuhn recommends the inclusion of distortive textbook history in science education. It is argued, pace Fuller, that Kuhn does not make normative suggestions. He does not urge the teaching of bad history and he does not aim to deceive the scientists. He highlights the significance of the retrospective history of the textbooks as a condition for the practice of science. If science is to be seen as a practice and not as a set of propositions, then textbook history is instrumental in establishing and expanding the new paradigm. The other kind of history, the history of science proper, can only be taught as part of the students' general education and not as part of science education.