Why Hold Them Back? February 28, 2007

I was excited that the class discussion today revolved around my blog topic of tracking.  A question posed by a student in the class tied in with the idea of trying to distinguish what really is equal or unequal in tracking.  The article that I looked at today began with a quote by a very famous second President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson.

“There is nothing as inherently unequal as the equal treatment of unequals.”

Now, I am not sure what particular context this quote was given in back in the 18th century, but I can be almost certain that he was not talking about tracking in the public school system.  But, it is the perfect quote to describe the way the author, Frances Dubner, of the article titled “Gifted Students Need Our Support” feels.   It was also a point that I myself was wrestling with in class today.  Is it fair to possibly be holding the gifted children in our schools back because we are afraid that by separating them we may be discouraging or down-playing the efforts of the lower level students.  In her article Frances says,

“In 1993, Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley declared, “The United States is squandering one its most precious resources — the gifts, talents, and high interests of many of its students.” Sadly, Riley’s observations have not been heeded; nor have his recommendations been implemented.”

Frances mentions NCLB as a possible supporter of tracking, but says that it has not done anything to avoid leaving behind America’s bright students.  She believes that this was not the intended purpose of NCLB, but then again not many of the intended purposes of NCLB have actually been accomplished.   Frances believes that nothing is being done to make sure that we, as a nation and as teachers, are working to challenge the bright students in order to turn out future leaders of the world.  I would agree with this.  I do not think that this means others get left behind.  I think that all students need to be challenged.  Frances stated,

“Admittedly, we should lift the learning levels of those students who struggle, but it must not be at the expense of those who crave learning opportunities that challenge them to utilize their skills and expand their minds. Bright students too often languish in classrooms where they already know the content and are bored.”

If schools do not like the idea of having completely separate classes for the different learning levels, they do not have too.  I think that there are ways to work within a classroom with different levels.  I also think that at the lower age levels it helps students to be mixed with all ability levels because everyone can benefit socially.  At that age I think that it is a good thing for the students who understand to help the ones that do not.  Often, elementary classrooms will be set up in groups.  A teacher could make sure that there are various ability levels in the group, and therefore the students will be able to work together and I think that future leaders will emerge.  That is not a bad thing to have happen and it can prevent the more advanced students from being bored.  They are helping and creating relationships with others in the class that they may not talk to if they were separated into the same ability groups.  I do not think that students should always be placed in the “teacher” position.  They are also there to learn and they need the classroom teacher to push and challenge them to expand their minds.

There are certain times when I think that separate classrooms are needed.  I know that when I was in high school I did benefit by going into classrooms that had students of my same ability.  Those students wanted to be there and they were interested in the work.  I think that half of my frustration in the required classes was that my teachers had to spend half of the class telling students to sit up, pay attention, follow along, and it was taking away from other’s educational experiences and I do not think that is equal.  Why should students who want to learn suffer?  This does not mean let the others go to the way side.  It is important to make sure that all students are improving and no one thinks that the teachers have given up on them, or do not care about their success, but,

“The emphasis on raising the level of underachievers should not be at the expense of our best and brightest.”

As I commented in class, I believe that the real struggle with this issue is getting teachers to make sure that they are equally interested in the success and improvement of all students–whether the class they are teaching is advanced or lower leveled.  They have to make sure that they are making the students stretch their minds and that the work is not mundane.  Teachers cannot have any prepositions that they bring into any classroom.  I do not necessarily think that all tracking is bad.  There are numerous ways to mix the kids so that they are still socially in contact with all students, and in high school it isn’t as if the students stay with the same twenty kids all day.  As the class found out today, there is no simple answer or explanation to solve the problems of tracking.  It is a system that will keep evolving and it is the teachers responsibility to make sure students do not fall through the cracks.  

So if it is unequal of track kids because minorities or low-income fall behind, and it is unequal to hold the gifted back–the question still remains as to what is equal?  Is there a middle ground? 

“Gifted Students Need Our Support”

Frances S. Dubner

February 12th, 2007

Full Article (no longer in the archive)

“Scrotum” Causes an Uproar February 27, 2007

I would like to start this post out with a quote that summarizes the argument of the article that I have picked to cover.  The quote is from a librarian, Ms. Nilsson, a librarian at Sunnyside Elemetary in Colorado.  She stated,

“I don’t want to start an issue about censorship, but you won’t find men’s genitalia in quality literature.”

The buzz throughout the country and throughout many school libraries is over the recent recipient of the Newbery Medal, the most prestigious award in all of children’s literature, titled “The High Power of Lucky.”  The author, Susan Patron, wrote the children’s novel with a 10 year old as the protagonist, and on the first page of the book the word “scrotum” is used to describe the location of a rattlesnake’s bite on a dog.  A phone call was made to Susan discussing the objection of the book.

Ms. Patron said she was stunned by the objections. “The story of the rattlesnake bite, she said, was based on a true incident involving a friend’s dog.  And one of the themes of the book is that Lucky is preparing herself to be a grown-up. Learning about language and body parts, then, is very important to her.”

Actually, one of my favorite quotes from her comes later in the article when she says,

“The word is just so delicious. The sound of the word to Lucky is so evocative. It’s one of those words that’s so interesting because of the sound of the word.”

Obviously, Susan finds nothing wrong with the use of the word in the book and delicious is such a great way to describe the word.  Too bad this does not go for the rest of the country.  The article says that generally prize winning books get an extra copy or two in the school library, but do to the controversy over this book many states are banning the book altogether.  I myself found it interesting that this book and the censorship of it was such a hot topic that it showed up on the popular talk show The View.  The ladies on The View kept repeating the word, and until I read this article on-line I was a little bit confused on why. 

So what is the big deal?  Well, the big deal is that the Newbery Award is like the World Series to children’s books.  It is the big show.  So when a word like this appears at the onset, many people are not happy.  The article gives a few example statements by librarians not willing to shelve this book.

“I think it’s a good case of an author not realizing her audience,” said Frederick Muller, a librarian at Halsted Middle School in Newton, N.J. “If I were a third- or fourth-grade teacher, I wouldn’t want to have to explain that.”

Possibly he has a good point, but I know some people would say that this is just a naive statement and that there are many third and fourth graders who already know what the word “scrotum” means.  I do not think that it is a word that should habitat their vocabulary at that age, but that’s beside the point.  Dana Nilsson also said,

“This book included what I call a Howard Stern-type shock treatment just to see how far they could push the envelope, but they didn’t have the children in mind.”

Should the book be banned for it’s use of the inappropriate word?  Pat Scales, would not agree with the large number of librarians nationwide who are doing so. 

Pat Scales, a former chairwoman of the Newbery Award committee, said that declining to stock the book in libraries was nothing short of censorship. “The people who are reacting to that word are not reading the book as a whole,” she said. “That’s what censors do — they pick out words and don’t look at the total merit of the book.”

This topic of censorship will always be tricky.  I do not think that a certain book should be banned from libraries because it has one borderline inappropriate word in it.  At the age that children would be reading this book they are already becoming curious and finding out different anatomy terms.  The word “scrotum” is just another term for a piece of the male body.  The character in the book does not even know what the word means.  I have not read the book, but the article says,

“Scrotum sounded to Lucky like something green that comes up when you have the flu and cough too much,” the book continues. “It sounded medical and secret, but also important.”

Parents or teachers do not have to give a long drawn-out anatomy lesson when the word comes up.  It can be a quick definition, and yes the kids will probably continue to think about it, but the book should keep their attention–it won the Newbery Award right?  I just think that if the book was deserving of the award than it must be good writing and interesting to children.  It is not fair to ban it for one word.  The word does not have to bring about a talk about the birds and the bees.  I do think that this is a case of censorship taken to extremes.  The author of the book is a librarian and I am sure that she had children in mind when she wrote it. 

Generally I sit on the fence in the issue of censorship because I seem to be sympathetic to both sides.  There is understanding on the part of parents and on the part of teachers, but I don’t want to get carried away.  To me, this is a case of banning that is getting carried away.  Scrotum is not much worse than a swear word and if a parent can tell me that their child has not heard one of those by the third grade than they could whine about the book being in a library.  This book is still quality literature.  One word cannot strip it of that definition.  If it appeared over and over that would be a different story.   There may be one bright side to this whole situation for the author.  I had never heard of the book before the controversy, and now I am interested in reading it just to see where it goes.  Now it’s free publicity.

With One Word, Children’s Book Sets Off Uproar

Julie Bosman

February 18th, 2007

Full Article

A Decline in Numbers February 26, 2007

When looking at the new articles fed through Google Reader, I decided to take a break from the for or against articles and look at a situation in which tracking has already been utilized.  I found an article printed on February 13th, 2006 about the gifted programs in Gary, Indiana.  There has been a gifted and talented program in Gary for quite some time now, but the issue is that the numbers in the program are rapidly declining.  Actually the numbers for most of Northwest Indiana show that the amount of students in these programs are dropping.

One of the problems with keeping the numbers high is the way they place the students into the programs.  They often are testing them, almost along the lines of a standardized test.  Administrators are finding out that this may not be the best way to admit students.  Honestly, I would think that this assumption is a fairly obvious fact, but apparently it has taken them five years to figure it out.  In Gary, of the 65 students that were enrolled in the districts program in the 5th grade (2000), roughly seventy percent of these students have dropped out.  The testing to get in and other outside influences, such as family reasons are all contributing to this problem (many of these students have responsibilities at home that need to be taken care of).  Bob Koval, the district coordinator has spoken on the issue.

“A child may not score well on a test, but be highly analytical or otherwise gifted. It’s important we find that out. Some students — 10, 11 years old — basically run the household, care for children, budget and cook. They are learning by surviving.”

Consistently having a lower number of students in these advanced programs is not a trend that the administration and teachers in Indiana are happy to see.  The programs have been beneficial and they would like to keep them working and filled with students.  The solution that they are coming up with is to expand the definition of gifted and talented in order to incorporate a greater number of students.  The hope is that more students would qualify under a broader definition.  Special incentives are also being offered.  The school used a 13,000 dollar grant to buy laptops, to enable the gifted students to accomplish more digital work.  They are trying to devote more time to these programs in and out of school. 

If these types of incentives and even the chance to be in a gifted and talented program is offered, I think that it is a great way to get more students involved and excited about what they are doing in a classroom.  Margaret Hanson, an instructor in the gifted and talented program is seeing results such as these.  She said,

“Word is getting around. Children are thrilled.”

 Atitudes such as these would be amazing to get out of students.  If getting them new material and challenging them to dig deeper into their intellect is what it takes to get them excited than it is something that we must do.   I think that this will probably be one of the hardest parts about being an educator.  Keeping the kids involved and working on items that challenge them is not easy and it will be work. 

The purpose of looking at this article and looking at a district that is fighting to keep it’s gifted program was to show that they can be very positive.  I think this article helps show one the programs implemented and show that the results will speak for themselves.  The results are why Gary is doing numerous things to attempt to keep the program going and keep the students involved.  They are past the debate about whether or not the programs are good.  They know they are, and they do not want to loose them.  These programs give the students a self-esteem boost.  They know that they are worth the extras and the challenges.  They know that they are capable of doing higher level work and that mind-set is so important to have.  I commend schools like Gary for keeping up the fight, and not letting the students slip into mundane and unchallenging work.

“Local Academic Gifted Programs Decline”

Sharlonda L. Waterhouse

February 13th, 2006

Full Article

A Follow Up Report February 20, 2007

It is always interesting to look back and see if there has been any type of follow up articles on what has already been discussed.  I was lucky enough to come across a story that continues on one of my previous post.   The story covers the article about Howell High School.  It came from a Board of Education member named Wendy Day.  Since she wrote the article, the issue of censorship and what to do about finding a middle ground has continued to be debated, and there are many who are now involved. 

When I wrote on the topic before, there was no working solution for the school district and there still isn’t exactly a solution, but they are taking steps to find out the best plan of action.  The issue that is currently in front of the board is deciding whether or not to add parents to the Curriculum Council, which plays a large part in picking new or amended materials for classroom instruction.  Marybeth Roose, director of community education and district communications believes that adding parents to the council is a good idea.

“Parents will definitely soon be included,” she said. “Especially in the book review process.” The council has about 50 members, and while it is a “diverse group,” she said, all of the members are either teachers or administrators — although some are also parents as well.

The idea of adding parents to deciding what material is taught in class sounds like a great idea.  There are residents in the district who believe that it may help solve some of the debate over what is appropriate for students to read.  Wendy Day believes that,

“I would like to see the curriculum committee more reflective of the community.”

By adding parents she thinks that this goal may be accomplished.   Not everyone involved in the situation feels that this is the best solution.  Many teachers and administrators believe that their experience and expertise in the system and that they are more qualified to make decisions on the curriculum.  There are also others from the outside getting involved in the situation.  Joan Bertin is the executive director of the New York City-based National Coalition Against Censorship.  She states:

“A school district “simply cannot contour the curriculum to any single viewpoint, which is why the curriculum is based upon the judgment of trained educators, not parents.”

In some ways I believe that the educators are right.  I do not think that a school district can allow a small minority of parents to come in and have a large impact on curriculum decisions made for the entire student body.  A school is not just worried about two students in a classroom, but they are trying to do what is best for every student who walks through their doors.  Although censorship is difficult, it should not come down to a couple of parents making decisions for a student body.  The teachers have to have control of what is going on in their classroom.  A good point was made by Brad Banasik, a lawyer for the Michigan Association of School Boards said,

“If you’re going to censor curriculum or remove something, you have to have a legitimate educational reason to do so,” he said. “You can’t remove something based on religious or ideological beliefs … as long as those books have a legitimate educational purpose.”

This just sums up the fact that parents cannot come in without an educational reason.  Many parents based their arguments on religious beliefs or other moral codes.  These are not necessarily educational arguments.   I think that if this is the standard that the state is going by than there would be many books that could not be banned.  After-all, the goal of any school is to offer the best education, and religion in the public school is not supposed to be tied in with that education.

I have never come across a school that has parents involved in what is taught or is set as a curriculum.  In the high school that I graduated from there was one curriculum director, and with different teacher committees they decided what would be taught.  In the Howell School District they are trying to find a solution to the problem of censorship, and the fact that there are many parents who do not agree with what books are being taught in the school.  I do not think that adding parents to a curriculum committee is the answer.  I think it is a great thought, but I believe that parent opinion is what the School Board is for.  Parents can run for school board, and they elect the members.  This is the forum where parent opinion in voiced.  I do feel that if I was a teacher in this district, I would feel as if some of my control over my classroom and what I teach was being stifled.  

This is a story that I would like to continue to follow because the decision of adding parents is not over.  It is on the docket for the next school board meeting, and there is sure to be certain legalities that will follow. 

Full Article        School Looks to Settle Book Flap  (no longer in the archive)

By Dan Meisler

Daily Press and Argus

February 5th, 2007

A Greasy Irony February 19, 2007

It must be irony.  When I went to bed Wednesday night I was feeling pretty fat.  Then, I show up for class on Thursday and on the agenda is the movie “Super Size Me”.   Wow, now I feel even fatter.  On Wednesday, time became an issue and in my rush from teaching, to the mall, and quickly back to the school to make a bus time I stopped at McDonald’s to grab a quick lunch.  I was hungry and that was the only food place on the way back to the school that would take less than five minutes to grab.  I am not a fast food junky.  This was the first time I had eaten there in probably three months.   Then, on the hour and a half bus trip home, the only restaurant on the path was McDonald’s.  Obviously, the bus stopped and all three teams and coaches got off to eat.  How awful!  My only two meals of the day were chosen from a McDonald’s menu. 

After watching “Super Size Me” I felt bloated.  This was my first experience seeing the documentary and if the purpose of the movie is to make it’s viewers cringe at the thought of fast food, then it accomplished the goal.  Personally, I now am afraid of fast food.  But the bigger question to me found in the movie is, where does personal responsibility ends and where does coporate responsibility begins?  Can we blame fast food corporations for the fact that the United States has now become the fattest country in the nation?  In a review of the movie author David Foucher states a few facts with the same question. 

37% of American children and adolescents are carrying too much fat and 2 out of every three adults are overweight or obese. Is it our fault for lacking self-control, or are the fast-food corporations to blame?

I enjoyed the documentary created by Morgan Spurlock.  He is a funny guy and he came up with a good way of showing the effects of fast food on the human body, but this is not groundbreaking.  Americans know the effects of fast food.  I am a personal responsibility type of person.  I do think that we, as adults, have the power to make decisions relating to a healthy lifestyle.  Ah yes, the question of the child.  Children are the target of ads, but I have never known a six year old to get in the car and drive to McDonald’s.  I feel that at one point an adult makes the final decision in where and what to eat.  Sure, it is hard to tell children no sometimes, but if your child asked to drink fruit flavored poison you would tell them no.  Yes, McDonald’s taste good, but if you are truly afraid of it being detrimental to your children’s health than they would be told no. 

I know that I chose to eat at McDonald’s twice in one day.  If I would have made a little more time and not tried to go to the mall in-between than I would have been able to go home and eat a healthier lunch.  Even if McDonald’s was the only my option I could have chosen a salad (with no dressing).  I could have ate one of the fruit cups (I love the madrain oranges).  There are healthier choices on the menu.  It is a personal choice.  The corporation of McDonalds was not twisting my arm. 

This film may be used as critical pedagogy, but it wouldn’t be one of my first choices.  It does look at a topic and challenge the “oppressiveness” of the corporations, but most of this movie was spent watching him eat food, and showing the obvious effects of it.  We knew that without exercise and limiting his steps he was going to gain weight.  I need to see something a little more groundbreaking and then some sort of summary of what to do about it.  In a review, Sean Burns stated: 

 Given the obesity epidemic in this country, we need to start talking frankly about what we’re eating (and how little we’re exercising–a rather crucial side of the subject this slovenly flick sidesteps altogether). Yet the majority of SUPER SIZE ME is a not-particularly-amusing chronicle of the filmmaker’s rapidly declining health.

The attack was on corporations, but there was no solution offered.  There was no way to solve this social oppresive issue.  What about exercise regiments for people?  Or even with the topic of school lunches, it could be that the schools need more funding to buy healthier food.  Everyone knows that when you buy groceries it cost more to buy fresh fruit and vegetables.  The government has to give schools enough money to make the lunches healthier.  Another author, Ed Gonzalez offered his opinion on the topic.

But Spurlock ignores or misses important associations (Americans work too much, and as such are often too tired to work-out; the effects of fast food chains in especially impoverished areas), and if it seems like he has very little time to champion solutions to America’s obesity problem (you know: exercising, eating in moderation), that’s because he’s too busy getting fat.

Once again it comes back to some amount of personal choice.  If you don’t have the time or money to eat healthier, or you don’t have the time or ambition to exercise than you are going to make unhealthy choices.  The fast food corporations are not forcing you to make these choices.  This documentary seemed more surface level to me.  I would like to offer an example of critical pedagogy that digs deeper than the obvious.  I would like to look at one that makes solid, legitimate points.  Don Goerske who eats Big Mac’s at least twice a day and he refudes Spurlocks point.  He is a skinny man who eats a lot of McDonalds and proves that there are other factors.  It may be a fast metabolism or possibly exercise. 

Either way, I would want my students to look deeper into something that is directly related to them.  I like critical pedagogy in the classroom because it seems to be writing with a purpose.  It is writing that may or hopefully could elicit a sort of social change.  Students need this type of writing because they are forced to care or take a stance and make a point about something.  Whether it is a stab at corporations or at the class system in America, it’s important to have a point and back it up.

Full Article      Super Size Me

David Foucher

EDGE Publisher

May 7th, 2004

Full Article      Super Size Me

Ed Gonzalez

Slant Magazine

2004

Full Article    Super Size Me

Sean Burns

Philedelphia Weekly

May 12th, 2004

Should we have a ban on banning? February 2, 2007

In my search for articles which present a clear argument on censorship, related to the author’s belief, I came across an article by Jeff Jeffery.  It was titled “Banning Books Destroys Thought” and it was obvious that Jeff does not agree with any type of banning on books.  I will work from the bottom up on the article, because the most poignant expression of his attitude comes at the end with this final comment,

“And if fighting for the right of novelists to publish whatever they wish without fear of being banned means I’m going to hell. . .
All right ‘den, I’ll go to hell.”

I am sure that this was meant as a figure of speech, but it is a strong statement of belief.  Jeff discusses the notion that authors work to write books, and they do not have any intentions of having their material banned in any venue, whether it is at a school or public library.  Jeff feels that this is unfair.  The truth is, there are certain settings in which some books just are not appropriate.  I am not saying that “To Kill A Mockingbird” should not be taught in the public school system, and as Jeff points out it is number 51 on the most banned books list.  I do not see any reason that this great American classic would not be taught in schools.  I thought that it brought up issues that were very real in the time period of the novel.  Rascism was dealt with from day to day.  Even today there are rascism issues that can relate to the same issues of the past that students in our schools go through regularly. 

Jeff’s main argument against banning any books is that whether or not the content of the book is harsh or possibly inappropriate, the students are still gaining knowledge through reading.  He states,

“Reading and studying the written word is an inherently beautiful process. It exposes a person to a broad spectrum of ideas that would otherwise remain hidden and allows for the development of analytical reasoning. A child who reads, even when tackling books that may be difficult or contain harsh ideas, will inevitably become a more intelligent and more well-rounded person than one who does not.”

I would not disagree with this statement.  Reading is a wonderful process and it is crucial and I hope the future generation realizes how important and valuable the written word is. But I think that there are certain books that it would not be a sin to keep out of student’s hands.  Yes, they can learn a wealth of information from books that may be controversial, but there are numerous books that are not labeled this way that can help teach the same lessons.  Later in the article there was a statement made by the author that I did find slightly confrontational for me personally.  He said,

“I respect parents who choose, after careful consideration, to keep their children from reading something that may cause them to grow up more quickly than they prefer. But I disagree with them. “

I am glad that he respects the parents right, but I guess, who is this author to disagree with a particular parents decision?  I think that generally parents know what is best for their individual children and if they want to prevent them from any early maturity or exposure to situations that could cause them to grow up too fast than so be it.  Who are we to disagree with it?  Making parental decisions is a very tough job and it demands more respect than our author gives.  Jeff also seemed to place the decision of censorship in schools in the librarians hands.

“Censorship in all forms is a dangerous proposition, and one that must be guarded against. When librarians attempt to stifle students’ access to literature, they are essentially unraveling his educational outlook and teaching him that it is OK for someone outside of their family to control their thoughts. “

As many people know, it is not just one particular librarian or media specialist who makes the decisions.  These decisions are generally handed down from a higher authority, and can be generated from parent complaints.  And that is besides the fact that I do not think that censorship in all forms is horrible.  There are certain things that some high schoolers can not handle, notice I did not say all high schools.  As any teacher knows, the classes are so diverse and there are so many different levels of maturity and mental capabilities within one classroom that it may be difficult to find a “one book suits all”. 

I do believe that there needs to be some screening before books are chosen for classroom reads. The difficult part is knowing what is acceptable and unacceptable.  I would not say that I go as far as this author does with his stance against banning books.  I will leave you with this last quote as some food for thought.

“The power of words cannot be underestimated, and yes, they have the ability to destroy as well as create. But banning books, a collection of words by definition, only tears away at the edifice of knowledge. “

So, by banning books we are “tearing away at the edifice of knowledge”?

Book Banning Destroys Thought

Jeff Jeffery

1/24/07

Full Article