(no subject)
Feb. 21st, 2006 06:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
changeyourstars8Go Maine. :-)
Girl, Interrupted Returns to Classroom
I was in high school when I read that book-- and that reminds me, I need to read it again, because I remember really liking it but I'm shady on a lot of the details. Off to the amazon.com cart. . .
Girl, Interrupted Returns to Classroom
I was in high school when I read that book-- and that reminds me, I need to read it again, because I remember really liking it but I'm shady on a lot of the details. Off to the amazon.com cart. . .
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 01:53 pm (UTC)If the parents of these children feel this book is not appropriate, then they should have more of a right than a committee to decide if it should be removed. Now at this point there isn't a legitimate call from a large number of parents, but if there are parents that are concerned, then the book should be brought to the attention of all the parents and they should have the ability to speak against or for it.
In a case like this where we're not talking about a lack of eligible material and we're not talking about basic facts that are a part of a curriculum (ie 1+1=2), parents should have the final word. In a case where a book contains sexual content, descriptive drug use, and even descriptive violence, the students should have a choice to read something that doesn't and the parents should have the opportunity to choose to not allow their kid to read a book with it.
And if a vast majority of parents in that school district feel that book is too mature for their teens, then they should have the ability to have it removed from the curriculum entirely. No kid is going to be deprived from the lack of reading it, but some kids could be adversely affected by being exposed to things like that too early. Every kid is different and while some can handle it and a lot *think* they can handle it, a lot are still too immature to properly process the information. The only people that can and should decide when their child is ready for that material is their parents.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 05:42 pm (UTC)True, and I'm fine with a parent going to the teacher and saying "I don't think my kid is ready for this and would prefer an alternative assignment; can we work something out here?"
And it's not even a case of 'well even if they don't read it in class, they can find it elsewhere'-- I would've loved the chance to get a group input on some of the books I was reading in high school; for me that chance came in English class.
Sorry, but I'll just never see the solution to this problem being 'take away the opportunity for discussion from the whole class because some of their parents don't like the material'.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 06:05 pm (UTC)And that is why the parents should be informed. If a majority of the parents object, then it should just go. If it's the one father, then his kid should be given the opportunity to do something else and be exempt from the discussion, because that isn't a necessary topic.
Frankly, I don't think that any of my above listed topics should ever arise in a standard classroom. It's unnecessary. Interesting? Yes. Crucial to a child's education? No. So, if there are kids that are capable and up to the challenge and their parents agree, why not have an elective or a faculty supervised book club? School is mandatory, it's absolutely necessary that a kid attend somewhere. Not all parents can afford to send their children to a private school which is why we have government funded education to begin with. In a place where children are required to be, education on sensitive topics should be a choice, not a requirement.
It's not like an entire literature class couldn't be run without breaching those subjects. There are more than enough books out there to sharpen minds and that make for great conversation that don't deal with sensitive subjects.
Not that I think you are, necessarily, but very often the same people that cry foul when a book with questionable content is removed from a school are the exact same people who cry foul louder if something promoting God is introduced.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 06:28 pm (UTC)Shakespeare-- murder, suicide. The Scarlet Letter-- adultery. Lord of the Flies-- murder, death of an authority figure, anarchy. Of Mice and Men-- murder. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest-- murder, forced lobotomy.
These are all English class staples and rightfully so. I'm really curious as to which books you're talking about above, because most any of the ones I really enjoy now and/or read in high school did deal with 'sensitive subjects'.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 06:59 pm (UTC)I see a difference between having the subject be there and being descriptive with it OR promoting the behavior. Alluding to a situation is one thing, but describing the details of the situation can be too intense. It's easy to sort of pass over an event in a book if you don't understand it without it impacting you too fully. But if the book recounts each little action then I see it becoming damaging.
To use a very benign example:
If I wrote "Jacob woke up. He went into the kitchen and fixed eggs for breakfast." then your imagination and your knowledge of how to make eggs can take effect. But I wrote "Jacob opened the fridge and got the eggs out. He opened the box and pulled an egg from the carton. Cracking the egg on the side of the pan, he began to anticipate his breakfast. After allowing the contents of the egg to pour into the pan, he got his spatula. When he could no longer see through the whites of the egg, he used his spatula to lift the egg out of the pan and put it on his plate." Now you know not only that he had eggs, but how to cook them too. But I didn't mention that the pan was hot, or that the pan even had to be heated up first. I didn't say to put oil or butter in the pan, so if you tried to emulate what you learned from reading that book, then you could either screw up your breakfast, or even worse, hurt yourself.
It's a silly sounding analogy, I know, but I wanted something very benign to use, so please just roll with it.
Having not read Girl, Interupted I cannot speak on its specific content, but for argument's sake let's say the book in question is called "Debi's Life" and in that book there was a descriptive scene of Debi shooting up heroine and the whole book discussed how good it made her feel and how right it was for her to have done it. Can this book promote a good conversation in school? Yes. But it immediately puts a huge obligation on the shoulder of the teacher to be sure to emphasize the negative ramifications of shooting up. Is the teacher qualified to have this discussion? I mean, the teacher is there with a degree in english, not a degree in psychology. And the teacher, much as they would like to, does not know each student intimately enough to be able to handle the personal impact on each student.
Now, the next argument I'm betting would come here is that the parents should be keeping up with the curriculum and having conversations with their kids about it if they are concerned. But some parents don't believe their kids are ready for those conversations. Yes, some kids are. Some kids just aren't.
Really the only thing that I am saying, though, is that parents should have the right to step up and say "The majority of us disagree with this being a part of the curriculum" and have it dealt with. It has already been done with God, so why not with sex, drugs, or violence as well?
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 07:12 pm (UTC)Well, I can't really agree that it should be done to sex, drugs, and violence due to the 'two wrongs don't make a right' school of thought-- because I don't think it should be done to God, either. I'm all for comparative religions classes. :-)
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 07:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 07:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 06:07 pm (UTC)Unfortunatley, that didn't happen. Censorship did. Well...need I say more?
((Sorry, but I'll just never see the solution to this problem being 'take away the opportunity for discussion from the whole class because some of their parents don't like the material'.))
AGREED!
Yay Maine! Kinda makes you wonder what would have happened if it was Kansas. Wait...nevermind...I already know...
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 06:03 pm (UTC)((parents should have the opportunity to choose to not allow their kid to read a book with it.))
Yeah…the parents. PLURAL. Not a parent. One out of how many parents didn’t like the book? Why should David Quimby get to decide what's best for the rest of the kids in class?
((a lot *think* they can handle it, a lot are still too immature to properly process the information.))
Hate to break it to you…but I read that book in eighth grade. Kids today are a lot more mature than you’re giving them credit for. Over Christmas, I had a conversation with my mom, aunt, 11 year old cousin (who actaully read that book last summer), and her 10 year old friend. That conversation got into topics like abortion and the death penalty. Are you telling me that they weren't mature enough to understand what they were talking about? Whether you believe it or not…kids are maturing a lot quicker than they were a decade ago.
Basically what you’re saying here is that because one man didn’t like what his kid was reading, the other kids shouldn’t get to read it either. That’s censorship...and well, we all know my views on censorship.
And if you think a book is bad…then you really haven’t watched television lately, have you?
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 06:18 pm (UTC)Quoting myself: "Now at this point there isn't a legitimate call from a large number of parents, but if there are parents that are concerned, then the book should be brought to the attention of all the parents and they should have the ability to speak against or for it."
I very specifically said that all parents should be made aware and given the chance to decide. DO NOT put words into my mouth.
I get so tired of hearing people say "I could handle it at that age." because the truth of the matter is that every child is different and the *only* people who have a right to decide whether they are capable of handling it or not is their parents.
Quoting you: "Basically what you’re saying here is that because one man didn’t like what his kid was reading, the other kids shouldn’t get to read it either. That’s censorship...and well, we all know my views on censorship."
Quoting me again: "And if a vast majority of parents in that school district feel that book is too mature for their teens, then they should have the ability to have it removed from the curriculum entirely."
Quoting you again: "And if you think a book is bad…then you really haven’t watched television lately, have you?"
I never said the book was bad. I haven't read it, I have no clue what that book's content is. I guarantee you that if that book becomes required reading for my kids, then I will read it. I will make a judgment call and if I think it is too sensitive, I will bring it up with the school board. I will ask that all the parents be given the chance to review it and then given the chance to either encourage or discourage it's place in the curriculum. You know why? Because that is what a parent is a parent for! To parent their child. And when parents are belittled for attempting to do just that, our world is in a sad sad state.
I am not in any way shape or form saying that the book shouldn't exist. I'm not even saying that teens shouldn't read it. What I am saying is that parents should have the chance to decide if their kid is ready for that and not have it left up to a committee of people who do not know every child in every classroom.
I have seen what is on television. I watch a lot of things on television but I have my TiVo set to disallow any show with questionable content unless you have the password. Why? Because *I* know what my children can handle and *I* get to decide what they watch.
Comparing television to required reading is ludicrous. No one sits there and says "Okay, tonight your son has to watch The L Word because we're going to discuss it tomorrow. I know you don't agree but he's going to fail this class if he doesn't." Television is a choice, and questionable content in a required reading course should be too.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 06:37 pm (UTC)Then maybe you shouldn't reply.
((I very specifically said that all parents should be made aware and given the chance to decide. DO NOT put words into my mouth.))
I'm not. Students are given course descriptions at the start of the year. Ten bucks said that book was listed in it. Where was he at the beginning of the year?
((And if a vast majority of parents in that school district feel that book is too mature for their teens, then they should have the ability to have it removed from the curriculum entirely.))
Here's the thing. It wasn't a vast majority of parents. It was ONE parent. Since when was one the vast majority? He took away the other parent's rights to even have a say.
((I will make a judgment call and if I think it is too sensitive, I will bring it up with the school board.))
Why not talk to the teacher first? Shouldn't they get a chance to explain their reasons for the book?
((parents should have the chance to decide if their kid is ready for that))
Here's that whole not giving teens the credit they deserve. Kids are a lot mature than they're getting credit for. Only the kid truly knows what they are ready for. And the parent should be able to trust their child. By that age...freshman year...the child should know about topics like sex, drugs, and violence. If they don't, then something's wrong...and not with the school.
((Comparing television to required reading is ludicrous.))
Now, you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not comparing television to books. I'm saying that if the kid doesn't read it in a book, they will see it somewhere else. TV, the street...where ever. At least in class, there can be discussion about what is read. Things can be analyzed and understood.
Sex, drugs, and viloence. Those topics SHOULD be discussed in school. Where kids can learn about them, learn how to say no, and learn how to change them. That's what school is for.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 07:01 pm (UTC)This is a good point-- unless they have a setup way different from any English class I had in high school, we got a list of what books we'd be reading at the beginning of each semester or year. Mom and dad would look through the list, usually with my dad muttering, "Read that, read that . . . hey, why isn't ***** on the list?" :-)
Unfortunately (and I'm speaking solely from observations of some of my classmates), a lot of the problem doesn't seem to be 'school not informing parent' so much as 'parent not talking to kid'. I'm glad that wasn't a problem with my parents (and Debi, it sounds like that's not going to be a problem for your kids).
Once, when I was in second grade, I came home in tears because of a book the librarian had read to our class. It was a "kid-friendly" version of the Bonnie and Clyde story, with the reader's sympathy clearly supposed to go to them. So she got to the part where they got gunned down, and I got upset. Mom and dad went to her the next day, and had a long talk about, "With all the stuff in here you could be reading aloud to these kids, you pick that?" She apologized, and that one was off the reading list.
They were just one set of parents. So far as I know, none of the other parents had a problem with it (or maybe they didn't know). But do I think mom and dad alone telling her not to read that aloud anymore was wrong? No. They kept up with what I was being taught/exposed to, and complained when necessary. If they'd tried to get the book banned from the library or something, then I'd have had a problem with it. *s*
Then maybe you shouldn't reply.
Here, I'm going to have to go with, not a good point. I'm not going to screen or delete anyone's comments, or discourage anyone from replying. I bring a subject up, that means it's open to debate, and anyone who wants to debate can. So long as there's no death threats, we're good. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 07:07 pm (UTC):: backspaces over "So you can just die, Stephanie" in her comments..:: Mannnnn.... :D
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 07:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 08:44 pm (UTC)Yes, one man suceeded in getting the book removed and a committee chose to put it back. *My* point is, when that one man raised an objection to the book, then every parent should have been made aware that someone took issue with the book and been given the opportunity to express their viewpoint on it.
We have the same point just from opposite sides. You don't think that one man should have the ability to have the book removed and I don't think a committee should have the ability to put it back when there are objections.
"Here's that whole not giving teens the credit they deserve. Kids are a lot mature than they're getting credit for."
A teenager only gets credit for being mature when they prove they are. Most teens prove regularly that they aren't. But regardless of whether they are or aren't, it isn't up to the school system to decide that. It is up to the parents. And until that child turns 18, they are under the responsibility of the parents. They can be more mature than the parents that are responsible for them are, but if that parent says they can't do something then they can't. Or they can attempt to be emancipated.
If your issue is that teens should be allowed to make these decisions for themselves, then your first step needs to be to lower the age at which a person becomes a legal adult. In the meantime, parents are ultimately responsible for their children and as such have every right to decide what their children are and are not ready for.
"Now, you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not comparing television to books."
If I said "Well, if you think Stephanie is bad, you should see Ashley" then one assumes that they are being compared. You said "And if you think a book is bad…then you really haven’t watched television lately, have you?" That was comparing them. If you didn't mean to compare them, fine, we can have a separate discussion, but you did compare them.
"I'm saying that if the kid doesn't read it in a book, they will see it somewhere else. TV, the street...where ever. At least in class, there can be discussion about what is read. Things can be analyzed and understood."
OR, an overworked, underpaid teacher with a degree in English, not in psychology can attempt to squeeze a discussion into the limited time she has with her overcrowded class. Vague things can be touched on and no real sense of what each student needs to be handled will come to pass. Teachers aren't equipped and shouldn't be expected to handle this sort of thing.
And, to follow your train of thought... we should just go ahead and allow students to do drugs on campus. We should provide them with clean needles, because they are going to be able to get drugs somewhere else and at least if they do them at school they won't pass around diseases with dirty needles.
If the kids are being exposed to this stuff at all it is because somewhere down the line the parent made a call that allowed it. They don't restrict television shows, they don't monitor their kids' activities, whatever. Those parents are most likely not going to take issue with a book's contents. And if they do, it's most likely because they allowed the exposure so they could have the conversations.
"That's what school is for."
No, that is what parenting is for. Just because there are parents that *don't* take responsibility for their kids and have discussions and teach them how to make right choices doesn't mean that the school needs to pick up the slack, or take over the job from parents who do. It is sad that not all parents truly parent their children, but the fix to that problem is not to have a handful of people take over the job for every parent. And when we have schools taking over the parenting responsibility, then it exacerbates the problem. Then other parents say "Well, why should I talk to my kid about sex? They'll hear about it in school." And then next we'll hear "Why should I teach my kid to say Please and Thank You? That's something they'll pick up in school."
Con't
Date: 2006-02-22 08:45 pm (UTC)"Where was he at the beginning of the year?"
Just because someone doesn't do things perfectly does not make them wrong. It just makes them slow. The fact that this parent cares enough to care what his kid is reading should be commended. He is taking interest in his kid and hasn't just thrown him out into the world to fend for himself.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 06:49 pm (UTC)Speaking as someone who's said that more than once. . . lol I've gotten into debates with people who don't say, as you do, that "Parents should decide whether or not their kid can handle it." They just say, "Kids can't handle that stuff at that age." Which leads, of course, to, "Hey, I did." It becomes a reflex in any sort of 'violence/sex in the media' discussion. :-)
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 07:05 pm (UTC)I think it is just as bad to say "Kids can handle it" as it is to say "Kids can't handle it". Kids aren't cookie cutter images. My own three prove that constantly. Jacob LOVES salad. Wesly hates salad. Mia will eat it if it has enough salad dressing on it.
Another example of kids not handling things well... My kids love Aladdin. I grew up on it, my kids watch it constantly. I know a LOT of children that watch it and do well with it. A friend of mine had to remove the tape from her library of videos because suddenly her boys started emulating Jafar (the bad guy). They started being mean to each other, not just to play pretend, but in their everyday lives. Kicking each other through doors, trying to hypnotize people into doing what they wanted. It's an extreme case and most kids wouldn't do that, but they did. The best course of action for that family was to remove the tape from their home and give their kids an alternate to watch that didn't promote the bad behavior.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 06:59 am (UTC)Okay, let me start out by saying that there is a reason why a book is put on a school curiculem. People look at a book based on individual parts. "Oh this story had sex, drugs, self mutilation, witchcraft, etc." What they fail to realize is that those are just pieces of a larger puzzle. When you look at it as a whole, Literature always has a message that it sends to the readers. You just have to look for it. America's problem is that they are too lazy to look at the big picture and focus on the aspects that they want to focus on. Unfortunately that tends to be whatever they think is morally wrong and thus censorship is born.
Now should a parent have any say in what their children read. Absolutly they should. As a matter of fact I encourage it. But at the same time you have to realize that children grow up and in order to prepare them for the real world you have to expose them to the best and the worst of what is out there. It just so happens that books are a fairly nice and simple way of doing it. If it happens in a school setting, so much the better becuase believe it or not, kids do talk about it. I would know. I graduated from high school less than two years ago and I tutor elementary and middle school kids and they ask me questions. Believe it or not, kids are curious on why there are security cameras in their school. You can't keep them innocent of the nasty truth forever.
Going back to the parent thing, I'm glad that some of you had parents who took a sincear interest in what you were reading when growing up. Unfortunately that is not the case with most parents now a days. Parents might be aware that their kids are reading a novel for school, but instead of questioning it they're going to trust the school system. And if one parent does make a big huss and fuss about it, do you honesly think that other parents are going to give a damn about it. No they're going to look at them as whiners. And it's rediculous for a book to get banned from a school just because of one parent.
I'll end this by saying that despite what some people thing, reading Literature is important. If nothing eles it's a testimony of the views and perceptions of the time the work was written in. That's not even taking into consideration the ethical and moral pricipals that are taught or the reinforcement of reading and analytical skills. There is a lot more to school than learning "facts."