Anne Frank's diary = porn?!

[Kheldarson]

Curriculum's should be set by educators to meet specific goals, not by parents who want to shield children from certain subjects. Our educational system is going to shit because non-educators are controlling what goes into curriculum and textbooks: subjects like evolution and history are being rewritten to favor specific worldviews instead of reflecting real science or real history. Limiting literature in this way impacts the educators ability to teach kids not simply to read, but to analyze the subject matter. Potential positive benefits of reading uncomfortable material are ignored by parents who give in to fear.

No, it's going to shit because parents aren't getting involved in their kids education and lives and expecting the system (gov't, board of education, teachers) to raise their kids for them. That means that the system gets to make the determinations of what's best for all, even though a one size fits all model never works for education.

I don't think parents should be given a heads up on everything in the curriculum. At best, it should be available for the parents to review at the beginning of the school year. They can object then.

If they're too afraid to speak out, that's their problem.

That's still basically the same thing. If the parent was given no warning, how can they object ahead of time?

And an educator's idea of what's best for my child to be exposed to at a particular time may be different than mine. Because guess what? They're still my kid and I get to have a say in what they're exposed to. They may not have the understanding yet for whatever reason (great personal example: I could read at a 12th grade level by 7th grade. My aunt gave me Tess of d'Ubervilles to read. I had no clue what was going on in that book because I had no comprehension or desire to comprehend sex at that time. Sexual connotation in books completely eluded me until late high school).

My ability to help my patients comes from my background in the liberal arts. Understanding how people work comes not just from basic psychology (Maslow, Erickson, Piaget), it comes from the stories we tell about ourselves in literature. Limiting access to those stories limits our ability to learn about people different from ourselves and to learn how to empathize with them.

That's why I'm passionate about liberal arts education, and the subject of censorship. It doesn't protect kids, it harms them in the long run because they don't learn to have honest discussions of tough subjects . . . often subjects they are thinking about anyway.

I don't believe we should censor either, but I do believe that parents should be allowed to say "I don't want my kids exposed to such and such at this time. Like I said above, sex in books completely eluded me. My mom realized this after a while and found other material for me to read or would talk to me about things if it popped up in required reading. (My mom was awesome about our education though.) A teacher wouldn't have known this. It doesn't come up in class or they just assume everyone's on the same page because who wants to be the kid who asks questions in middle school?

Plus, there's also a question of purpose. Given that I read the book in it's "fully edited" form, I read a tale of a young woman who endured something awful while keeping a optimistic view. Does having a copy that now includes her budding sexuality help with that purpose? Does it detract? Is it necessary to the purpose of having it in the curriculum? These are the things parents and teachers should be collaborating on, particularly in elementary and middle school levels.

Actually, she's not thinking it through. If a teenager in the 1940's could think of these issues in a much more sexually repressive time, what does she think is going on in HER kids heads?

Sex is all around us. We can't escape it; it permeates our marketing and consumption of goods. Kids think about these things. They need a safe forum to explore these ideas, and while it sounds great to say parents should guide their kids on this subject the fact is at this age kids want nothing to do with their parents on this subject. But they will listen to well trained adults who allow them to express themselves, and work through those thoughts and ideas in a safe environment like a classroom.

And sex is also a moral aspect for some families. It doesn't matter if it's all around, we still try to keep some control over how much our kids are exposed to it. My mom was fairly open about the process and allowing us to learn about the process in school, but she was very fierce on keeping us from viewing things that showed sex in immoral ways. Did she keep us from them entirely? No, because we were still kids and kids always find a way. And she relaxed as we got older. But she still wanted to know what we were being exposed to so we could learn how it relates to our faith.

[Panacea]

First, do we or don't we want the parents involved in their children's education? If we want them involved, we're going to have to actually, you know, involve them and be willing to deal with what that entails.


Wow. I'm sure 7th graders everywhere speak up about everything, right?

We want parents to support educational goals, not undermine them by disrupting curricula. Oping out for their kid is fine; this mom did that, that's not what I take issue with. What I take issue with is this mom, who has no background in education, wanting to remove a book from the curriculum because she went "ick," and having no understanding of the benefits of discussing complicated subjects can be.

I was talking about the parents, not the 7th graders.

No, it's going to shit because parents aren't getting involved in their kids education and lives and expecting the system (gov't, board of education, teachers) to raise their kids for them. That means that the system gets to make the determinations of what's best for all, even though a one size fits all model never works for education.

While uninvolved parents is a problem, the educational system is damn near schizophrenic with the morass of regulations, paperwork, and dumbing down of curriculum based on the religious preferences of a vocal minority. That's done far more damage than involved parents. Education would not be daycare if teachers were actually allowed to teach.

That's still basically the same thing. If the parent was given no warning, how can they object ahead of time?

If parents take time to review the curriculum early, they can spot these things. That goes back to parental involvement. If not, they can always opt out when the subject comes up. The kid's not going to read a book over night in most cases.

And an educator's idea of what's best for my child to be exposed to at a particular time may be different than mine. Because guess what? They're still my kid and I get to have a say in what they're exposed to. They may not have the understanding yet for whatever reason (great personal example: I could read at a 12th grade level by 7th grade. My aunt gave me Tess of d'Ubervilles to read. I had no clue what was going on in that book because I had no comprehension or desire to comprehend sex at that time. Sexual connotation in books completely eluded me until late high school).

That's fine. I don't have an issue with individual parents opting out. I have an issue with parents changing the curriculum for everybody.

Plus, there's also a question of purpose. Given that I read the book in it's "fully edited" form, I read a tale of a young woman who endured something awful while keeping a optimistic view. Does having a copy that now includes her budding sexuality help with that purpose?

I think it does help that purpose; it makes Anne more human and relatable to modern kids. That's important.

And sex is also a moral aspect for some families. It doesn't matter if it's all around, we still try to keep some control over how much our kids are exposed to it. My mom was fairly open about the process and allowing us to learn about the process in school, but she was very fierce on keeping us from viewing things that showed sex in immoral ways. Did she keep us from them entirely? No, because we were still kids and kids always find a way. And she relaxed as we got older. But she still wanted to know what we were being exposed to so we could learn how it relates to our faith.

I'm not advocating promiscuity. I agree that kids tend to be immature about sex. But I think frank discussions with them about the changes their bodies are going through will help them make better decisions. That and support from their families when they do make mistakes builds better character than condemnation.

I certainly don't think kids should go willy nilly into sexual adventures at that age. Advocating restraint, even abstinence has benefits. But the physical urges are still there, and the consequences of biology can't be ignored just because we want to indulge in wishful thinking.

Encourage moral behavior while acknowledging that the changes they are undergoing are both real and confusing to them. Kids can learn to explore their emerging sexuality without jumping into bed with someone before they are ready, if the parent is frank and upfront about what's going on.

Problem is, too many parents want to ignore sexuality altogether. I know my mother did. The only thing she ever told me about sex was not to bring home a black baby (I'm white, btw). My mother is a good person, and not generally racist except on this one issue (I had a close black friend who Mom feared I was dating--I wasn't). But that was it. Everything I learned about sex I had to learn on my own, and it meant I was in a vulnerable position. I wish my parents had been more open and nurturing on this subject rather than let me stumble my way through it.

[Hyena Dandy]

Honestly, I don't know why someone would be shocked Anne Frank's diary had sexuality in it.

Teenage Girl Interested In Sex. News at 11

[Andara Bledin]

I was talking about the parents, not the 7th graders.

But it was the 7th graders who felt "ick" not the parents (or in addition to the parents).

As for curriculums: I'd never seen one until I hit college.

I've never read the book. My brother never read the book. Hell, some of the books we did read are really actually quite awful, but they get left on the curriculum because nobody wants to rock the boat.

[siead_lietrathua]

I finally got home and was able to find an article that contained a passage from the unedited version. This is apparently the passage that is causing problems....

wait, that's what they are mad over? geez there is sexier stuff in the bible than that.
while i agree that parents have a right to know and approve what their kids read, i also agree that sex should not be hidden from teens, but talked about in a clinical and offhand manner, like that diary passage.
heck we had our first sex ed classes in grade 6, which would be around 12 years old. you want kids learning about sex before girls start having menstral cycles so they would know of potential consequences. i would rather see educated kids that know the real, physical consequences of sex, not just the moral sin crap, so that we don't have more pregnant teens running around. after all, even a ten year old can get knocked up if she is having periods.

[Panacea]

But it was the 7th graders who felt "ick" not the parents (or in addition to the parents).

As for curriculums: I'd never seen one until I hit college.

I've never read the book. My brother never read the book. Hell, some of the books we did read are really actually quite awful, but they get left on the curriculum because nobody wants to rock the boat.

Really? Like what?

Granted, there were some books I was assigned to read in school that I didn't care for at the time . . . and came to like much later. The works of Mark Twain, for example. Hamlet.

What many of these works teach us is how to read and evaluate the messages within the works themselves. That's how we learn critical thinking. In school, we're not reading the books simply to enjoy them for their own sake, but to learn this process.

But feeling an "ick" isn't a reason to stop reading the book, but rather an opportunity for a discussion about why it evoked the response it did, what it means, and what it might have meant for Anne Frank. That's where the learning process begins.