So Long, Farewell…

Like the song from The Sound of Music, I am leaving my quest to understand and discuss issues involving student freedom of speech and press on an optimistic note. Although I have found many disappointing examples of schools overreacting and inhibiting students’ first amendment rights, I think that there is also a lot to be said for our schools today. There is an overwhelming amount of negativity in the news, but everyday unsung heroes teach the “leaders of tomorrow” and inspire students with a love of learning. In the same thread, there are administrators like the one I discussed earlier from Conneticut, who handle censoring issues in their schools with tact and understanding, not spite. I have to hope that these sort of administrators and teachers will only increase, and that there are a lot of them who simply do not make the news.

On another note, my Eng 310 experience is also coming to an end. I must say that I have in fact learned a lot, including how to manage a blog – a though that terrified me a mere semester ago! Granted, I am still not very comfortable with this, I really do not think that I am a technology kind of girl. That doesn’t mean that I won’t make use of technology when it can improve my classroom and my students’ learning. This excursion into the world of RSS blogs was a useful if painful experience. At least now, even if I never use another blog my whole life, I know what they have to offer and can keep them in mind for possible classroom use. You never know. Stranger things have happened than me changing my mind about something. 

My little nuggets of wisdom – or insanity

Comment 1

Comment 2

Comment 3

Comment 4

Comment 5

Comment 6

Comment 7

Comment 8

Comment 9

Comment 10

Bright Ideas and Great Expectations

This past Saturday I woke up at 6 am, showered, filled my travel mug with coffee, and set off down Lake Michigan Dr at 6:30 am to begin my hour and a half journey to MSU. The sun was just rising and I was driving straight into it – a beautiful experience I can’t say I’ve had all that often. I arrived at MSU right on time for the 2007 Bright Ideas Conference and some more caffiene by way of more coffee. I expected the “Great Expectations: Literacy, Language, Literature & Learning” conference to be very boring, to be honest. I was thinking longingly back to my still-warm bed. Getting up at 6am definitely had its advantages, however. I experienced a full day’s excitement and revelation all before noon, leaving plenty of time for that pesky stuff called homework.

The keynote speaker, Jacqueline Woodson, was actually familiar to me. Having always loved reading and writing (when I was younger, my ambition was to be an Author), I was priveledged enough to attend a National Book Foundation Summer Writing Camp in 2000. There, Jacqueline Woodson, along with Cornelius Eady and Norma Fox Mazer, led a bunch of us in a writing experience that I will never, ever forget. So, long story short, I was quite excited to see Jackie Woodson again. She certainly did not disappoint.

Jacqueline Woodson recommended and urged that we teach our youth to use their voices, not to silence them. She asserted that everyone has the RIGHT to tell their story. I think this is wonderful, and perfectly in keeping with my Eng310 class. Further, Woodson said that fear should not be allowed in writing. She doesn’t believe in writer’s block. She only believes in fear. I think this is excellent. As long as you aren’t afraid of your word’s worth, they will come – just keep writing! Very much a process pedagogy believer. I also loved that she said that one of her best editing techniques was to simply read her work out loud – if it doesn’t sound good, it needs to be fixed. I have done this for years – was it my own idea, or a remnant from writer’s camp? In either case, when combined with the performance of some of her writing, Woodson was an excellent keynote speaker and gave me hope for the rest of the conference!

The first session I attended was “Using Art in an ELA Course”, given by Anna J. Roseboro of GVSU. I got many excellent ideas for my future classes. I hate the standard forms of assessment – tests, boring analytical or comparative essays – so Roseboro’s presentation offering art as an alternative was very exciting. She cited Howard Gardner and his Multiple Intelligence theory as the basis for the use of art in an English course. The best examples she gave were a geometric character analysis, which allowed for a lot more creativity than a standard character analysis, and a literary weaving tape, on which students can pictorally, symbolically, etc. the major themes and issues in their text. These are a great start for making high school English courses more interesting for more students and providing htem with alternate forms of assessment – so the bad test takers and lousy paper writers can have a chance too. A little bit of everything is a great mix.

The second session I attended was “Let’s Talk About Writing!” presented by Christine Dawson of MSU. She gave us strategies for improving peer sharing and response in the classroom, an issue that I am admittedly a little nervous about. One of the great ideas she had was a “Quaker Share”, in which students read brief excerpts of their writing into the air, without any feedback given. When one finishes, another begins… whoever feels like it, with silence in between perfectly okay. This strategy seems perfect to relieve much of the stress that centers around sharing your own, personal writing. There is no expectation of criticism, the spotlight quickly moves off of you and onto the next person, for their brief share. I was also particularly impressed by her “partner response” technique. Overall, Dawson stressed building a supportive writing community in the classroom. She also demonstrated many of the strategies with us, which made me even more excited to test them out.

The Bright Ideas Conference defied my expectations and proved to be both interesting and beneficial. I got lots of wonderful ideas from other educators and wish I could have sat in on many more of the sessions.

A Happy Ending, Off Broadway

A Conneticut high school canceled a play students were preparing that focused on the Iraq War, but instead of litigation and protesting, this situation has turned out well for the students involved. Even though their play was censured, they have been offered a surplus of venues in which to perform, including the Public Theater in New York and the Culture Project, “which is known for staging politically provocative work.” I read about this incident in an article titled “Canceled by Principal, Student Play Heads to Off Broadway” by Alison Leigh Cowan on the NY Times website.

Apparently the play is

“a series of monologues mainly from soldiers titled “Voices in Conflict”"

The school principal gives his reasons for canceling the play :

“the school principal, Timothy H. Canty, cited concerns about political balance, sourcing, and the possibility of hurting Wilton residents “who had lost loved ones or who had individuals serving.”"

An interesting change from the English related incidents I have previously discussed, I thought that the controversy surrounding this play and its cancellation has turned out well. I would even dare to call it an optimal situation. Having absolutely no knowledge of the contents of the play, I respect the principal’s decision because he gives clear, rational reasons for not allowing the play to be performed on school grounds. Considering the polarizing nature of the Iraq War, if the play did not walk a very fine line just  right, I could see how it could be possibly quite offensive. Apparently,

“The students were also awarded a “Courage in Theater” award last month for their “non-performance” from Music Theater International, a New York agency that licenses many high school productions”

And,

“Martin Garbus, a First Amendment lawyer who has been working pro bono with Ms. Dickinson [the theater teacher] and several parents of cast members said yesterday that schools are allowed to regulate speech that has the potential to disrupt learning.”

I am glad that I have finally found  a case in which I agree with the principal and think that everyone concerned has handled the issue appropriately, so that I won’t sound like such a broken record in my postings. Why do I make such an exception in this case? Well, the principal did not punish either the students or the teacher for trying to go forward with the play. The principal also explained his position and reasons, which were valid (an evaluation I might disagree with if I was more familiar with the contents of the play). The students and teacher, though they have been in contact with a lawyer, have accepted the principal’s ruling without letting it stop them from performing a play they evidently feel is important. They have found another, off school grounds, way to bring the play to the public. This is excellent. There are rules out of necessity that inhibit a person’s freedom of speech, especially in a school, but that does not mean that there aren’t other ways to voice your opinions. The principal has not condemned their decision to continue with the play; he only had an exception with it being held at school. This all makes me very happy.

 On a sadder note, many many families and friends are grieving today because of the shooting that took place on Virginia Tech’s campus, in which many lives were lost. My heart goes out to all concerned. Talking about censure, I am curious how the fact that many students and faculty found out about the first shooting two hours later by email just in time for the second shooting to take place will influence the investigation and whether there will be new regulations regarding the proper protocol in similar emergencies.

“Canceled by Principal, Student Play Heads to Off Broadway.” by Alison Leigh Cowan. April 12, 2007. The New York Times. Read full article.

“Bong Hits 4 Jesus” ??

Scanning the headlines of blog postings that have to do with students’ freedom of speech/press the words “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” definitely caught my attention. Considering the full title of the blog was “”Bong Hits 4 Jesus” to the Supreme Court”, I must confess that this blog piqued my interest. It seems almost too ridiculous to be true.

However, according to this Student Mentor Blog, posted by “Josh” on March 30, the Supreme Court will be addressing a case that deals with the suspension of a high school student for holding up a sign with the above words during a local parade. Keep in mind that this incident happened 5 years ago, the student was 18 years old, it occured off of school grounds, and the student, Joseph Frederick, has won every single case in the lower courts.

According to “Josh”, what happened was:

“Normally, the student, Joseph Frederick, who was 18 years old at the time, could not recieve any disciplinary action for the event, since he was a private adult citizen expressing his veiws … however, the catch is that his school had been let out early to watch the Olympic procession on its way to the 2002 games in Salt Lake City. Thus the parade became a quasi-school sponsored event, as teachers and administration were present, watching the parade along with the students and the rest of the city.”

Here Frederick held up the extremely ill-advised sign stating “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” – to all accounts a stupid, non-sensical quest for attention. “Josh” writes,

“his principal, who witnessed him unfurling the sign and told him that he had to put it away or face disciplinary action. He refused, and she immediately suspended him for 10 days.”

Okay. So those are the facts. Now, did this principal have the right to suspend Frederick in this instance? “Josh” seems to think that she didn’t, and I think I would have to agree. Why? Well, just keep reading.

1. If this took place on school grounds, say during a pep rally, I would be the first one to advocate disciplinary action. Drug references meant to disrupt are completely innappropriate. However, this was off of school grounds.

2. If attending the parade was a fieldtrip, a school sponsored event, then yes, Frederick’s suspension would have been completely justified. In that case, he would have been acting as a representative of his school. However, he wasn’t. School had been let out, so he was completely on his own.

3. If the parade was connected to school, say a parade to congradulate the state champion football team, then the  disciplinary action would have been just. Though this is less clear cut, Frederick would have been purposely disrupting a school event. As a student, he would fall under school administration in this case. But it wasn’t.

4. Maybe, if Frederick had been a minor, the principal would have had more justification, but I don’t really think so. Being a legal adult does not change his right to freedom of speech in this case; it just emphasizes it.

So, even though I can understand the principal’s motivation in warning and then suspending Frederick, even though I think Frederick made a poor decision in making and then flying the banner, I think that the court case is unfounded.

My question is, who is pushing this case all the way up to the Supreme Court? There doesn’t seem to be any question in my mind as to what the ruling must be. Especially since,

“Joseph Frederick has won at every single lower level court against Deborah Morse, the principal who suspended him.”

If you have read my previous postings, you will have realized that I am a very strong proponent for freedom of speech, but in this case, even if I wasn’t, I don’t understand the principal’s actions. I would probably also have the instinct to tell Frederick to lower his statement were I a teacher or principal. But, considering the circumstances, I would probably have limited myself to advising him of the stupidity of his action, of possible repurcussions, and of whether that was really how he wanted to present himself to the world.

Read Full Blog. “‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus’ to the Supreme Court.” Josh. March 30, 2007.

A Call for Acceptance is Intolerable

Since I am afraid my last post digressed into a rant, I am going to try to play devil’s advocate to the article “What? Some kids are gay? Woodlan principal evidently lost perspective on sophomore’s column.”

“If only to protect the integrity and financial interests of a school district, a principal has good cause to review student publications before they are distributed.”

I completly agree. A school newspaper should be equally responsible for libel and plagarism as other newspapers. Students learn about integrity and proper research.

“the East Allen County Schools board has a policy giving administrators strong authority over publications, saying the district ‘will not tolerate text or commentary in school-sponsored publications or productions that … is socially inappropriate due to the maturity of students …’”

This also sounds completly reasonable. Huh. This devil’s advocate thing isn’t so hard so far. As a paper representing the school and school district, it is understandable that the newspaper be reviewed to make sure it is truthful and appropriate. As with any good journalism, curse words or explicit subject matter should be censored, or at least studied to judge whether it is necessary.

These quotes are both statements I would have no trouble supporting in my classroom. In the case of Woodlan High School, it seems that normally the journalism adviser, Amy Sorrell provides most of the review. She only runs topics she feels are sensitive by the principal. When this unacceptable opinion piece was published,

“Yoder [the principal] gave Sorrell a written warning that said any other incidents could lead to disciplinary action, including being fired.”

Again, this is very just. A warning before action is a good idea; maybe this piece flew under Sorrell’s radar, right? Maybe she had a sudden lapse in judgment? In any case, the principal will now be reviewing all articles before the paper is printed. It’s a shame, but I don’t think the principal is being unreasonable.

What was this offensive, inappropriate opinion piece the students should not have been exposed to, the school should not have been responsible for? Megan Chase, a sophomore, wrote

“asking students to be understanding and tolerant of their peers who are gays or lesbians”.

Tolerance? This is unacceptable. Even without reading the article, I can tell that it must have been very inappropriate for a high school audience. Understanding is highly overrated. I think that gay and lesbian topics should not be discussed in high school. They should institute a don’t ask, don’t tell policy. Students should be made uncomfortable about their sexual orientiation; they should have to hide who they are. Duh.

Okay, so the whole devil’s advocacy isn’t really working. If you couldn’t tell, the previous paragraph is completely facetious. To be fair though, I could understand the principal’s worry if the article used explicit language or discussed explicit material. However,

“It doesn’t get any more explicit than acknowledging that some people feel desire for members of their own gender.”

The school recieved no complaints from parents about the article. It called for peace and love. It called for harmony and acceptance. It did not ask readers to agree with homosexuality; it only asked them to admit that some people identify themselves as homosexual and to treat these people with respect.

In the end, I would have to agree that the principal went a bit overboard in this case. Though  I agree with his rights, I think that he did not make good use of them here. He is either overly scared of repercussions, or has his own intolerances to work through.

“What? Some kids are gay?” by Bob Caylor. Fort Wayne. read full article.

Should Teachers Have Freedom of Speech?

Teachers’ rights within the classroom are not something I usually think about. But, when you are afraid to give a distraught student a hug, or even a shoulder pat, what is a teacher allowed or not allowed to say within the walls of a classroom? Normally I would strongly advocate freedom of speech – when combined with a heaping dose of common sense. That is the key to freedome of speech in school – common sense and a sensitivity to others.

I was shocked at an article from The New York Times, “Student, 16, Finds Allies in His Fight Over Religion”. The American Civil Liberties Union, the People for the American Way Foundation, and a partner from a large Manhattan law firm have lent their support to Matthew LaClair. What does he need support for? Well, for starters his history teacher has said – in class-

“that if they [students] do not believe that Jesus died for their sins, they ‘belong in hell.’”

“that there were dinosaurs aboard Noah’s ark and that there is no scientific basis for evolution or the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe.”

Is this a Christian school? Is this a private school? No. So, when he secretly taped his teacher saying  such outrageous things, LaClair was supported by his school, right? No. It would seem that LaClair was the one in the wrong. He has been verbally attacked by schoolmates and the teacher is still teaching, though in a different classroom.

“Bernadette McDonald, president of the school board, said in a statement: ‘We took his concerns very seriously. The result was that we have recieved no further complaints about such religious proselytization in our schools.’”

Now, I am personally appalled by this apparent lack of concern. Even further, LaClair has been reprimanded for taping his teacher without permission. I know that this is standard policy, but doesn’t this situation prove that sometimes there is need for a secret taping? Otherwise LaClair would have no proof, as presumably, his teacher would have refused permission to tape him. Have you ever read the young adult novel, Speak? A similar situation arises.

This teacher made a very poor choice. In a public school, a teacher should be able to express opinions, but these opinions need to be firmly prefaced with the statement that they are not fact. A student needs to be able to disagree without consequences. Religion should not enter history discussions, unless the discussions are about the religion of the past.

Besides freedom of speech, we are also guaranteed freedom from persecution and freedom of relgion. So, even if this teacher was technically allowed to say such things in class, it was a very poor decision on his part. The school should advise its teachers to use tact. It should protect students from repercussions whenever possible, when the students express dissatisfaction or outrage in a responsible way, as LaClair has evidently done.

In this case, I would definitely side with the student. Separation of Church and State is made for a specific reason. If only one student is made to feel uncomfortable, and it can be proved that the teacher is preaching instead of teaching – stating instead of hypothesizing, and not allowing opposing viewpoints or discussion, then the school has a problem. School should be a place of exploration and friendly discussion. There should be acceptance, not damnation.

“Student, 16, Finds Allies in His Fight Over Religion” by Patrick McGeehan. The New York Times. read full article

bye, bye mickey-dee fries…

Critical pedagogy – using writing as a political statement can encourage students to become fired up about writing – targeting a specific audience about a subject they feel passionate about. What on earth does McDonald’s have to do with a discussion about teaching writing? Well, watching “Super Size Me” provides some food for thought.

Would using “Super Size Me” encourage students to write, using critical pedagogy? In my English class, we watched part of the documentary with this question in mind. Again  I was struck by the message of the film and felt my stomach turn at the idea of deep-fried, greasy foods – especially at the idea of eating nothing but these deep-fried, greasy foods for a whole thirty days! It seems like anyone must feel the same. (Of course, the feeling of repulsion did not extend to this weekend, when I thoroughly enjoyed a McDonald’s hamburger and fries.)

I would think students, upon viewing “Super Size Me” would have some clear opinions. School districts, and even Prince Charles apparently have. In an article from The Buffalo News, named “Goodbye Junk Food” a school districts attempts at providing a more balanced diet for their students is assessed. Interestingly, the article was written by a high school junior, so obviously some students do feel strongly about the subject of obesisty and junk food.

The high school, Clarence, has exchanged pop machines for water and juice and traded candy in for healthy snacks. Even the pizza and tacos still offered at lunch are healthier, using whole grains. There are also many more vegetable or salad options. Students would be happy about this, right? Thinking back to my high school days, I highly doubt it. The article affirmed my doubts.

“‘People should feel free to buy what they want. It’s not wrong to have healthy choices but it’s not giving them options,’ said Amherst senior Tracey Miltner.”

These students, who have directly seen the after affects of the growing concern about obesity in the U.S. and “Super Size Me”, would respond strongly to an assignment to assess the validity of such school actions. Knowing the rebellious nature of high school students, any change implemented would have its detractors, especially if this was a top-down movement.

“‘It’s funny because now that we’re banned from it, it’s like our school has formed a black market of it, and we’re putting more effort into getting the bad stuff. Kids are selling pop out of their lockers and Skittles out of their backpacks,’ said Shannon Smith.”

Hmm. I remember buying fries for lunch in high school. It felt so good to be able to make a meal out of whatever I wanted – and fries were cheap too. It was a rare treat for me. Most of the time I brought my lunch – a sandwich, fruit cup, and cookies or chips. I would imagine I was a pretty typical eater. If I were a teacher at  one of these effected schools, I think that this controversy over food changes would be a perfect opportunity to use critical pedagogy in the classroom.

How does everyone feel about the changes? What are injust about them? What is good about them? Can you think of a better route the school district could have taken? Is it possible to make everyone happy?

“Super Size Me” provides ample food for thought.

“Goodbye, Junk Food” by Allison Eck. The Buffalo News. read full article

Carrying the Banner – Washington Student Free-press Rights Bill

Rep. Dave Upthegrove, D-Des Moines has introduced a bill in Washington that would further protect high school and college students freedom of press. This is a very exciting move. Legislator pushing student press rights from The Oregonian reports upon this bill’s provisions, its precedents, and its opponents.

Michigan – come on! You’re lagging behind! I guess we need some activist students and teachers to bring the issue to the forefront … which will unfortunately most likely mean that an issue provoking the activism will have to happen. California, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Iowa, and Massachusetts have all passed similar laws for high schools as the one being proposed in Washington.

Apparently, many of these bills/laws are responding to the 2005 Hosty vs. Carter ruling. That ruling gave administrators in the Midwest the right to review student run newspapers if the papers are published under the name of the university. Since this law seems to be dealing primarily with college students, it is interesting that so many have also invested high school students with rights. Apparently, according the the article,

“in 1977, California adopted a law providing high school students with strong free press protections. It expanded that law in 1992 to extend that protection to private schools and to student speech activities outside of student media.”

Hmm. Thats pretty progressive. Washington has a lot of precedent to follow. Is this bill going to help or hurt Education? I mean, NCLB was supposed to be a wonderful help to providing our children with the best education possible. Is this another politically drafted bill that educators are not in favor of?

Well, what exactly is Upthegrove’s bill proposing?

“High school principals could still ask to see student publications before they went to press, but wouldn’t be able to censor or stop publication unless the material was obscene, libelous or slanderous. School officials would not be responsible for what the student publications printed, and could not be sued unless they altered the content.”

That sounds reasonable to me. Though not technically adults, high school students should be responsible for their own work and officials shouldn’t be punished. Students should be able to publish what they feel is important, so long as it isn’t “obscene, libelous or slanderous”. Granted, I have biases I’m probably not even aware of, but this bill seems perfectly reasonable and non controversial.

But, if it is common sense, why have so few states adopted similar measures protecting their students’ 1st Amendment rights? In my own high school experience, students’ clothing (and what is printed on it) is censured, students’ speech is censured, and, as I mentioned in a previous post, the newspaper also came under criticism. (Of course, these were all censurs to a certain extent – most of it I agree with). Students often feel that they have no control over their education. If high school students care enough to create a school newspaper, if they care enough to write articles and draw cartoons meaningful to them, why should we discourage this? As ‘our nation’s future’, shouldn’t we encourage them to develop and form opinions and safe ways to broadcast them?

Apparently, many principals would disagree with me.

“But Gary Kipp, executive director of the Association of Washington School Principals, said that most principals would be very concerned about the measure. He noted that schools exercise control over what material drama and choir classes perform.

“‘Schools have not given kids free rein to include in there anything they want to include just as long as it’s not libelous,’ he said. ‘I’m not sure why we would need a bill that would put student newspapers in a different category.’”

Kipp raises an interesting point. Should newspapers be different than drama and choir material, in regards to student freedom? I would extend the freedom of press/speech to include drama and choir, personally. But, where do you draw the line? I’m not sure. I can only hope that Upthegrove’s bill is passed and works. Hopefully it won’t turn out to be like Communism (great in theory, lousy in practice). 

“Legislator pushing student press rights.” by Rachel LaCorte. The Oregonian. Jan 28, 2007. See full article.

crossing the boundary between school and home

Having decided to tackle the topic of students’ right to free speech, I began to scan headlines for likely articles. I had some trouble at first, but Omegaword came through for me. Granted, this is an older blog, but still Why Johnny Won His Case is extremely relevant. Omegaword addresses the issue of:

“How far school administrators can extend their sphere of influence before running afoul of constitutional law.”

Apparently, school administrators have mistakenly been trying to censure students’ writing outside of school or school activities, especially on the internet and through email. However, Omegaword points out that, according to the Student Press Law Center’s Student Media Guide to Internet Law,

“Students, like all citizens, have strong First Amendment protection when it comes to expressing themselves off-campus. Public school officials cannot legally censor or punish a student for posting a personal homepage or weblog, publishing a Web-based “zine” or using a personal account to send e-mail outside of school from a home computer, even if the subject matter of the site is school-related or offensive. However, if the student accesses the Web site at school or urges others to do so, that activity could be treated no differently than any on-campus distribution of an independent publication.”

I am very glad that Omegaword included this quote, for it brings all kinds of questions and possibilities to my mind. For instance, apparently students cannot be punished for writing whatever they choose – be it vulgar or subversive or anything else – when they write/publish it on their own time on their own equipment. Hmm. What if other students access this writing on school grounds? Are they in trouble for reading it? Is the author in trouble, if they did not encourage the reading? And, for that matter, why is it wrong for a student to encourage classmates to read his or her work if they are in school?

One problem I had with Omegaword’s blog is that he/she did not provide any real life examples of school administration censorship. I guess I will just have to deal in “supposes”. I agree that students should not disrupt the learning environment of a school at the cost of their freedom of speech – to a certain point. Vulgarities and ignorant hate are not appropriate, but if a student, if Bob feels that his U.S. History teacher is not doing his job well … if Bob cares enough to write about it in his blog … how would it be wrong for Bob to show his blog to his friends in the school library during lunch?

The internet has opened up all sorts of possibilities for communication and expression. I think that it is wonderful that students’ First Amendment rights are protected as they are, because they (especially high school students) are preparing to enter the real world, and part of their education is forming opinions and learning how to express them in a constructive manner. I would think writing would be encouraged as a way to vent emotions. Not all emotions need to be broadcasted, but high schoolers should feel that they can share their thoughts and that they can make a difference. They are citizens of the U.S. and I’m glad the government is giving them the chance to exercise their rights outside of school censure (though I do think that it is slightly limited).

“Why Johnny Won His Case” Omegaword. November 4, 2006. Read full article.