The two words at the crux of subsequent meetings of the Hamilton County Board of Education’s special committee on school reading materials may be “continually” and “monitored.”
The committee was convened by board chair Tucker McClendon in December after school board member Rhonda Thurman cited examples of books in school libraries that contained explicit sexual references and extensive cursive language.
In its first meeting earlier this week, the committee seemed agreeable to focus on school board policy 4.402-3, which appears to set different procedures for the selection of instructional materials other than textbooks and the selection of optional reading materials in the classroom or library.
For instructional materials, it directs that both “an administrative procedure for review and selection of materials” and “a procedure for the reconsideration of approved materials as may be requested by parents or staff members” would be established by the superintendent of schools or his designee.
It’s not clear whether both or either or neither of these procedures have been established and if they have been established for the district as a whole or for individual schools.
For optional reading materials, it acknowledges “there may be sensitive content contained in these books that was not previously reviewed by school personnel” but that such books “will continually be monitored.” If such material is found, it goes on to say, “parents should alert the administration,” which would then reconsider them as they would with instructional materials.
As with the procedures for the instructional materials, it’s not clear that such items have been “continually monitored.”
It seems to us it is incumbent upon the committee to determine if the procedures are being followed for instructional materials, if the procedures are being handled on a district or school-by-school basis, and what constitutes materials with “sensitive content” being “continually monitored.”
That’s job one, and the easy part.
Among the harder tasks are acknowledging that different parents have different ideas about what is “sensitive material.” Where some parents would prefer materials with no sexual references and no objectionable language, others have no qualms about their children reading the same sexual references and language they see on pay cable channels, hear in their music lyrics and experience in their video games.
And it’s worth the committee thinking about the ages at which any “sensitive material” is appropriate, if at all, for students before they’re deemed an adult. Is it middle school? Ninth grade? Tenth? What?
Even at that, it’s feasible that a random ninth-grader may be mature enough to read “sensitive material” and not be overly affected by it, but a random 12th-grader might not.
It should also be considered that some students have relationships with their parents in which they can ask questions about “sensitive material” and receive honest, unbiased answers while others have no one at home to whom they can ask questions.
It is not an easy job this committee has if its members want to consider all of the above.
It’s also fair to ask how much the public should trust those in charge of selecting instructional materials. But if they can’t trust the professionals to do the right thing, in most cases, a wide crack is surely spreading across public education. On the other hand, some say that crack is already there and has been widening for the last 50 years.
Some would argue that the community standards of 50 years ago aren’t the same as they are today, and that we must lean toward what is current. Others would say what was unacceptable in book references 50 years ago should be unacceptable today.
At a minimum, we would say if the words “continually” and “monitored” are to be kept in the district policy for non-instructional materials, a committee to do just that should be formed from parents, teachers and librarians. Optimally, every school should have such a committee, but we already can hear the laughter at the request for such wide participation.
Lacking that, surely a district committee to monitor such books could be formed. If the committee divides on the use of particular materials, allow the librarian at the individual school where the material is to be placed to be the tiebreaker. At least, a chain of responsibility will have been established.
The truth is we’ll never all agree on what materials are appropriate at what age for what school. But consideration must be made both for the reading independence of students and the appropriateness of such materials in the eyes of parents.
How to reach that middle ground and “continually monitor” that material will be the quandary.