changeyourstars8 (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
changeyourstars8) wrote2006-02-21 06:32 pm
changeyourstars8) wrote2006-02-21 06:32 pm
(no subject)
Go 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. . .
no subject
((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
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
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
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
:: backspaces over "So you can just die, Stephanie" in her comments..:: Mannnnn.... :D
no subject
no subject
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
"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
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
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.