Scroggins: Filthy books demeaning to Republic education

[Phantom Paragrapher]

A major issue going around with book content at the moment.

On another Note : Ellen Hopkins ( YA Author) was dis-invited from a Book Conference for Teens in Texas (i think it was) because of the content in her books.

http://www.news-leader.com/article/20100918/OPINIONS02/9180307/Scroggins-Filthy-books-demeaning-to-Republic-education
As another school year begins at Republic Schools, parents need to be cautious and inquire as to the nature of the material that their children may be exposed to. I have spent considerable time over the past couple of years reviewing various curricula across numerous grades in the school district. The material to which children are being exposed in certain classes in Republic Schools is shocking. It is time parents and taxpayers in this school district are informed about this material. For example, my review of the eighth-grade sex education curriculum revealed that children at the middle school are being introduced to concepts such as homosexuality, oral sex, anal sex and specific instructions on how to use a condom and have sex.
Sex education curriculum in the fourth grade includes topics on reproduction. Is this what parents and taxpayers in this community want their children exposed to in school? Is this how taxpayers want their tax money used? Equally shocking is the content of the high school English classes. In high school English classes, children are required to read and view material that should be classified as soft pornography.
One such book is called "Speak." They also watch the movie. This is a book about a very dysfunctional family. Schoolteachers are losers, adults are losers and the cheerleading squad scores more than the football team. They have sex on Saturday night and then are goddesses at church on Sunday morning. The cheer squad also gets their group-rate abortions at prom time. As the main character in the book is alone with a boy who is touching her female parts, she makes the statement that this is what high school is supposed to feel like. The boy then rapes her on the next page. Actually, the book and movie both contain two rape scenes.
In English, children are also required to read a book called "Slaughterhouse Five." This is a book that contains so much profane language, it would make a sailor blush with shame. The "f word" is plastered on almost every other page. The content ranges from naked men and women in cages together so that others can watch them having sex to God telling people that they better not mess with his loser, bum of a son, named Jesus Christ.

Lastly, there is a book in the library recommended for reading called "Twenty Boy Summer." This book glorifies drunken teen parties, where teen girls lose their clothes in games of strip beer pong. In this book, drunken teens also end up on the beach, where they use their condoms to have sex. I confronted the school board with these issues at the June school board meeting. As far as I know, nothing has been done to address these issues to date. This is unacceptable, considering that most of the school board members and administrators claim to be Christian. How can Christian men and women expose children to such immorality? Parents, it is time you get involved!
Editor's note: Republic Superintendent Vern Minor pointed out that the curriculum is abstinence-based and that students can opt out of sex education classes. He also said "Slaughterhouse Five" has been removed, and that "Twenty Boy Summer" is being reviewed. Some of the issues raised by Scroggins were before the start of the school year and were complicated by the timing and renewal process of teachers' contracts, Minor said.

[Jez]

Usually I've viewed similar articles with a more, "Come on already" attitude assuming they're making a mountain out of a mole hill, but after reading some of the books included in some curricula, I have to change my tune. I don't recognize any of the titles in this article as being any of the ones that I found shocking, and I unfortunately don't remember their titles now. I do remember their content. Calling it soft core porn is putting it mildly. They were like a cruder, significantly more graphic, and even more poorly written version of adult bodice rippers where the main words and phrases are things like throbbing and engorged. They also included pairings with random strangers, cousins, and adult/children. It really has no place in a school, especially when put in context with all of the other literary choices out there.

I am curious about the article and whether the titles mentioned are the only ones the parents and school are taking issue with, or if they were deliberately chosen for mention in the article because they're not as bad.

[Phantom Paragrapher]

One of the books is Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson , Give it a read Jez as besides what Scroggins says itis such an amazing written book and the author tackles those issues so beautifully. She's one of my favourite writers

[Moony]

I'm more shocked by the offense that's been taken about the sex education curriculum than the English books. There's a reason it's called "sex education", people! And with girls reaching puberty at such young ages it's a reality that needs to be accepted.

[Jez]

I'm familiar with all three books mentioned in the article. I wasn't referring to any of them in my criticism. Speak isn't softcore porn by any stretch (at least not as far as my, admittedly hazy, memory goes), but the ones I was referring to were definitely pornographic. I would type an example of what the writing was like, but it would be edited by mods (and rightly so), if that puts things into perspective.

I don't think Speak is necessarily inappropriate, but I also don't know if it's necessarily the best choice for inclusion in a limited curriculum. As one of the few books assigned to the whole class, I think a better book can be found simply because I don't see that one has having wide appeal. Girls, sure, but boys? I think they'd be less interested. Is the issue of rape really the best topic to be included in a limited curriculum? Not because it's too shocking or inappropriate, but because how relevant is the topic to students in general, especially when compared to other topics that can be explored? I can see the book being taught well and that teaching making it a good choice. But, more likely, I can see it being taught in a very narrow, exclusive manner. The book may be great, but is it really the best choice when compared to all the other books out there? As a recommended book or as a "choose your own book" assignment (as it seems to Twenty Boy Summer book was), then Speak is fine by me for list inclusion. But as one of 4-8 or so books assigned to the whole class, I think there are better choices out there.

I'm a strong proponent of the idea that most any book can be taught and value can be gained. Still, the flip side of a lot of these book censorship arguments is that anyone speaking out against a book is automatically labeled an evil, repressed book banner and they're shouted into silence with a lot of scorn and first amendment waving. I'm not saying I agree with the man above (frankly, I don't have a clear enough understanding of his reasons to determine whether I agree or disagree with him), or anyone else looking to ban a book, but I think the response from the book community to their complaints is often more harsh and polarizing than necessary.

While those against "book banning" often rely on arguments of free speech and tolerance when arguing against a "book banner," they are often appallingly hypocritical when it comes to recognizing these freedoms and virtues in regard to those who are complaining about the books. They're quick to write angry articles and tweet their disdain, but how many have tried to have a discussion where they actually attempted to learn where the people complaining about the books are coming from? I know, based on that one short editorial, I have a number of questions for the author to clarify his position. I can think of a number of different answers he could give based solely on the little bit of opinion he expressed in the editorial, and each of those possible explanations could change my opinion of him dramatically.

Instead, more often than not, the people against the "book banner" characterize the "book banner" as a "wingnut," an idiot, a bigot, a "bible thumper" and other seemingly intolerant remarks. In response to this man, I have seen numerous angry blog posts, calls to barrage the superintendent of the school with angry letters in support of the books and against Scroggins, and mocking comments, tweets, and contests all at this man's expense. Has this man even read the books? Do we know one way or another? Instead of holding contests poking fun at Scroggins by giving the books in question away to fans, did anyone think of giving Scroggins a copy with educative discussion questions attached? Did any of these angry, derisive bloggers attempt to actually learn more about Scroggins' opinion? From what I've seen, they're too busy calling him names and defending the books to even consider that there might be more to his opinion than what was expressed in a short editorial. He might be every bit as bad as they think, but they're operating under a knee-jerk assumption, and that isn't commendable.

Even labeling a person a "book banner" isn't necessarily accurate. One very important point to keep in mind is that when the subject of whether or not a book should be included in a school's curriculum or school library is not always an issue of banning or censorship. Sometimes it is legitimate to question the inclusion of a book, not because it is objectionable or offensive, but because school has a limited amount of time to teach and that time should be used wisely. Arguing that, oh, I don't know, pick any book, "X title" shouldn't be included in a class's curriculum isn't always an argument against the book.

To say a book isn't appropriate for curriculum inclusion is not the same thing as banning a book. No one is saying those books cannot be read. If a school board votes to teach Frankenstein because they feel it has broader appeal and not teach Pride and Prejudice because they feel boys wouldn't connect as strongly, that isn't a case of the school banning Pride and Prejudice. A school has a specific purpose, and that purpose is different from a public library. It is absurd and incendiary to call it a book banning when a school decides to, within the parameters of the purpose of the school and class, remove a book from its curriculum.

The other side is also that these people complaining about the books do have the right to free speech, and given that it is their tax dollars that are also funding these schools, they do have a legitimate say in what books are included in the curriculum. People in support of a book need to remember that their voices are as legitimate (and not more legitimate) than the voices of the people opposed to the book. If both sides are reasonable and have a legitimate argument, then both standpoints should be given equal weight. Some tax payers are not more equal than others.

[Jez]

I'm more shocked by the offense that's been taken about the sex education curriculum than the English books. There's a reason it's called "sex education", people! And with girls reaching puberty at such young ages it's a reality that needs to be accepted.

A lot of people accept the reality and have no problem with their kids learning it, they just don't feel they should be learning it in schools. What isn't being taught in schools because an hour each day is spent on sex education? The subject of history alone is always glossed over and rushed through because there simply isn't enough time to teach it all.

Gaining an education of the "core subjects" where trained and dedicated teachers are needed to teach the material is the purpose of schools. A subject like sex education isn't within the scope of a school, but it is within the scope of parenting. What's happening is that society looks more and more toward schools to provide every bit of education a person might need and, as a result, parents are taking less and less responsibility in teaching their children. This isn't a good thing.

[margaine]

I'm more shocked by the offense that's been taken about the sex education curriculum than the English books. There's a reason it's called "sex education", people! And with girls reaching puberty at such young ages it's a reality that needs to be accepted.

This was my reaction too.

As for your post Jez - I understand completely. As someone who has had to make course syllabi for college (where the amount of sex or offensive language is something that would never be of issue where I was teaching), it is so incredibly hard to choose what books should be taught in a course. There are so many factors to consider - length of the book, possibility that it might interest students, degree to which it fits into other themes and ideas that might be discussed, difficulty/reading level . . . and on, and on. And there are always more good options than there is time to teach them! I even struggle making mock/sample syllabi for hypothetical courses because there are so many options!

And as someone about to teach (language) at the high school level after teaching at the college level, I realize that there are some subjects and ideas that are not appropriate to address in certain situations with younger students. Then again, I will be in France, so who knows. ;)

[margaine]

Jez, it looks like your post re: sex ed came just before my own post. sorry about that, I didn't see your response in time!

I understand your point, and I'm still thinking about it.

[Star_Anise]

Not being familiar with the specific books discussed by the objector, I can't comment on whether their claims of 'immorality' are particularly well-founded, but I do agree with Jez that pretty much any book can be taught in school, but that decisions have to be made about suitability as part of the curriculum. The resources available have to match the level of challenge provided by the reading, in consideration of students' interests, capabilities, etc. It's the claim to 'immorality' here that gets me - and which leads down the path of condemning or blocking subject matter or content which does not accord with a certain world view. That is dangerous and defies the whole point of studying literature. "Adult" content of a sexual nature is something young readers will be exposed to, and so they should have opportunities to understand and explore what they are reading. I would have doubts about any curriculum that based the study of a book on its sexual content at a high school or lower level, but I don't see any evidence in the above commentary that this was the case.


A subject like sex education isn't within the scope of a school, but it is within the scope of parenting. What's happening is that society looks more and more toward schools to provide every bit of education a person might need and, as a result, parents are taking less and less responsibility in teaching their children. This isn't a good thing.

While I agree that sex ed is something that should not be shirked by parents, I think schools have a very definite role in teaching reproductive science, and as we see the incidences of STIs, undesired relationship outcomes, etc. rising, this provides a space for discussing sex ed in a health context. I do think this appropriate - and not just because parents are unlikely to fulfil their parenting role in this area, but because it equips students with necessary knowledge and skills to approach sex and relationships. Some may see it as increasing the 'nanny' expectations of schools, but I actually agree with the broadening of some syllabus areas to include more life-skill based outcomes rather than just the basic three Rs.

[Jez]

This was my reaction too.

As for your post Jez - I understand completely. As someone who has had to make course syllabi for college (where the amount of sex or offensive language is something that would never be of issue where I was teaching), it is so incredibly hard to choose what books should be taught in a course. There are so many factors to consider - length of the book, possibility that it might interest students, degree to which it fits into other themes and ideas that might be discussed, difficulty/reading level . . . and on, and on. And there are always more good options than there is time to teach them! I even struggle making mock/sample syllabi for hypothetical courses because there are so many options!

And as someone about to teach (language) at the high school level after teaching at the college level, I realize that there are some subjects and ideas that are not appropriate to address in certain situations with younger students. Then again, I will be in France, so who knows. ;)

I'm so happy you wrote this. It's great to have a teacher's perspective here. I was wondering, too, is it ever a consideration for you of a book's subject matter distracting from your teaching goals too much? Meaning, take a book like Lolita, where there are a plethora of literary aspects to be discussed, but they might never be addressed because the focus of discussion and response could easily be monopolized by the pedophilia aspects of the story. Something like Pnin, where there are similar literary aspects but there isn't the distracting subject matter might win out, for me simply because I wouldn't want the classroom discussions and focus of the students to constantly wander off from the more English class-specific content.

[Jez]

It's the claim to 'immorality' here that gets me - and which leads down the path of condemning or blocking subject matter or content which does not accord with a certain world view. That is dangerous and defies the whole point of studying literature. "Adult" content of a sexual nature is something young readers will be exposed to, and so they should have opportunities to understand and explore what they are reading. I would have doubts about any curriculum that based the study of a book on its sexual content at a high school or lower level, but I don't see any evidence in the above commentary that this was the case.

Morality guiding classroom selections is something rife for the slippery slope because the question is always, "Whose morality?" There is a certain hypocrisy in lauding the purpose of literature in its ability to introduce and celebrate new viewpoints, cultures, and moral sets, while also advocating a necessary squashing and degree of derision for the reader's own morality and culture. It is not a removal of morality to include subjects and viewpoints that are morally contentious. Rather, it is the squashing of one morality set (the one that says X is bad) by another morality set (that says X is good). Morality isn't removed from the decision process at all.

Where parents often take issue is not the exposure to different moral sets, but the way those morals or behaviors are taught: as acceptable, good, and equal. This is not simple exposure to other viewpoints, which would be within the purview of a school. Instead, this is politicizing and moralizing the classroom, which is not within the function of a school and also begs the questions of "Whose politics? Whose morals?"

Take the topic of sex education. I agree with you that there are important things to be discussed and are appropriate to be discussed in schools. Those things accurately fall under science classes and can and should be taught within the biology units. They are teaching facts of what is and how it works. Teaching the reproductive system is no different from teaching the digestive system, and there is no reason one should be given a separate class. STDs, as diseases, are equally relevant in a biology class as discussing small pox or the common cold. Keep it to the facts, and there's no problem and the school is keeping to its intended purpose.

What has no place and causes problems is when politics and morality enter the classroom on the subject. A school has no business teaching children how to conduct a romantic relationship, which sex acts are appropriate, how many and what sex a person's partners should be, etc, because the values of a these things are culturally and morally determined. You might be fine with a school teaching these things when the teachings align with your own belief system, but what if the school is run by a fundamentalist Christian who believes masturbation is a sin? What if the school is run by a Muslim man who believes little boys are for pleasure and women are for breeding? What if the person teaching Speak doesn't actually have a problem with rape, or thinks the girl deserves it if she gets raped? If you open the door to allow a school to groom morality and political opinion, then you have to realize that the morality or politics in power will not always align with your beliefs.

You're left then with the decision of either remaining "culturally sensitive" and accepting all viewpoints (and accepting that your child will be taught that these viewpoints are accurate, valid, and right). Or, you admit a hypocrisy in having no problem with morals in the classroom, just so long as they are your morals. If you go with that, then men like Scroggins cannot be argued against on the basis that he is allowing morality to color his opinion, but rather that you simply think your morality set is superior to his and so he should be silenced in favor of your voice. Keeping morality and politics out of the classroom and focusing instead on the intended purpose of schools: the education of facts, avoids these moral dilemmas.


Some may see it as increasing the 'nanny' expectations of schools, but I actually agree with the broadening of some syllabus areas to include more life-skill based outcomes rather than just the basic three Rs.

Schools are so swamped with morality arguments that they are distracted from their main purpose. English classrooms are so busy arguing over whether a book with sex is included in curriculum or not that teachers aren't even realizing that they're failing their students. Kids are coming out of English classrooms having read books like Speak and argued about its morality, but they can't tell the difference between there/their/they're. Their vocabulary is stunted, but they've read The Bluest Eye and gotten a culturally sensitive look at a dialect in the black community. Not only is morality in the classroom a cause for arguments about whose morality, but they also distract and take time away from the purpose of the different classes. Can an English teacher pat themselves on the back because their students spent the quarter talking about the contentious issue of rape but not learning any new vocabulary, spelling incorrectly, and writing abysmal papers?

Now adding in more life skills, which life skills? Whose cultural take on these life skills? Some are fine, but some are walking the line of "Whose morality?" Then there is also the question of what will be removed to add these classes? As it is, the core subjects (math, science, history, English) are glossed over, rushed through, and not fully covered. Should more time really be taken away from them? Or, should classroom time really be extended longer?

What many people forget is that a child's time outside of school is just as instructive and important to development as time in the classroom. Why are children fatter now? Video games and the internet are often pointed too, but extended hours in the classroom followed by hours and hours of sedentary homework is even more of a factor. Kids used to play, actively, but, when faced with over five hours of homework each night, what kid has time to run around the neighborhood or bike to their friend's house? Life skills used to be acquired at home, when parents taught their children how to do things like cook, fix things around the house, and learn other life skills. Now children spend most of their time at home doing homework and there is no time for parents to teach their children these things. So, not only are children not learning them, but they are missing out on that time with their parents. Absorbing those teachings into the school isn't the answer, it's the problem. The more school covers and monopolizes a child's life, the less life outside of school exists and the more people then feel a school needs to cover.

[margaine]

I'm so happy you wrote this. It's great to have a teacher's perspective here. I was wondering, too, is it ever a consideration for you of a book's subject matter distracting from your teaching goals too much? Meaning, take a book like Lolita, where there are a plethora of literary aspects to be discussed, but they might never be addressed because the focus of discussion and response could easily be monopolized by the pedophilia aspects of the story. Something like Pnin, where there are similar literary aspects but there isn't the distracting subject matter might win out, for me simply because I wouldn't want the classroom discussions and focus of the students to constantly wander off from the more English class-specific content.

That is probably something I should have considered more than I have! I often assumed a higher maturity level in my students than what I was confronted with. In one instance, I wanted to show some scenes from the movie of Beloved to compare them with the book, but it was a total disaster because the students were completely distracted by the fact that a crazy naked (but nicely proportioned) woman was running around the screen and Oprah Winfrey's character pees for an extended period of time. So, though I certainly am not going to get in trouble for showing those scenes (and their potentially mature content didn't factor into why I chose them - those things happen because it is an intense moment emotionally and in terms of plot), they really didn't help the discussion along at all!

So I didn't do that again (plus Beloved as a book didn't work out that well anyway).

Interestingly, I went to a small conference many years ago, and one of the most interesting panels included a paper on Lolita. Everyone has something to say about that book, and the discussion period was very involved and heated - much more so than a typical conference panel's discussion! Since the goal was simply intellectual exchange (rather than teaching specific things), and the discussion was related to the person's paper, the conversation following the paper was fine. But come to think of it, I feel bad for the other people giving papers on that panel, since their papers (on other books) were totally ignored in the discussion period!!