changeyourstars8 | (no subject)

The only people that can and should decide when their child is ready for that material is their parents.

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'.

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'.

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.

There are more than enough books out there to sharpen minds and that make for great conversation that don't deal with sensitive subjects.

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'.

Honestly, I haven't read most of those so I can't comment on the majority of them specifically, but I have at least read most of the Shakespeare stuff.

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?

It has already been done with God, so why not with sex, drugs, or violence as well?

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. :-)

Well that just can't be! ALL people who are pro-gay hate God, didn't you know that? And ALL people that hate God don't want Him talked about in schools! Didn't you know that, too?!

Oh, crud. I keep forgetting those facts. ;-)

((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?"))

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...