Pinney tries to defend herself, but can’t quite bring herself to address the books she tried to ban from the classroom (and if you ban something from the curriculum, you are banning them from the classroom).
District 214 has a controversial issues policy, which the administration has been authorized to establish by the Board of Education. Within the procedures it discusses guidelines in determining whether a controversial issue or material should be presented in the context of an educational experience for a class or an individual student. It directs the educator to answer the question, ?Can the learning outcomes of the lesson be presented differently or with different material of equal quality, but with less controversy?? Also, community customs and attitudes are to be considered.
Perhaps a discussion about how controversy is defined would be in order. I contend that graphic depictions of anal sex, oral/genital sex, explicit sex, and gratuitous violence are controversial. I suppose those who disagree may say anything could be controversial. There certainly is a continuum and we must decide where that acceptable line lies. And we must ask what would be suitable for our community of students and parents as a whole, not just people of conservative faith perspectives or those who simply hold to a higher moral standard, but for all of those involved.
Of course, not all of the books she was arguing against contained gratuitous sex or violence–the Botany of Desire and Freakonomics to begin. Or in the case of gratuitous violence, it’s hard to imagine how violence is gratuitous in Slaughterhouse 5, a book about the horrors of war. One might argue it is graphic and uses graphic imagery and language, but it isn’t gratuitous. It is a fictionalized account by a man who lived through the firebombing of Dresden.
Pinney is trying to spin this as some sort of parent’s rights issue, but the problem is parents can have their kids opt out.
The reality of this whole ordeal is that Pinney is a part of the right wing Wurlitzer trying to raise the heat on school districts that parents are generally happy with in an effort to undermine that support.
She wrote basically the same thing in the Herald (“Pinney: Never said I wanted to ?ban? books”) and local Pioneer Press (available in print only).
I thought papers had a prohibition on letters that were published elsewhere.
Grow a pair and call a ban a ban…
First they come for the books. Next the movies. Then, no more school dances (have you seen prom dresses lately?). After that, no more Friday night football — too violent. I’m sure the football dynasty at Prospect will love that when it happens.
Slippery slope.
PS – forgot to add she wrote it to the Trib too (“Do controversial books belong in school?” …answer: yes).
The ultimate issue remains that this person wants to ban books she has never read.
What sort of example does that set for students?
If she has prevailed, I would expect District 214 students to try the following:
“The first page was boring, so I stopped reading.”
“For my report, I read parts I thought were important.”
You have to give the rest of the board credit in soundly rejecting her lack of scholarship. Now the voters need to do the same.
Skeeter, your argument is just lame.
School board members received a list with 183 titles recommended for purchase. There is no way that anyone could read all the books on the list in a short period of time. The intent of the agenda item is to vote for/against the purchase of the materials. How can anyone do either without researching/considering if the titles are appropriate or not? They can’t.
So LP was the ONLY member who even attempted to do her job.
Not only do these books contain more than a little foul language, graphic sex, and excessive violence, they are not even written on a challenging level academically. Beloved, for example, is written on a 6th grade reading level according to several online sources – so how is it appropriate for 11th and 12th grade students? It’s not – unless they’re learning impaired.
But you kids just keep calling it a “book banning” issue and carrying on about what a right wing religious idiot LP is…because it’s SO BORING that no one will keep listening to you. S–N–O–R–E—-
Who the hell hasn’t read Slaughterhouse 5? Most of the books are classics or semi-classics so why wouldn’t a Board Member who is reasonably literate have read them?
Slaughterhouse 5 isn’t written at a low level. Freakonomics is quite complicated. Botany of Desire is entirely appropriate for High School academically.
The bullshit that this is some broad movement is hysterical–if it were why is Bruce Tincknell showing up so often in news articles and not other adults in the community? It’s astroturfing. And it failed.
I have no doubt it will be back as an issue, Jack Roeser and other have lots of money to blow.
Let’s take a look at the books listed by one group that is linked to approvingly by IFI’s story:
http://classkc.org/books.php
The classic part of it–Animal Farm hasn’t been reviewed. What culturally literate adult hasn’t read Animal Farm? Seriously, Brave New World has not been reviewed? Catch-22? Do these people fucking read anything besides James Dobson e-mails?
The Crucible? Crime and Punishment? Death of a Salesman? Ethan Fromme?
Sure, maybe no individual hasn’t read every book, but how the hell could you get 7 adults together who haven’t read the vast majority of them?
I wouldn’t wish a Farewell to Arms on anyone, but I read it. Great Expectations can’t be reviewed? The Great Gatsby?
I know I’m often naive about how culturally illiterate most Americans are, but are you really suggesting School Board Members haven’t read literary classics as a group?
1 – You clearly don’t understand the point of Class KC. No, they haven’t reviewed some of the classics for the website – That hardly implies that the adults involved in the group never read the books. It implies that they set guidelines for reviewing books for use in school and they prioritized reviewing those titles that were newer, not recognized as classics, that have been challenged in other school districts, etc.
2 – Have you bothered to do the least investigation about grade levels? There are several sites online where you can convince yourself that our schools are dumbing down the curriculum.
The books Leslie questioned are ranked at elementary and middle school reading levels – How in the world would they be challenging enough for 11th and 12th graders???
Beloved – 5th-6th grade reading level
Fallen Angels – 3rd-4th grade reading level
Freakonomics – not rated
How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accent – 6th grade reading level
Slaughterhouse 5 – 5th-6th grade reading level
The Awakening – 6th-8th grade reading level
The Botany of Desire: A Plant’s-Eye View of the World – not rated
The Perks of Being a Wallflower – 4th grade reading level
The Things They Carried – 5th- 6th grade reading level
Content aside for a moment, a HS student might pick up a book to read strictly for enjoyment…but we’re not talking about what books are in the library, we’re talking about books that are on required reading lists for HS and even AP classes. What sense does it make to recommend a book written at an elementary or middle school level for 11th and 12th grade students? None, of course.
But keep arguing for nonsense simply because the person who raised the issue is a Christian and you (who preach tolerance) hate Christians.
-You clearly don’t understand the point of Class KC. No, they haven’t reviewed some of the classics for the website – That hardly implies that the adults involved in the group never read the books. It implies that they set guidelines for reviewing books for use in school and they prioritized reviewing those titles that were newer, not recognized as classics, that have been challenged in other school districts, etc.
No, I get it and I get that someone who has read any of the books I just mentioned could review them. That’s were you don’t get it. Several of the books above have been challenged that I mentioned above as have others that haven’t been reviewed.
Really, who the hell can’t review Huck Finn? Get real.
===The books Leslie questioned are ranked at elementary and middle school reading levels – How in the world would they be challenging enough for 11th and 12th graders???
Yes, I’m very familiar with lexiles. Unfortunately you are not. The difficulty of reading as measured by lexiles refers to language and sentence structure. Not by challenge of the material or literary devices.
By the Lexile system, Harry Potter gets 880-920 compared to Slaughterhouse 5 which gets 850. Needless to say, they are obviously for different age ranges and have different levels of literary devices present. No one would expect a student in sixth grad to understand Slaughterhouse 5 even if the sentences are relatively simple. On the other hand, most would expect younger than sixth grade to understand Harry Potter.
The best example is if you check The Sound and the Fury which has an 870. Now, as any culturally literate person might recognize, that’s some challenging material. However, the reason it is challenging is because Benji, the simpleton, is the voice in much of the book and he speaks in very simple language.
And this is the entire problem with idiots trying to ban books and think they know something about curriculum or pedagogy. They go to a web site like the Lexile site and think they understand what the hell they are talking about when, in reality, they are horribly confused about how to utilize the tools present.
What’s really funny is that the Botany of Desire and Freakonomics still don’t make sense as an attempt to remove them. There is no argument concerning their level of reading, the substance is first rate, and yet, some don’t want them used in the classroom.
Funny.
==But keep arguing for nonsense simply because the person who raised the issue is a Christian and you (who preach tolerance) hate Christians.
Really, werre did I do that?
If I did I’d be self-loathing as I am a Christian.
The problem, I assume, is that I’m not a True Christian (TM).
Cheers!
You’re right about one thing: Despite whatever label you may claim, anyone that argues FOR a book like The Perks of Being a Wallflower as excellent for the intellectual/ social/ emotional/ spiritual development of any teenager is NOT a follower of Christ, who said it would be better for a man to have a millstone hung around his neck and be cast into the sea rather than to hinder/harm a child.
“Yes, I’m very familiar with lexiles. Unfortunately you are not. The difficulty of reading as measured by lexiles refers to language and sentence structure. Not by challenge of the material or literary devices. ”
Thank you for explaining what I already knew, as though it is a revelation.
I didn’t suggest that the Lexile level (or any other measurement of grade level/reading difficulty) is the SOLE criteria for selecting reading materials for classrooms. I was pointing out that books written on an elementary/jr high reading level are NOT sufficiently challenging for 11th and 12th grade students, especially AP/college bound students. Ideally, we should be using books that are written at an appropriate reading level for the grade/placement and that address a variety of subjects that are also appropriate to the age/interests of the reader.
Books like Perks are obviously not being recommended because of their impressive literary value – so why are they being recommended?
PS – I read Huck Finn a LONG time ago and I could not review it without re-reading it. Clearly the Class KC folks are not concerned about its content and have not made it a priority to reread/review it.
Why do you find that so outrageous? Apparently you are looking for something to carry on about instead of conducting an intelligent debate – or perhaps admitting that there might be something we could agree on: The use of Huck Finn is not a concern – WOW! In fact, both sides can agree on 80%+ of the materials in use…but what fun is it to admit that?
===Books like Perks are obviously not being recommended because of their impressive literary value – so why are they being recommended?
Because it is considered of high literary value. It’s just that people who haven’t read it don’t really care and they don’t know it’s reputation as an excellent companion to Catcher in the Rye. It’s used by many districts as suggested reading to prepare for AP tests. Did you not know this? Have you read it?
More to the point, go to AP’s recent exam questions in English Lit and the books for the 2006 test only include 5 over a lexile of 1200 which is about 11th grade. Since AP is designed to replace a college level intro course, you might bother to understand something about what the hell you are talking about instead of insisting that you do.
You are truly stupid if you think writers like Steinbeck, Sinclair, Ellis, Faulkner, Fitzgerald, Atwood, Vonnegut and Wright are really written for Junior High School level and below–and that is what a Lexile rating gives you. Literary Devices make reading far more complex. Ordinary People is only written at a Lexile of around 600. How many third graders could figure out there was a suicide even?
What’s great about your list above and complaint about how it is insufficient for AP, AP lists Awakenings as a specific book students should use to prepare. Oops.
==PS – I read Huck Finn a LONG time ago and I could not review it without re-reading it. Clearly the Class KC folks are not concerned about its content and have not made it a priority to reread/review it.
Why aren’t they concerned? It’s a quite frequently banned book? It might appear they are more concerned about making a ruckus instead of watching out for kids. Hmmmm….
Trying to redefine Christianity to be your narrow view of intolerance is humorous, but not very threatening. You seem to want to attack me as hating Christians and not wanting to debate seriously, but yet you know nothing about the content of the books, how AP is structured, or how curriculum is determined. You might look in the mirror cowboy.
—-WOW! In fact, both sides can agree on 80%+ of the materials in use…but what fun is it to admit that?
No, they can’t. That’s the problem. An objective look at many of these books would rate Shakespeare and other classics as dangerous as would most of Mark Twains work is deliciously subversive to fundamentalists as yourselves. It’s a public relations attempt to attack and undermine public education. And you lose.
Cheers.
Your point about the AP tests proves nothing about the necessity of reading trash and everything about the dumbing down of college entrance tests.
The two recent grads who spoke at the May 25 meeting about the miserable experience of opting out, but who exercised that option frequently, both made a 5 on their AP…and one made a 35/36 on his ACT. It’s ridiculous to suggest that students must read filth in order to achieve high scores.
And I’ll try to help you comprehend this one more time: I did not say that “books like Steinbeck, Sinclair, Ellis, Faulkner, Fitzgerald, Atwood, Vonnegut and Wright are really written FOR Junior High School level and below.” I said that the books LP questioned were written at a 4th-6th grade reading level. So while the subject matter would not be suitable for a 4th grader, the reading skills/comprehension demanded is not challenging to an 11th or 12th grader.
And now, I grow bored with you – ta ta.
===Your point about the AP tests proves nothing about the necessity of reading trash and everything about the dumbing down of college entrance tests.
Ummm..no. AP is not a college entrance test idiot. It’s a college level class taught towards advanced high schoolers. How does one get to be as big of a dumbass as you are?
The curriculum for AP is largely set by College Professors who teach the classes at the collegiate level. If you don’t understand this, you have no business commenting upon curriculum at all.
And again, Faulkner is not easy material, but your assanine claim, it should be taught to those in about sixth grade. That’s just stupid. It’s collegiate level material. You just don’t understand the difference between the complexity of sentences and the actual complexity of the work.
===The two recent grads who spoke at the May 25 meeting about the miserable experience of opting out, but who exercised that option frequently, both made a 5 on their AP…and one made a 35/36 on his ACT. It’s ridiculous to suggest that students must read filth in order to achieve high scores.
Of course, not everyone thinks these books are filth and many of those making that argument have actually read them, unlike you. Here’s a hint for you, college material often has adult subject matter because it’s actually being taught to adults.
The books in question appear to have some relatively short passages that disturb a small, but vocal group of activists who are trying to undermine the public schools. Furthermore, the notion that this is about two books or about filth is assanine given the types of books targeted including Slaughterhouse 5, Freakonomics, The Botany of Desire, and Awakenings.
===And I’ll try to help you comprehend this one more time: I did not say that “books like Steinbeck, Sinclair, Ellis, Faulkner, Fitzgerald, Atwood, Vonnegut and Wright are really written FOR Junior High School level and below.” I said that the books LP questioned were written at a 4th-6th grade reading level. So while the subject matter would not be suitable for a 4th grader, the reading skills/comprehension demanded is not challenging to an 11th or 12th grader.
My goodness you are an idiot. The books I cited are listed on the Lexile site as being Lexiles of 850 or below–or at the sixth grade level. Do you need me to write slower for you? Do you really think that Faulkner, Atwood, Sinclair, etc are not challenging material to a junior or senior? That’s the natural conclusion of the argument you make above, you are just to lazy to actually go determine the lexile level at the site.
What fucking planet are you on to confuse the complexity of sentences with the complexity of the material? It’s really fucking stupid, doubly so since the people who developed Lexiles make exactly the same point I am. So you are arguing with the people who developed the very instrument you are misusing, a person who grades AP tests and I’m in the middle of doing so this week, college professors who think that Faulkner, Steinbeck, Sinclair, Vonnegut, Fitzgerald, Atwood and others are, in fact, college level material.
Your level of stupidity and blind arrogance about the subject of curriculum despite not knowing even the most basic notions about curriculum is rather funny, but also terribly sad. Idiots like you are the problem with schools because you get on your little jihad, but don’t bother to know the first thing about what you are talking about.