Taking the Middle Road April 16, 2007

I am going to take the easy way out when concluding this blog.  In reality though, I think this may be the best approach to the situation.  I think that everyone dealing with any issue of censorship should meet in the middle.  There is always a little bit of give and take involved.  As I said in a recent post, one of the most crucial elements of dealing with any censorship debate is having a consistent plan of action in place.  The school board, administration, and teachers need to be able to justify their actions and point to system that had been in place and available to the public.

As a school board you must know you policy on handling what is appropriate in the classroom.  It may be possible for certain book to be read if a parent signs a letter explaining the content of the book.  If there are objections to a certain book does the teacher have to pick another or can the students who objected use an alternate title.  Should there be a list created of all acceptable books and if a new one is suggested than it needs to approved by the proper official to be added to the list.  These are just all possible options to avoiding problems that may be created later.  It is important that the English department and all of the teachers know that they have backing if any problem comes up.  All they would have to do is point to a policy that has been in place. 

In the debate about what is acceptable and what is not I am not totally against parents.  They have the right to subject their children to whatever material they deem appropriate or not.  It is not the choice of outsiders, and you may not agree but it is not your place to say.   Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  I think one a good solution to what to read in a classroom may be creating literature groups with students of similar tastes and picking off a large list prepared by the teacher.   This will allow for classroom conversation and group sharing, yet the students will be comfortable with what they are reading. 

Another issue that has been raised is the question of what should be placed in a school library.  I am liberal here because the students check out the books they want to read.  If they are offended by a particular book than they do not check it out.  The library is all about student choice so it should have a vast range of books and often controversial books are the type that interest students.  They can read them on their own and decide for themselves. 

I enjoyed this topic because there was a plethora of information and a new controversy was always being raised somewhere.  I also like the fact that other students in the class were covering the same topic because it was interesting to see their particular opinions on the same articles.  I was opened up to different viewpoints through this project.  I know that I am still not great at using technology but I have developed more skill in the area through this assignment.  This is something I could defiantly see myself using in my classroom.  It is a great opportunity for students to get their opinion out there. 

A New Experience April 16, 2007

I have always thought it would be “cool” to be a participant in a conference.  Every year I traveled with my Dad to Traverse City for the MIAAA conference.  I thought it was interesting how all of these A.D.’s chummed around with each other, picking the presentations they wanted to attend.  My only conference experience was a Women in Leadership conference and you didn’t get to pick you room.  So, obviously I was excited about the opportunity to make my own selection.  Well, to be perfectly honest, I was not good at choosing.  Afterward, I wish I had chosen other presentations.  It wasn’t that the ones I attended were bad–but I wasn’t captivated with any new of enlightening information.

I truely enjoyed the keynote speech given by Jacqueline Woodson.  I have not had the chance to read any of her work, but the way she read the exceprts made me want to go out a buy a copy.  She was a great presenter.  She threw in some jokes, and got a couple laughs here and there.  I actually liked her story about her brother and father, the bird by bird quote.  I think I relate to that because I look at the whole and think to myself, “How am I ever going to get this done.”  I am always reminding myself to take it one thing at a time or I get overwhelmed (i.e. two pedagogy projects due this week).  Another point she made was to write without being afraid.  I often over-analyze my writing too much and end up taking out pieces I am just not sure about.  Finally, I liked what she said about asking what the story is trying  to say not what the story is about.  I will remind my students of this when they are reading.  Instead of looking at the surface level (what is happening) they should look deep (why is this happening) into what the author is getting at. 

The first break-out session that I went to was the Engaging Literature Lovers and Reluctant Readers Through Literature Circles and I will admit that this left something to be desired.  I think it is because we have discussed the topic in 311 on a more detailed extent than they did in their one hour.  I thought it was going to touch on more ways to get reluctant readers involved, a topic I am very interested in, but I think more time was spent on the literature lovers.  There were three students from Portage Northern who discussed their after school literature circle that they have with their teacher.  They love to read and the extra, deeper conversations that they get at this time.   I think this is a great idea and all the parties involved seem to benefit from the discussions, but these students love reading and will continue to read either way.  What about the kids who are not attending and do not even read the books required for class.  The other activity they did that I believe was supposed to hint at this was writing down the reading activities we had to do, followed by the reading that we wanted to do.  The point of this was trying to show that it works if you allow students to do a little bit of both.  They can read the required texts, but at the same time they should have something they enjoy reading.  When there is extra time here and there teachers should give them the opportunity to take out this extra text.   I did think this was a great idea, but I would like to incorporate more of the “extra” texts into my lessons.   After watching the presentation, which they did a good job for the time they had, I am even more grateful for the wealth of information and knowledge that I have gained from taking ENG 310 and 311 this semester.  I defiantly feel one step ahead of the game in this area.

 The other session that I attended was the Acing the Interview.  Obviously this isn’t related directly to English education, but I thought that since I am only a year away from the process I might pick up some helpful hints from the presenters that I hadn’t yet heard.  Unfortunately that was not necessarily the case.  The presenters were organized and they knew what they were going to do and had done research to back up their points.  They had surveyed a considerable amounts of high school principals.  I thought that most of the information was common knowledge.  I know that I need to dress to impress and I know I should be informed about the school I am interviewing at.  After they went through a series of tips and what principals expect we broke off into smaller groups to do mock interviews.  One participant asked another a question off a list and we discussed the reply.  This did not get much deeper than surface level either.  I was happy with the sample list of questions because I think it may help me prepare for an interview and random questioning. 

Overall, for the presentations I went to I thought the presenters did what was expected of them.  They were well organized and did a good job presenting.  Like I said early, I would blame the lack of new information learned on myself for presentation choices.  As I talked to fellow classmates, I wish I had attended some of the sessions they attended.  They filled me in on some great information.   I did have a good overall experience for my first time attending the Bright Ideas Conference.  I really enjoyed the keynote and I would love to return next year.  I think I made rookie mistake in my selection and I will do a better job of that next year.

A Different Kind of Censorship April 12, 2007

Throughout the semester I have taken a look at censorship through literature.  This time I wanted to explore the topic on a slightly different level and I found an article that touches on censorship with movies that are shown in class.  The article is really about more than that though.  One could say that it is about the censorship of class time and how it should be used.

An issue arose at Newburgh Free Academy when a new policy was put in place.  The policy required the teachers to get permission to show videos in class before they are viewed.  The teachers decided to make it an issue of censorship.  They believed it was being done because some of the video selection was not necessarily appropriate for all viewers, and everyone know the quickest way to get what you want it to scream “CENSORSHIP”.  That way the administration looks like the bad guys because they are not allowing valuable educational material to be used.   The main complaint from the teachers was:

“That the new policy would prevent them from using controversial films as a way to discuss important issues in class.”

Interestingly enough the movies they discussed were those such as Saving Private Ryan and Schiendler’s List.  These are excellent movies, but some of the material in them may be questionable to show students, not to mention they are rated R.  Many students would have to see these movies with a parent if they were in a theater.  The debate about whether the movies are appropriate or not is really beside the point.  It was not the main argument posed by the administration when they created the policy.  The main problem was:

“Saving Private Ryan” is 170 minutes long. By the time a teacher turns off the lights and turns on the DVD player, there goes a whole week. Depending on the length of the periods, a class watching “Schindler’s List” at 195 minutes might do nothing else for more than a week.”

So really what they are doing is more of a censorship of class time.  In this regard I can see both sides of the argument.  If a teacher were to show the entire movie it would take up a considerable amount of class time.  Are movies educational though?  I think we can all agree that showing visuals to coincide with a written material if there is a point to tying it into what is being done in class is valuable.  Movies can reach a student that may have a tough time envisioning what is on the written page.  They can touch the visual learner.  This can really bring the text alive for this type of student.  Does it take a entire movie to do this, probably not.  Especially if the movie would take up a week of class time.  An argument posed in the article states:

The question is not whether students should be exposed to the issues raised by these superb movies but whether a whole week in the dark has anything to do with education. These students already know how to watch movies. What they do not do as well is read and analyze — skills that will help them much more after they graduate.

Like I have previously stated, movie can do something that novels do not allow.  If students are having a hard time visualizing a movie can really benefit them.  Even if students do visualize well than a movie lets them see how another person interpreted the book.  I do think it is important to make sure that a text is used with a movie like Private Ryan.  The article suggest the book Johnny Got His Gun would show war, violence, and the effects of the war much better than a movie.  This may be a book that could be read along with a viewing of part of a movie. 

I found this article to be very interesting because of the variety of issues that it brought up.  Class time, censorship, tying movie into reading are all very valuable issues for teacher to think about.  The topic of censorship on videos and when they should be used ties into teaching as a whole, especially in an English class.  The interpretation of the movie and comparing it to the literature can make for many interesting writing prompts.  As far as what content is appropriate I believe the argument is the same as it is for literature.  Parents are always going to have something to say.  When it comes to movies a letter home may solve much of the problem and the child does not have to attend the class if there is a issue or they can work on an alternate assignment in another area. 

Movies in Class are a Waste of Time

March 22, 2007

The Herald Record

Full Article

A Cautionary Tale April 11, 2007

As I have sifted through multiple censorship articles this semester I have not decided how I feel about which specific books being banned,  who has the right to ban books, or even what is appropriate for each grade level.   What I have concluded about book banning in schools is that a system of order must be in place. 

This conclusion is a direct response to the my most recent read on the topic.   Recently, at Eastern High School in Louisville, Kentucky students in an advanced placement English class were told they must stop reading Beloved, which is a very popular Pulitzer Prize winning story by Toni Morrison.  The novel deals with slavery and the experiences of one young girl.  The content of the story contains tales of rapes, murder, and beatings.  All of which seniors in high school already know happened during the dark history of slavery in the United States. 

If they want to ban the book that is their choice as a school.  The problem arises when the facts of the situation become clearer.  The students had already started reading the book.  Honestly, they had not even just started…they were nearly finished with the novel when principal James Sexton decided that he had to remove the book from the classroom.  A few parents from the class finally decided that they were opposed to the content of the book.  Sexton’s response was:

 ”I was trying to make the best of a difficult situation.  People think I’m censoring, but I’m not.  The only reason we stopped the discussion process is that we didn’t have a good process to challenge books. … They can finish it at home.”

They can finish it at home, but one of the key elements of reading a book with a class is the discussion and response time that students get when they share their thoughts and ideas about what they read.   During this time the students really get the chance for higher level thinking and they feed off the ideas of others.  By eliminating the discussion some of the meta-cognitive thinking will be lost.  This is disappointing and I would see it as a lot of time lost in class because the end result was lost.  Not to mention the fact that some of the students will probably not finish the book at home on their own.

This loss of class time, and having to start over on a new novel, The Scarlet Letter, was brought about by the school system not having the proper plan for challenged books.  Educational time could have been saved if a system would have been in order.  Well it’s good that we now have the reassurance about a system being put in place.

Sexton said there is no procedure for challenging books before the school council, but that one would be created.

In this particular case the book should have been finished.  A majority of the students in the class did not object to what they were reading.  Also, the students were so far into the novel that they had already encountered some controversial material.  One student was quoted as saying:

“At one point, it’s talking about a plantation. And there’s no females. So the men resort to bestiality,” he said, adding that he didn’t object because “we’re in a college-level class.”

 This whole situation could have been avoided had the school system had a plan of action in place.  The whole thing took up valuable time from the principal, the teacher, and the students.  This article is a caution to all of the other school system who do not have the proper steps in place when it come to controversy over a book.

“Ky. principal tells students to stop reading acclaimed novel” 
By The Associated Press
03.29.07

Full Article 

Watch Your Own Back…The Legal System Isn’t March 1, 2007

The whole topic of censorship is clearly important for all teachers.  When deciding what type of lesson plans to create for a semester or year an English teacher must figure out what texts they would like to use.  This is never an easy decision, but now it may prove to be even more difficult for teachers in Kansas.  The House is proposing a bill that is meant to target the use of obscene material in schools.  The problem with the way they are aiming at these types of materials is the way the House is going about it.  The article states:

The House Federal and State Affairs Committee has recommended approval of House Bill 2200, which would limit a legal protection for elementary and secondary teachers from laws governing obscene materials. College and university instructors and professors would retain the protection.

The logic here is that by taking away the protection from the teachers it will force them to make sure they pick materials that will not be challenged, in order to save their own jobs.  A teacher will have to legal backing if he or she decides she will pick a book that would cause students to opt-out or parents to create an uproar.  Not many teachers are going to be willing to stick their jobs on the line because they chose to teach a book surrounded by controversy when they could chose another that may teach similar lessons.  Many teachers do believe that by limiting the protection for teachers, students may end up missing out on good literature.  Lori Stussie, an English teacher from Lawerence said,

“We do our kids a disservice when we start censoring books that have been read for years.”

The State Board of Education Chairman Bill Wagnon is in opposition of the bill.  He states different reasons for his feelings.

“Local school districts — not the Legislature — should handle any conflict about literature.  We need to protect the classroom from those kind of intrusions.”

I do agree with this statement.  There should not be laws made for or against this issue.  It is not the job of people sitting in a room full of other representatives to decide or make any laws that could prohibit what teachers are teaching in the classroom.  They are not in the classrooms and they do not know the children.  They do not understand the system, or even what needs the students have as far as educational or moral development.  There are certain issues that students have to encounter to prepare themselves for post-high school life.  Books and class discussion are a great way to accomplish this task.

On the other side of the coin, there are those that support this action by the government.  Obviously there are goverment officials who do because they proposed the bill.

“The practical effect of this defense is that materials that would be illegal if sold at a porn shop may be legal if displayed to a kindergarten class,” said Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, who sought the legislation.

This may be true, but is it practical that a situation as extreme as this would ever occur?  Any teacher who would teach material that Mr. Kinzer is referring to would not have a job in any school system.  Another proponent of the bill is a parent group titled the Citizens for Literary Standards in Schools whom have been pushing for some sort of legal action as to what can be taught in schools.  Interestingly enough, one of the books they want banned is “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,” one in which we just covered.  The article points out that many of the books they are trying to ban were written by minority authors.  This would be another topic that would solicit some concern.  Stussie discusses this problem saying,

“Such books were important in giving nonminorities a “broad spectrum of cultural perspectives,” and that her classes incorporated some of the books that often draw complaints.”

These books can be important for these exact reasons.  Now, will every teacher reform and change what they are teaching just to be safe?  I do not think that this will happen.  Some will, but many are going to take a stand and take the chance.  I also think that it will depends on how much backing the teachers feel they will get from the administration and the school board if a problem arises.  I do think that there are some books that may be too extreme for the classroom, but that is not up for men in the capital city to decide.  It must be done more at the local level because one shoe does not fit all.  I think that most teachers are reasonable and not giving them protection is just another cut at their position in society.  Teachers are an important aspect of the next generation, and they deserve more respect than they get from the American society.  I think that minimizing government support of teachers in any way or area is not a good example and teachers deserve more. 

“Bill Could Put Limits on Book Choices”

J-W Staff and Wire Reports

February 27th, 2007

Full Article

“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 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

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

Where To Draw the Line January 29, 2007

As a child, I lived a life of censorship.  I was raised in a wonderful family with two incredibly loving parents.  I was lucky enough to have a mother who stayed home and knew every move my siblings and I made.  Believe me, I did not see this as a blessing growing up, and it has taken me moving out into the real world to understand this.  We did not play video games, actually we owned no game systems, we only saw movies my parents had seen, and we barely watched T.V. (mostly educational programming).  Many would think we were sheltered, but growing up with six kids in public schools is far from sheltered.  Having had good parents with a strong moral background, dealing with the censorship issue is difficult.  On one hand, I want to be able to teach things that interest students, and even some classic American novels that could possibly be banned.  On the other hand I would understand that some language and certain situations in books are not necessarily acceptable to all parental judgements.  I would not want to overstep a boundary and use material that all parents are not comfortable with.  As a teacher, I do not feel that it is my right.

When deciding what topic to look at for this English 311, I picked censorship because I think there are two valid arguments, and it would be interesting to look at the issue from both sides.  I came across a recent article written by parent and school board member at a public school, Wendy Day, of Howell High School.  I found it interesting because of the parent/board member angle that she presented.  As anyone involved in any public school system knows, when there are major problems or disputes, they go to the Board of Education, and censorship is not an uncommon topic. 

People or teachers often speak out when they feel parents are being “overprotective” when it comes to what their children are reading in school.  But, how is limiting what your child reads any different than not allowing them to go to rated “R” movies.  Are they not both feeding into the minds of our young people? 

“So why is it that when the same material that would earn a movie an “R” rating is put between the covers of a book, attempting to consider the content of that material is frowned upon? We discipline students for using foul language and experimenting with drugs. Most of us discourage our teenagers from having sex.”

Is it the act of reading that makes it alright?  This is a strong point made by Wendy.  In schools children are not allowed to swear, yet they are reading material which uses the language being discouraged.  It almost seems hypocritical.  I do think that the more you are exposed to something the more more numb you become to it, and the more normal or routine it becomes.  And, yes, the real world is full of foul language, sex, and drugs, but is it necessary to continue to expose our youth to it.  They know it is our there, especially high school students.  They are not as naive as some adults would like to think. 

Many schools do offer an “opt out” option.  Students could accept an alternate assignment if their parents feel the material is not suitable.  Wendy argues that this is not a fair decision for parents.  Everyone knows what it was like to be in high school, students can be cruel for trivial reasons. 

“Parents are being made to choose between a book that introduces oral sex, or asking their children to face their peers and tell them that “mommy” wouldn’t let them read the book.”

High school can be difficult enough for some students, and parents do not want to subject their children to any embarrassment.   I do feel that is is a good point.  If there an alternate assignment that is appropriate for another student to read that covers similar educational goals, than why couldn’t that book be the first one chosen?  There is so much good literature in the world today, and teachers may have many different options avaliable to them.  Something that would be suitable for everyone would seem to be the best choice.  Wendy then challenges teachers and parents alike.

“Limiting children’s reading material is good stewardship of our responsibility to the community to provide safe schools.  Where we draw the line is up for some debate, but to not have a line drawn somewhere is to undermine the safety of our children and the trust of our community.”

I believe this is a true statement.  There must be some line, where the two sides of this debate meet.  There has to be some sort of middle ground, because in the end both sides are just attempting to do what they believe is best for the students.  We are trying to produce the most well-rounded citizens possible, and making sure that they have morals and values is important.  There is great literature out there that presents good values and morals, and covers what needs to be covered from an educational standpoint.  I know that everyone will not have the same values, enjoy the same books, or have the same parenting techniques.  Still, there must be an established middle ground that can be agreed upon to make sure the students are receiving the education they deserve.  After reading this article I tend to sympathize more with the parental side, but that’s what makes this topic so interesting.  I am sure that I will come across another article with another point of view and I will think that there are numerous valid points there.  In the end I hope to accomplish some sort of “line” and hopefully as a teacher I will know where to draw the line.

Our Schools Have a Duty to Consider Content (this article is no longer in the Livingston Daily archive)

Wendy Day 

Livingston Daily.com, January 21th, 2007

Full Article

Freedom of What? January 15, 2007

Judging from the frequency of this topic, one would have to assume that a hot topic not only in the educational world, but in our own English 311 Section A is censorship in literature.  Why is the topic so hot?  Well, for starters, because it is debatable.  Anything that allows people to square off and pick loyalties generally sparks an interest.  But why else?  I think it is interesting because it is another instance of hypocrisy. 

Today, the push in America is not for conformity, but for standing out and being an individual, the freedom of expression.  Even in schools, educators encourage making your own choices and not following the crowd.  Be your own person.  Make your own decisions.  Well, let’s not get too crazy.  It isn’t realistic to let you choose what books to read.  If a student is not allowed to form their own opinion on a book that they read, whether it is true, ethical, or morally right than what choices are we actually giving?  Apparently we feel that students do not have the capability of deciding if witches are real, or whether of not to use profanity is any situation.  Shouldn’t they get the freedom to decide and form an opinion?

I am not a liberal or radical.  I would like to think I am realistic.  Students are faced with so many choices.  There are numerous places that students are subject to violence and profanity.  I am interested in how big of an influence books from English have to the decisions students make.  I am choosing this topic because there is a plethora of information, and it is interesting.  Everyone has an opinion, and they will not match up, but that is what makes good discussion.  I hope to find different justifications for certain bans, whether or not there are common bans, and what the majority thinks about the topic.

As far as news feeds go I am looking at educational articles from BBC, NPR, CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.  There are plenty of blogs about this topic, and I plan on using many different posts.  I have not chosen any one particular feed that I find better than the rest.

Since blogging is new to me, I am excited to learn more about the technological process, while learning about my topic.  I think this will be an incredibily beneficial experience for me, and I am thrilled to get started.