Why not burn books?
Censorship is alive and well in at least one Indiana school.
Connie Heermann, a teacher for 27 years, sought permission to introduce the book to her students last autumn after attending a training workshop held by the Freedom Writers Foundation. “If you read the whole book you will see how these inner-city students grow and change and become articulate, compassionate, educated young people who want to do something good in their lives despite the environment in which they were raised,” she told the Guardian. “I thought my students would very much relate to those kids.”
Her head agreed and Heermann got written permission from nearly 150 parents, but the Perry Meridian high school board urged her to wait for its decision.
Teachers’ union officials say that a single board member objected to swearing in the book. The school board member allegedly persuaded the other six officials to ban Heermann from teaching the book. It remains available in school libraries.
Keep in mind that these children are high school age and that most of them have, at one time or another, already heard the swearing that one school board member objected to. Not only that, but according to the article, the students were already reading and enjoying the book when the teacher was instructed not to teach it.
Searching through Amazon books I read the reviews of this book. Most were rated 5 stars. But a few were rated 1 and I have no doubt that those few were the same kind of people that suspended Heerman because she had the audacity to want to teach kids how to write well. An example:
By Margie “Teacher” (Virginia) - See all my reviews
I believe Erin Gruwell taught the classes. I believe she took the kids on great field trips and got them involved in great topics, with great speakers. I believe they achieved, and learned to express themselves.
I don’t believe angry, academically behind ninth graders wrote three pages for their first journal entries of the year. I don’t believe they were as analytical of their situations as she says. I certainly don’t believe that was the grammar or spelling of an ESOL student, or a student reading on a third grade level.
If she really taught these kids - she should have put in what they really wrote.
I’ve taught kids for thirty years. Urban juvenile delinguents to priveleged suburban kids. Nobody is writing like that on the first day of school.
I’d like to hear from the teacher across the hall. I’d like to see copies of the actual jounal entries - I find it suspicious that these aren’t included.
It’s a shame that a good tale is marred by what appears to me to be fraud.
Emphasis mine, of course. (I would like to note that I am not a teacher and have never claimed to be.)
The above comment was made by a teacher. Of 30 years, no less. One who, apparently, isn’t aware of spellcheck and/or grammatical accuracy. This is the type of person that would object to an inspiring tale being taught in a classroom of impressionable young people. Why should these students strive to achieve better when this teacher doesn’t strive to improve herself? Another sad case of “I do it this way and no other way is good”. Bah! Censorship like this is for cowards. Those that are happy with the status quo and who sweat at the mere thought of anything changing- for good or bad. It’s disgusting to me that a teacher is muzzled like this while there are still teachers that willingly tell their teachers that the world was created exactly 6,000 years ago. It really makes my head spin.
Popularity: 8% [?]
Sphere: Related ContentCredit Card Fees address- what about insurance?
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Federal Reserve is taking public comments until Aug. 4 about sweeping rules changes that have been proposed. Among those changes, credit card companies may be required to put a larger portion of consumer payments to higher debt as opposed to the cheaper debt such as balance transfers.
Among other things, the sweeping set of changes would prohibit credit-card companies, in some instances, from hitting you with a higher interest rate on debt you’ve already incurred.
Another change: Issuers would be required to apply at least a portion of consumer payments to higher-rate debt. Some issuers put payments first to cheaper debt, such as balance transfers that have low rates, rather than to higher-rate purchases.
The proposed rules also would prohibit “two-cycle billing,” in which banks compute interest on debt on days preceding the most recent billing cycle, a practice that can result in borrowers paying interest on debt paid off during the previous month’s grace period.
Of course, the credit card companies are saying this is bad news for consumers, because this could raise rates and create fewer options for people looking for the best rates. Over 9,000 comments have been posted to the Federal Reserve site (federalreserve.gov), most in favor of the rule changes.
Personally, I think this is good for consumers who have a higher debt, because the payments would go toward eliminating a bigger portion of the debt- thereby eliminating some of the higher interest rates. I realize that credit card companies are in the habit of making money (aren’t we all?) but the almost unreadable fine print on their “great” offers leaves a lot to be desired and can almost be blamed for such high rates of bankruptcy filings.
It’s great that Congress is stepping up to address these issues too. However, I think instead of focusing so much attention on getting people the ability to spend more money via credit card (which is a bad idea, in my opinion) they should look at some other, more important and less noticeable goings on. For instance, the fact that insurance companies are getting out of paying benefits thanks to laws disallowing subscribers to sue them.
But Spherion Corp., the temporary staffing company where Amschwand worked, told Amschwand-Bellinger she would not receive any of the $426,000 in benefits she believed she was due. When she went to court, Spherion succeeded in getting her lawsuit thrown out. The Supreme Court on June 27 refused to review the case.
Amschwand-Bellinger received a refund of the few thousand dollars in insurance premiums she and her husband dutifully had paid. The total, she said, would not cover the costs of his funeral.
The story has played out often under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Designed to protect employee benefits, the law has been used by employers as a shield against suits.
Amschwand-Bellinger’s husband died without knowing that he could go back to work for one day to receive his full benefits. His employer as well as the insurance company assured him that there was nothing else he needed to do to ensure that his wife received his life insurance benefits. What his employer failed to tell him was that they changed plans and this new policy didn’t go into effect until the employee worked one full day. Mr. Amschwand could have managed to go back to work for one day if he would have known. As it happened, his wife received only the premiums he paid for his insurance, which weren’t even enough to pay for his funeral. She goes on to say:
“What if we had had children and I was a stay at home mom?” said Amschwand-Bellinger, who previously worked for a public hospital system. “What if I was 60 years old, with no skill sets, and I had to go back to work?”
It’s unbelievable that today when people pay for their insurance benefits (much more money than a lot of folks can afford easily) they are denied because of small loopholes that benefit only the insurance companies. Of course they didn’t want Mr. Amschwand to know about the policy changes. They knew he was terminally ill. They didn’t want to pay. They didn’t have to. And Mrs. Armschwand-Bellinger can thank the legislature for that.
Popularity: 5% [?]
Sphere: Related Content
