Stacy Langton, a mother of six and parent representative of Fairfax County, VA, related her experience when justifying the removal of two books from the district's public schools. During an interview on Fox News, she posed the question, "Who puts the materials in our children's school libraries?"
She wanted to know how certain literary materials came to their schools, almost as if they snuck onto the shelves overnight. Other schools in neighboring counties held the same books, so to blame the librarians is a baseless argument. However, the whole affair does seem to reek of intervention... specifically by an innominate figure.
There was a general belief among parents who send their children to school that the schools have the best interests of their students in mind. All participating members-from the teachers to the board- had a role to provide an adequate education to those who would, in turn, apply their skills productively and meaningfully in their communities. Subjects such as math, science, history, and English were held standards that were not suggestions but requirements. Yet schools have compromised a level of trust between the ambiguous leaders of educational institutions in lieu of promoting their own agendas. If they were not so blatant about it, that could be my own speculation. But the truth of the matter is that schools are trying to rush a child's development by exposing them to non-age-appropriate concepts.
This includes the kinds of books allowed in schools.
Up until this point, I've argued that censorship has no place in the publication process or dispersion of intellectual and creative thought. It goes against the First Amendment, not to mention the ethical composition this nation was built upon. Yet there is a difference between allowing content to be written and the indoctrination of such topics to young, impressionable minds.
Think back to when you were in elementary school. What kind of books were you required to read? Which books did you willingly read (if you did) outside the classroom? Now compare that to books you've read in high school. Is there a difference?
For me, reading was more than a hobby. It was a passion (as it remains today). Anything I could get my hands on I buried myself in its pages until the very last chapter. From a young age, I cruised through Tolkien, Lewis, and Austen like how other kids read Divergent or Hunger Games. It was hard to relate to my classmates because what we read differed significantly in content, themes, etc. Even so, we all took on novels and series if we thought we were up to the challenge. My failed attempt to get through Anna Karenina in 7th grade was futile because I didn't have the literary maturity to take on such an extensive novel. So why does the notion that kids should not be exposed to mature topics at a young age receive protests and blatant disregard in today's society?
One answer: assumption.
Lily Talley of the Seattle Learning Center summarizes, "We cannot expect infants to retain skills as older children or adults do. It is our responsibility as parents to make every effort to ensure that the adults to whom we entrust our children’s care are going to look out for our children’s welfare."
Parents know their children best. They distill proper examples and a moral code within them so that their children, in turn, integrate properly into society. By "properly," I do not mean upholding an arbitrary status quo; what I mean is that they know how to behave and regard others in a socially acceptable manner. Parents recognize the struggles of raising their children, especially with the gradual introduction of serious topics and ideas.
Dr. David Elkind is the professor of Child Study and Senior Resident Scholar at Tufts University. In his book, Miseducation, he delves into one possible explanation as to this rising phenomenon. He states that, "Expecting, indeed demanding, that children grow up fast was one way of avoiding the expenditure of energy that goes along with parenthood" (Elkind 4).
Not only can parents get caught up in creating "superkids" (Ibid 11), but schools follow this example in an attempt to rush a child's development. Why? Why is it so necessary for children to become social justice activists before they understand what any of those words mean? If younger generations are exposed to ideas adults are still unfamiliar with, what chance do kids have of comprehending it? The fact of the matter is children's capacity for knowledge is determined by their mental maturity and growth. Just because we shove a progressive book in their hands at a young age does not mean they will retain what we expect them to from it.
Dr. Elkind goes on to say, "We can change the level of the content and the methods we use to instruct children, but we cannot change the ways in which children learn" (Ibid 44-45).
I wouldn't be the reader I am today if I wasn't exposed to the classics. But I certainly would've been opposed to them if I dove straight into Pride and Prejudice or Twelfth Night without prior reading experience. I'm definitely not arguing that children should not have the capability to read what they want (that is in alignment with the First Amendment, after all). However, the argument reflects what Stacy Langston questioned at her court meeting in Fairfax County: "Who puts the materials in our children's school libraries?"
We uncovered the "why"... now it is a matter of uncovering the "who" and what we can do about it.
Comments
Post a Comment