Franklin Regional receives little feedback about literature anthologies
Franklin Regional parents and community members have given little feedback on a series of literature anthologies slated to be used at the high school this fall, officials said.
The books, which were criticized by three school board members last month, have been examined by several visitors who have offered little comment, said Shelley Shaneyfelt, director of instructional services and public relations. Several board members lauded the books as exciting and engaging after a review.
“These new books are more exciting for our students than what we had,” board member Roberta Cook said. “They fit better with the world our grandchildren live in.”
Board member Jane Tower, who had criticized the books last month for not emphasizing Americanism enough, said she had the opportunity to compare the proposed texts with the current, out-of-date books the district is using. She said she saw little content difference between the editions.
After discussing the texts with a high school English teacher, Tower said, she feels reassured that students will ask questions that encourage the students to think critically. She and board member Larry Borland had criticized some of the questions asked after essays — including philosophical questions such as “does everyone have a dark side” — but after meeting with a teacher, Tower said she wasn't as worried. The teacher, who Tower did not name, said those questions rarely are used.
“Some of the questions are not quite as leading as others were,” Tower said. “The teacher I spoke with said she focuses on what can be learned from the reading to build analytical thinking.”
Tower said she still worries about the “touchy-feely” questions, but was reassured by the fact that the teens don't seem interested in them.
Shaneyfelt said teachers want to engage the students but sometimes, the questions in a textbook aren't going to do the trick.
“If that's not what's exciting to our kids, that's not what teachers are going to use,” Shaneyfelt said.
Tower said she doesn't want the board to micromanage curriculum. However, she wants to offer parents “some level of comfort” about what their children are reading after some parents complained that an elective literature course used Allen Ginsberg's “Howl.” After the complaints, district officials removed the beat poem — which had been on a list of accepted readings since 2007 — from the curriculum.
Board member Dennis Irvine said he reviewed the books and had no problem with the level of analyzing or critical thinking that was expected.
“I was somewhat surprised by the short nature of the essays,” said Irvine, a former teacher. “The teacher has to be on top of things to provide meaningful background.”
The board is slated to approve the purchase of the books on Monday. The district plans to purchase one set of anthologies for each classroom; however, students won't be taking them home. Instead, they will have access to an online version of the textbook, Shaneyfelt said. The books are a continuation of the series of literature books that have been used in seventh- and eighth-grade English for the past five years, Shaneyfelt said.
Daveen Rae Kurutz is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-856-7400, ext. 8627, or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.