Over and over again, I see and hear discussions of who has a right--and it is always discussed in terms of rights--to decide what is taught in the classroom. On the one hand, I teach books, so I uphold my own right to decide this. But I have a degree in my subject field--not an education degree--and I teach literature, not "opening children's minds to the reality of life" and "encouraging children to actively question the values of their parents," which is apparently the goal of reading and literature classes on the elementary, middle, and high school levels. I wonder to myself when "intellectually challenging" became conflated with "controversial" or "socially and politically relevant"--there does not seem to be much distinction. This must mean that Shakespeare, Dante, and Homer are no longer intellectually challenging, and no teenager is going to get as much of a thrill from Grendel's mother, Ophelia's death, or the Cyclops's eye as from some hot, steamy sex scene in a third-rate historical novel. That's not dumbing down the curriculum, apparently, that's making it "relevant." Did you know that a rape scene automatically makes a text "relevant"? It's true. So romance-novel readers rejoice.
Yes, this is a rant, in part. Because "censorship" is a term that is bantered about irresponsibly. Am I in favor of censorship? No. Am I afraid to expose my child to challenging topics? No. Do I think I know better than the average teacher of elementary, middle, or high school what is appropriate and challenging for my child's grade level? Um. . . Yes. But that's beside the point, really.
I have a few major concerns about the selection of books for gradeschool curricula:
- First, the idea that to get students "interested" you have to have something that's forbidden in some way, or something that ties DIRECTLY into some contemporary "issue" that we're all supposed to care about.
- Second, the idea that because kids "will be exposed to this anyway," teachers are obligated or justified in making it the subject of class discussion, analysis, and inquiry.
- The idea that kids "can handle it." Kids can handle a lot. They are resilient. Does that mean we need to thrust it upon them?
- The notion that parents want to limit children to their own (parents' own) values and thereby prevent children from figuring things out for themselves.
I don't want to keep them sheltered from the world, but I do want to give them a solid foundation without someone presenting a worldview that is contrary and asserting it over the one I struggle to instill. Exposure to ideas is one thing; asserting certain ideas over others is something else. So much has to do with the context in which something is introduced. And since I can't control the context in which a teacher presents something, and since at-home "damage control" pits me against the teacher and invites my child to take sides, I would like to have some consideration shown to me and my RIGHT to instill my values in my child when the teacher is selecting the books to be taught in a class. There is plenty of room for challenging, stimulating material without pissing off the parents. I see nothing wrong with parents suggesting that a book be substituted for another, depending on the book and the context. If I were teaching a book that fictionalized and dramatized aspects of Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body at a public high school, would I be subject to censorship? How about if I taught a novel about a boy who struggled with his impulses toward homosexuality, only to decide on chastity, convert to Catholicism, and become a priest? Surely, this would not be tolerated in a public school. I would venture to say that such a book would be called dangerous and hate-filled. Such things will never *be* presented as alternate views. But why should the assumption of casual sex be touted as exposure to multiple viewpoints? I see no multiple voices. Only the reinforcement of the messages from society, media, advertising. Somehow, these are not questioned. Secular does not equal sexual. The sex lives of young people are fetishized by the media, the publishing industry, and teachers.
But I'm not sure this is really about sex for me. It's just the easiest way to talk about it. It's about teachers' disrespect for parents. Why should a parent's theoretical/anticipated position on curricula be demeaned in a textbook? And why should a teacher's worldview or talentless, lame attempt to stimulate discussion through shock be labeled as progressive and enlightened? And what is it about children that makes teachers want to "expose them to life"? Experience is lived for a reason. Context often dictates what we must do in response to a situation, and how we must cope. Books can help with this. Until the books are used to dictate a correct, "valid" response for everyone. Or to directly contradict certain ways of living life. Or to promote certain lifestyle choices as preferable to others. Then, we might have issues. And I might ask that you reconsider your syllabus. Because then it's about your agenda, not my child's mental development. When they turn 18 or enter college (whichever comes first), then challenge them to think about what they believe. I should have done my job by then. But make sure you respect them even then, if the answers they give are intelligent and well-reasoned.
And in the meantime, tell me. . . Why are rape and (pre-)teen sex more "relevant" than cultural concepts of hospitality? Death and dying? The individual in society? Human pursuit of the divine?
7 comments:
Thumbs-up!
I wholeheartedly agree with you!
We have discussed this issue briefly before, and I have to admit that my thoughts on "censorship" in primary and secondary education have begun to shift the older my children get--my son, in particular, since he's the only one in school at the moment. I'm already careful with what I allow him to read because I don't want to give him things to read that I feel are inappropriate for a nearly 7-year-old, even if he can read at a much higher level. So far, that has been the extent of my censorship, but I can see it coming down the road.
But I would like to add to what you've said about teachers presenting controversial books, pointing out what some of my students told me this semseter: they read some controversial books--such as The Giver, which you've talked about on your blog on this very subject--but there was absolutely no discussion in the classroom whatsoever about the parts that were most disturbing to them in reading it. Why would teachers choose such books that are sure to shock or confuse children without talking about those parts? And which is worse? Teaching such books with an agenda that parents may then have to counter? Or having students read them without really teaching the novels at all and leaving them disturbed by the book but with no way in which to deal with their confusion? Either way, I'm strongy leaning toward the idea that it is our responsibility as parents to talk about the literature in question at home, regardless of what the teacher has taught. And I don't think such actions have to be construed as pitting ourselves against the teacher. How different is talking about our religious beliefs and moral values with our children concerning the literature they are reading from countering the political ideas and agendas that are sometimes (often?) promoted in public schools? We live in a very, very secular world that is pervaded with moral relativism, and our children are/will be constantly bombarded with that moral relativism everywhere they turn. This becomes yet one more way in which we have to counter that moral relativism with our own moral values. I think--I hope--that it can be done in a respectful way that doesn't require our children to "take sides" either against the parent or the teacher. At the very least, we can be more respectful toward the teachers' positions than the teachers can be toward ours--and that isn't much different from what we experience within our own academic community.
Having said all that, I may find that my mind continues to change as I have to deal with these issues in concrete rather than abstract ways. At least I still have a few years before I do! ;)
An excellent point about the lack of context. I had a librarian (one I like a lot) tell me that teachers teach things like *The Giver* in particular because they feel that the kids won't get it. Again, why teach it if you're not planning to engage with the difficult issues? Again, it's not fair to the child to introduce difficult subject matter because you *can,* then leave them floundering and emotionally or intellectually upset by it.
It's a tough balance, it really is. And yes, I also look for less confrontational ways to resolve these issues. I think that in high school, the dynamic changes a bit, so my anticipate that my concerns will be different. That's where I foresee over-the-top subject matter replacing quality literature. But it's still a matter of what's driving choice of texts.
There is much I agree with here and it was strangely appropriate as I am currently involved in selecting titles for summer reading and for the tenth grade curriculum. One of the books we looked at was _The Perks of Being a Wallflower_ because it was on a list of recommended books sent to us by an administrator. You probably haven't read it but that book is COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE for high school students in a Catholic school. It's all about pre-teen sex acts, drugs, and rape. Many of its advocates gave the reasons you gave (kids can handle it, they're doing it anyway, etc.). You souldn't believe how difficult it was to convince others that books we select as Catholic educators says much about Catholic identity and morality. We have already run into trouble with a couple of other books that I had no say in choosing (thank goodness). While I, as an adult, enjoyed _The Kite Runner_, many many parents were against its graphic content. Even if students read these books on their own, when we assign those titles, aren't we essentially validating them as "good works"? This is why when I do choose a title, I am especially careful about its content and age-appropriateness. So I did not select _Bless Me Ultima_ for my high school sophmores and had to go with a back up title that was more...safe(?) though maybe not as interesting. I will continue to search.
BTW, I taught _The Giver_ to sixth graders one year. It was on the curriculum, I had never read it, so I read it along with them. My sixth graders got it...and I was forced to get into a very uncomfortable conversation about Church teaching and sexuality - with sixth graders. Luckily, I was also teaching religion so...I just carried over to there too. What makes this all mixed, though, is that my sixth graders were very much in need of a discussion on Catholic teachings and sexuality. So, in some ways, it was a good experience. Would I teach it again to sixth graders? I don't know...my high schoolers remember reading it in middle school and really liking it. But, I think if they were to read it again they would read it a lot more differently than they did three or four years ago. Teaching _Brave New World_ to seniors was something else entirely. There, they picked up on things I did NOT pick up on...like that vibro-thingie in the shower. Missed that one.
C-
Thanks for the perspective!
I would have had less of a problem with _The Giver_ in the context you mention, though it is a problematic text, simply BECAUSE you introduced the context in the way that you did!! That gives the students the credit that they deserve, and because you were teaching it in a Catholic school, you were able to give the children a perspective on the events and the society that is otherwise lacking. My son's teacher kind of floundered. She focused on genre (dystopia) so as to avoid the content that made her (and them) uncomfortable. There was no real framework for them to understand the horrors, and nothing with which to contrast the emptiness of the book's conclusion. I would think that the question of what books are appropriate in a Catholic school would be even more tricky--as you suggest.
I do think that choice of works for a curriculum suggests approval and validation as quality literature. Even in a Catholic school, I wouldn't think that "well, they can talk about these ISSUES from a *Catholic* perspective!" is a good enough reason for teaching trashy content. And without that justification, I'm not sure just having a class discussion about sex in a secular context is necessary or appropriate. It rather places the teacher in the role of social worker or child psychologist.
It strikes me that my education majors had no concept of what makes quality literature, and focused instead on what would raise "issues" for discussion in the classroom. They didn't grasp that they two are not necessarily synonymous! I guess it begs the question of what the purpose of literature classes really is in high and middle schools? I know they didn't look like this when I was that age! (Am I that old??) ;)
No, you're not too old. And you're question is absolutely right on: What is the purpose of literature classes in high school and middle school? In public school, I would assume that answer lies with the district coordinator. In Catholic school, it lies with the English department. At NCHS we fought at fought over that exact same question. Some said it was to teach about humanity, period. Others felt it was to teach students what good literature is, a la UD or "great books" programs. Teaching in a Catholic school, I felt the purpose of the literature class is using the literature as a vehicle to teach reading and writing skills whils, at the same time,promoting the Catholic identity and mission of the school. That doesn't mean I don't teach Catholic un-friendly books, but it does mean that morality is always kept in mind (language and sex) when it comes to what we assign as a deparment. In the end, I think I also use: what would I want Lily reading if she were in this school as a fresh, soph, junior, senior?
And...a novel doesn't have to be trash for students to really engage with it. A favorite of our students is _Screwtape Letters_ and _The Good Earth_. Seniors love _Picture of Dorian Gray_ and _Turn of the Screw_. Not trash by today's standards, that's for sure...
-C
No indeed! :)
Post a Comment