always come to speak before the school board!
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Letter to Board - Draft 8/9
February 24, 2009
Burke County Board of Education
Superintendent
Attorney Jonathan Jones
Attorney Christopher Campbell
Members of the Board of Education, Administration and Attorneys for the Board:
I am disheartened that the draft of the Media Selection Policy 9.3210 (labeled as Draft “8” but dated February 16, 2009 – hereinafter referred to as the “proposed” policy) has progressed in a way that favors the agenda of a few vocal citizens of the county, and discounts the concerns and opinions of our educators. In the interest of seeing the proposed policies also reflect the views of western North Carolina, I have surveyed policies in neighboring counties to see if they require similar tasks and considerations from their teachers and administrators.
Notwithstanding the fact that these new policies contradict the Burke County Media and Technology Selection Policy Revision 9.6100P, I find that most policies in neighboring counties do not share several significant aspects of the proposed policy. In fact, the language that has been added to the current draft changes the whole complexion of what appear to be generally accepted media policies.
The proposed policy modifies the model IMPACT policy (which most western NC counties have adopted) and has expanded upon it in a most “paternalistic” way. The language used in the IMPACT model is used in the following districts: Asheville City Schools, Buncombe, Caldwell, Catawba, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, McDowell, Watauga, and Forsyth-Winston-Salem. (Note that several of these school districts are represented by Mr. Christopher Campbell, whom the chair has indicated has also reviewed the proposed policy.) Below is the Model Media Policy promoted by IMPACT:
OBJECTIVES FOR SELECTING MEDIA AND TECHNOLOGY
The primary objective of each school’s library media and technology program is to enrich and support the instructional program of the school. The media and technology program makes available, through the school’s collections, a wide range of print, nonprint, and technology on varying levels of difficulty with a diversity of appeal compatible with the different needs, interests, and viewpoints of students and teachers.
To this end, the __________________ Board of Education in keeping with the ideas expressed in the Library Bill of Rights, asserts that the responsibility of the media program is as follows:
3. to provide resources that will enrich and support the curriculum, taking into consideration the varied interests, abilities, socio-economic backgrounds, learning styles, and developmental levels of the students served.
4. to provide resources that stimulate growth in factual knowledge, literary appreciation, aesthetic values, and ethical standards.
5. to provide a background of information enabling students to comprehend their role as citizens in society and to make intelligent judgments in their daily lives.
6. to provide resources on opposing sides of controversial issues so that students may develop, under guidance, the practice of critical thinking and of critical analysis of all media.
7. to provide resources representative of the many religious, ethnic, and cultural groups in our nation and the contributions of these groups to our American heritage.
8. to place principle above personal opinion and reason above prejudice in selecting media of the highest quality in order to assure a comprehensive collection appropriate for all users. (http://www.ncwiseowl.org/Impact/appendices.htm#baseline)
Compare the above to the bolded language in the Burke Board of Education’s Proposed 9.3210 Selection of Supplementary Media:
a. to provide materials that will enrich and support the curriculum and the North Carolina Standard Course of Study (NCSCOS), taking into consideration the individual needs and varied interests, abilities, socio-economic backgrounds, and maturity levels of the pupils served;
b. to provide materials that will stimulate growth in factual knowledge, literary appreciation, aesthetic values and ethical standards;
c. to provide a background of information that will enable students to make intelligent judgments;
d. to provide materials representing various points of view so that students as young citizens may develop, under guidance, the skills of critical thinking and critical analysis;
e. to provide materials representative of the many religious, ethnic, and cultural traditions in our nation, and the contributions of these groups to our American heritage;
f. to provide materials which are considerate of the values of the various religious, ethnic, and cultural traditions in our community and which are not so inconsistent with such values so to give rise to significant negative objections from such groups; and
g. to place principle above personal opinion and reason above prejudice in the selection of material of the highest quality in order to ensure a comprehensive collection appropriate for our students.
None of the schools mentioned above, including Rutherford County (which has
similar language represented in proposed “d” – “various” instead of “opposing”) or
Hickory, Cherokee, Macon, Lincoln or Wake County have any language relating to
the proposed language in Section “f”:
In this same document under the provisions of Section 2, for “Process of Selecting Supplementary Materials,” the language in the proposed policy tracks with other area policies until these two provisions are added:
The Committee will consider:
i. the extent of anticipated objections to chosen materials and the impact that the number of parents/students likely to object and make use of the “opt out” policy (BCPS Policy 9.3220) will have on the orderly presentation of the overall educational objectives of the course;
j. in situations where it appears that conflicts are likely to arise between the school’s educational interests and a student’s rights from the use of a particular selection, whether a reasonably available alternative selection could achieve the same educational goal.
Apparently, we are the only area county that finds it necessary to judge media based on negative objections (legitimate or not) or the likely use of the opt-out policy. Further, Burke is the only county (among those I surveyed) who will choose media based on “conflicts likely to arise.” This not a “tweak” of the model policy, this is a departure from the notion of freedom to read altogether.
Opt Out Policy:
None of the schools mentioned above have “opt-out” policies per se. Several of the policies indicate they will accommodate parents/students if they have legitimate legal or constitutional concerns. McDowell’s policy requires that teachers provide alternative books. Most of the counties have a “reconsideration” process whereby the material is reviewed by the Media Committee to determine if the book is to be removed from the curriculum, and an appeals process for that (essentially the same as our 9.6100-P policy.) These policies also follow the model IMPACT policy.
Parental Notification:
The counties that do not require parental notification from the teachers prior to using supplementary material are:
Asheville City
Caldwell
Catawba
Cherokee
Haywood
Henderson
Hickory
Jackson
Lincoln
Macon
Rutherford
Watauga
Of the counties that I surveyed, three that require parental notification are Buncombe, McDowell and Wake. Wake does not specify what information about supplemental materials must be supplied to parents. McDowell and Buncombe require only a list of classroom novels or supplementary materials be sent to the parents at the beginning of the year. This list can be updated as the novels are added.
None of the abovementioned schools have any language in their parental notification policy like the bolded language below:
1. Notification to Parents of the use of Supplemental Instructional Reading Materials
At the beginning of each school year, each teacher will prepare a list of supplemental instructional reading materials which are expected to be assigned to students and shall send the list to the parents/guardians of each student so that timely objections may be made. Teachers may supplement that list at any time during the progress of the course of instruction upon further notification to parents in accordance with this policy. The Superintendent shall establish a schedule for each year setting forth the dates before which such notice must be given. The notice shall be in a format established by the Instructional Reading Selection Committee and approved by the Superintendent. The notice shall include the following:
a. The title and author of the supplemental materials selected:
b. Short description of the selection, including, if desired, a statement of the merits of the chosen materials.
c. Whether the selection may contain objectionable content related to the following areas:
a. Language
b. Sexual content;
c. Violence or other abuse;
d. Offensive to certain religious or other values;
e. Age inappropriate/inconsistent with NCSCOS.
d. A list of references where the selection is summarized, reviewed, and critiqued from sources customarily used by educational professionals to evaluate such materials and from sources with special sensitivity to religious and other moral concerns of teachers, students, community members and parents. In addition reference must be given to locations where such reviewing sources can be accessed (example: public library, Internet, etc.). By way of example, and not of limitation, reviewing sources may include the following:
1. The Horn Book (Burke County Library);
2. School Library Journal;
3. National Council of Teachers of English (www.ncte.org);
4. Booklist.com (online – fee charged);
5. Amazon.com;
6. kirkusreviews.com;
7. ALA.org;
8. MLA.org;
9. International Reading Association (www.reading.org);
10. classkc.org (online);
11. pabbis.org (online);
12. Parents may request copies of materials from Superintendent’s office
Further, none of the districts I reviewed have any language at all similar to the language identified in italics.
This language puts an undue burden on the teachers and directs parents to look at biased websites like classkc.org (online) and pabbis.org (online). The policy contradicts itself since the policy requires selection of text based on “unbiased reviews” and that “materials that include references of a sexual nature or profanity must be carefully evaluated as to their total literary value,” and then directs parents to two Christian conservative websites that list profanity out of context to evaluate materials.
Again, none of the policies I surveyed direct the teachers to supply a list of references or websites (including references “from sources with special sensitivity to religious and other moral concerns”). So, the teacher has to determine if little Ahmed is a Muslim and seek out and provide references for that child, and then determine if little Abraham is Jewish, and do the same for him. I personally know Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and even Sikh like students in Burke County system.
Since teachers are prohibited from inquiring about a student’s religious background according to Title 20, 1232h without the prior consent of the parent, it seems that determining which resource to provide the parent would be problematic. This is an undue burden on teachers.
Standing to Challenge a Book
Most of the policies reviewed refer to the “Parental Inspection of Supplemental Materials”. The language in some of these policies vacillates between allowing any concerned district resident or employee of the district to request reconsideration of educational resources and then using the terms “parent” or “complainant.” The policies are inconsistent internally on this point. However, the policies seem to recognize that the appropriate person to challenge a material is the parent or guardian of a child affected. By way of example, McDowell’s policy states:
“No parent has the right to determine the reading, viewing or listening resources for students other than his/her own children.” McDowell Policy on Selection of Instructional Resources 6604, Section 7, C.
It seems that allowing any citizen to challenge books whether they have affected children or not puts an undue burden on the school system. It also seems if anyone is going to have standing to challenge the materials, then the teachers should be sending their reading lists along with all of the other ancillary information required by the policy to everyone in the district, whether they have children in schools or not. I know we do not pay teachers enough to require this.
My concern about this issue is genuine. Any abridgement of my child’s educational experiences by those who would control the curriculum based on their religious values is infuriating to me and most other citizens who value their children’s pubic education.
Sincerely,
Catherine Thomas
1660 Plantation Court
Morganton, North Carolina 28655
Burke County Board of Education
Superintendent
Attorney Jonathan Jones
Attorney Christopher Campbell
Members of the Board of Education, Administration and Attorneys for the Board:
I am disheartened that the draft of the Media Selection Policy 9.3210 (labeled as Draft “8” but dated February 16, 2009 – hereinafter referred to as the “proposed” policy) has progressed in a way that favors the agenda of a few vocal citizens of the county, and discounts the concerns and opinions of our educators. In the interest of seeing the proposed policies also reflect the views of western North Carolina, I have surveyed policies in neighboring counties to see if they require similar tasks and considerations from their teachers and administrators.
Notwithstanding the fact that these new policies contradict the Burke County Media and Technology Selection Policy Revision 9.6100P, I find that most policies in neighboring counties do not share several significant aspects of the proposed policy. In fact, the language that has been added to the current draft changes the whole complexion of what appear to be generally accepted media policies.
The proposed policy modifies the model IMPACT policy (which most western NC counties have adopted) and has expanded upon it in a most “paternalistic” way. The language used in the IMPACT model is used in the following districts: Asheville City Schools, Buncombe, Caldwell, Catawba, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, McDowell, Watauga, and Forsyth-Winston-Salem. (Note that several of these school districts are represented by Mr. Christopher Campbell, whom the chair has indicated has also reviewed the proposed policy.) Below is the Model Media Policy promoted by IMPACT:
OBJECTIVES FOR SELECTING MEDIA AND TECHNOLOGY
The primary objective of each school’s library media and technology program is to enrich and support the instructional program of the school. The media and technology program makes available, through the school’s collections, a wide range of print, nonprint, and technology on varying levels of difficulty with a diversity of appeal compatible with the different needs, interests, and viewpoints of students and teachers.
To this end, the __________________ Board of Education in keeping with the ideas expressed in the Library Bill of Rights, asserts that the responsibility of the media program is as follows:
3. to provide resources that will enrich and support the curriculum, taking into consideration the varied interests, abilities, socio-economic backgrounds, learning styles, and developmental levels of the students served.
4. to provide resources that stimulate growth in factual knowledge, literary appreciation, aesthetic values, and ethical standards.
5. to provide a background of information enabling students to comprehend their role as citizens in society and to make intelligent judgments in their daily lives.
6. to provide resources on opposing sides of controversial issues so that students may develop, under guidance, the practice of critical thinking and of critical analysis of all media.
7. to provide resources representative of the many religious, ethnic, and cultural groups in our nation and the contributions of these groups to our American heritage.
8. to place principle above personal opinion and reason above prejudice in selecting media of the highest quality in order to assure a comprehensive collection appropriate for all users. (http://www.ncwiseowl.org/Impact/appendices.htm#baseline)
Compare the above to the bolded language in the Burke Board of Education’s Proposed 9.3210 Selection of Supplementary Media:
a. to provide materials that will enrich and support the curriculum and the North Carolina Standard Course of Study (NCSCOS), taking into consideration the individual needs and varied interests, abilities, socio-economic backgrounds, and maturity levels of the pupils served;
b. to provide materials that will stimulate growth in factual knowledge, literary appreciation, aesthetic values and ethical standards;
c. to provide a background of information that will enable students to make intelligent judgments;
d. to provide materials representing various points of view so that students as young citizens may develop, under guidance, the skills of critical thinking and critical analysis;
e. to provide materials representative of the many religious, ethnic, and cultural traditions in our nation, and the contributions of these groups to our American heritage;
f. to provide materials which are considerate of the values of the various religious, ethnic, and cultural traditions in our community and which are not so inconsistent with such values so to give rise to significant negative objections from such groups; and
g. to place principle above personal opinion and reason above prejudice in the selection of material of the highest quality in order to ensure a comprehensive collection appropriate for our students.
None of the schools mentioned above, including Rutherford County (which has
similar language represented in proposed “d” – “various” instead of “opposing”) or
Hickory, Cherokee, Macon, Lincoln or Wake County have any language relating to
the proposed language in Section “f”:
In this same document under the provisions of Section 2, for “Process of Selecting Supplementary Materials,” the language in the proposed policy tracks with other area policies until these two provisions are added:
The Committee will consider:
i. the extent of anticipated objections to chosen materials and the impact that the number of parents/students likely to object and make use of the “opt out” policy (BCPS Policy 9.3220) will have on the orderly presentation of the overall educational objectives of the course;
j. in situations where it appears that conflicts are likely to arise between the school’s educational interests and a student’s rights from the use of a particular selection, whether a reasonably available alternative selection could achieve the same educational goal.
Apparently, we are the only area county that finds it necessary to judge media based on negative objections (legitimate or not) or the likely use of the opt-out policy. Further, Burke is the only county (among those I surveyed) who will choose media based on “conflicts likely to arise.” This not a “tweak” of the model policy, this is a departure from the notion of freedom to read altogether.
Opt Out Policy:
None of the schools mentioned above have “opt-out” policies per se. Several of the policies indicate they will accommodate parents/students if they have legitimate legal or constitutional concerns. McDowell’s policy requires that teachers provide alternative books. Most of the counties have a “reconsideration” process whereby the material is reviewed by the Media Committee to determine if the book is to be removed from the curriculum, and an appeals process for that (essentially the same as our 9.6100-P policy.) These policies also follow the model IMPACT policy.
Parental Notification:
The counties that do not require parental notification from the teachers prior to using supplementary material are:
Asheville City
Caldwell
Catawba
Cherokee
Haywood
Henderson
Hickory
Jackson
Lincoln
Macon
Rutherford
Watauga
Of the counties that I surveyed, three that require parental notification are Buncombe, McDowell and Wake. Wake does not specify what information about supplemental materials must be supplied to parents. McDowell and Buncombe require only a list of classroom novels or supplementary materials be sent to the parents at the beginning of the year. This list can be updated as the novels are added.
None of the abovementioned schools have any language in their parental notification policy like the bolded language below:
1. Notification to Parents of the use of Supplemental Instructional Reading Materials
At the beginning of each school year, each teacher will prepare a list of supplemental instructional reading materials which are expected to be assigned to students and shall send the list to the parents/guardians of each student so that timely objections may be made. Teachers may supplement that list at any time during the progress of the course of instruction upon further notification to parents in accordance with this policy. The Superintendent shall establish a schedule for each year setting forth the dates before which such notice must be given. The notice shall be in a format established by the Instructional Reading Selection Committee and approved by the Superintendent. The notice shall include the following:
a. The title and author of the supplemental materials selected:
b. Short description of the selection, including, if desired, a statement of the merits of the chosen materials.
c. Whether the selection may contain objectionable content related to the following areas:
a. Language
b. Sexual content;
c. Violence or other abuse;
d. Offensive to certain religious or other values;
e. Age inappropriate/inconsistent with NCSCOS.
d. A list of references where the selection is summarized, reviewed, and critiqued from sources customarily used by educational professionals to evaluate such materials and from sources with special sensitivity to religious and other moral concerns of teachers, students, community members and parents. In addition reference must be given to locations where such reviewing sources can be accessed (example: public library, Internet, etc.). By way of example, and not of limitation, reviewing sources may include the following:
1. The Horn Book (Burke County Library);
2. School Library Journal;
3. National Council of Teachers of English (www.ncte.org);
4. Booklist.com (online – fee charged);
5. Amazon.com;
6. kirkusreviews.com;
7. ALA.org;
8. MLA.org;
9. International Reading Association (www.reading.org);
10. classkc.org (online);
11. pabbis.org (online);
12. Parents may request copies of materials from Superintendent’s office
Further, none of the districts I reviewed have any language at all similar to the language identified in italics.
This language puts an undue burden on the teachers and directs parents to look at biased websites like classkc.org (online) and pabbis.org (online). The policy contradicts itself since the policy requires selection of text based on “unbiased reviews” and that “materials that include references of a sexual nature or profanity must be carefully evaluated as to their total literary value,” and then directs parents to two Christian conservative websites that list profanity out of context to evaluate materials.
Again, none of the policies I surveyed direct the teachers to supply a list of references or websites (including references “from sources with special sensitivity to religious and other moral concerns”). So, the teacher has to determine if little Ahmed is a Muslim and seek out and provide references for that child, and then determine if little Abraham is Jewish, and do the same for him. I personally know Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and even Sikh like students in Burke County system.
Since teachers are prohibited from inquiring about a student’s religious background according to Title 20, 1232h without the prior consent of the parent, it seems that determining which resource to provide the parent would be problematic. This is an undue burden on teachers.
Standing to Challenge a Book
Most of the policies reviewed refer to the “Parental Inspection of Supplemental Materials”. The language in some of these policies vacillates between allowing any concerned district resident or employee of the district to request reconsideration of educational resources and then using the terms “parent” or “complainant.” The policies are inconsistent internally on this point. However, the policies seem to recognize that the appropriate person to challenge a material is the parent or guardian of a child affected. By way of example, McDowell’s policy states:
“No parent has the right to determine the reading, viewing or listening resources for students other than his/her own children.” McDowell Policy on Selection of Instructional Resources 6604, Section 7, C.
It seems that allowing any citizen to challenge books whether they have affected children or not puts an undue burden on the school system. It also seems if anyone is going to have standing to challenge the materials, then the teachers should be sending their reading lists along with all of the other ancillary information required by the policy to everyone in the district, whether they have children in schools or not. I know we do not pay teachers enough to require this.
My concern about this issue is genuine. Any abridgement of my child’s educational experiences by those who would control the curriculum based on their religious values is infuriating to me and most other citizens who value their children’s pubic education.
Sincerely,
Catherine Thomas
1660 Plantation Court
Morganton, North Carolina 28655
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
