Sean C. Morgan
School District 55 will convene a “reconsideration committee,” tentatively on Wednesday, Feb. 5, to begin deciding the fate of a book that language arts teachers are using in their eighth-grade classes.
The nine-member committee, selected on Monday evening by the School Board (see related article on page 5), will submit a judgment on how to handle the young adult novel “The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian,” by Sherman Alexie.
The novel is the first-person account of Junior, a high school freshman who lives on the Spokane Indian Reservation, as he leaves his troubled reservation high school for an all-white small-town high school near the reservation. The book deals with themes like racism, bullying, poverty, the value of education, alcoholism, girls, friendship and teenage life – related through the insecurities and other private thoughts of the 14-year-old protagonist. The story is based loosely on Alexie’s life.
Junior High language arts teachers Brian Gold and Chelsea Gagner started using the book in the classroom last year, but administrators pulled it because the use of the book did not follow the School District’s policy on rated PG-13 movies, which requires parental approval.
They believed the book would have been challenged last year if they had gone forward with using it, Gold said. This year the teachers decided to follow the district policy for rated PG-13 movies, hoping it would head off a challenge. They sent permission slips home, and at least 90 percent of students returned to school with approval.
Eighth-grade students with permission are studying the novel in class at present, as part of a unit on Native Americans, said Principal Colleen Henry. Those who do not have permission, 13 or 14 students, less than 10 percent, are allowed to select another book by a Native American writer and study it separately.
Supt. Don Schrader said he received complaints from three parents, prompting the formation of the reconsideration committee, he said. All it takes to begin the reconsideration process is a single complaint.
Schrader said he also talked about the book with one other parent.
“It’s a good book,” said Schrader, who read it last year. “Sherman Alexie is a great writer. It’s really about him.”
The book contains a horribly offensive statement in it, stating that Indians are living proof that “(n-word) (f-word) buffalo,” Schrader said. The writer is reporting what a bully said right before the Native American protagonist punches him in the nose. They later become friends.
In addition, it contains references and a joke about masturbation, other foul language and discussion, both metaphorical and physical, about physically reacting to a teacher and books.
The story is about what Junior goes through, Schrader said.
“Some parents think the content should be for older kids, and that’s the argument,” Schrader said.
The committee that will consider the book is normally supposed to be appointed annually, but it has never actually been appointed or convened, Schrader said, at least not in the past few years.
The parents who filed the complaints will have an opportunity to expand on what they’ve written, Schrader said. He also assumed that the committee will want to hear from the teachers as well.
Schrader said he would have allowed his children to read the book at that age. He knows his children, and they could talk about the content of the book with him.
“But I’m not saying I disagree with them at all,” Schrader said. “I know that parents should have a choice. I’ve actually had things I asked my children not to participate in.”
He expects that alternative assignments should be as good as the controversial assignment, Schrader said.
“For me, I believe in parents having a choice, and quite a number said OK,” Schrader said. “I think both are OK. I value parents and having parents make the ultimate decision.”
Parent Heidi Graham has read the book, she said, and she believes the foul language and crude humor take away from the positive themes in the novel. Her objection to the novel has nothing to do with the Native American culture portrayed in the novel. Her objection is simply the language and vulgarity in the novel.
She doesn’t want her daughter exposed to it, Graham said. “She honestly doesn’t know what some of those things are, and I don’t feel she should learn about them in literature class. It’s just something that doesn’t need to be in a book we’re using for curriculum.”
Students aren’t allowed to use that language, she said. “What message are we sending kids when we say you’re not allowed to say that word in the halls? We want to be ourselves setting the standard the district has set for us. We want to help them learn a higher standard than the words they hear and say in the halls.
“When teachers use it as curriculum, I think we need some better guidelines.”
Referring to a letter Gagner sent to parents along with permission slips, which outlined some positive themes in the book, Graham said, “I understand her points. I believe that a different book should be chosen for the curriculum.”
If the teachers want to teach about the Native American culture using a book by a Native American, it’s great, she said. “I don’t believe this is the only book to choose from.”
The list for alternate assignment includes many examples the teachers could use, she said.
“My hope is they’d choose a book that’s all-inclusive,” Graham said. She understands well that the novel resonates with the students, she said, but choosing this book excludes some students and parents who are not comfortable with it.
She added that the book is written at a fourth-grade level. Gagner said some put the grade level at two or five.
The standard requires students to read at or above their grade level, Graham said. The novel is less than grade level, so it doesn’t meet curriculum requirements.
Jennifer Maynard, another parent who has read the book, would not want her daughter to read it if she were in junior high, she said.
“I have read it twice. I didn’t find the language appropriate for the classroom.”
Kim Armstrong has a daughter in Gagner’s class who is not reading the novel by her own choice.
“She did not feel it was a book she wanted to read because of material that was in it,” Armstrong said. “And we stood by her decision.”
They were concerned about the profanity, vulgarity and some of the cartoons, Armstrong said. “From a parent’s standpoint, I do not think it’s something that should be allowed in the classroom when it goes against the student code of conduct.”
Giving students alternate assignments is OK, she said, as long as a teacher is available to facilitate it.
Parent Sarah Hicks hasn’t read the book, she said, but from what she’s heard from other parents, “I would definitely pull my son or daughter out for that.”
“I don’t think it’s something that needs to be taught to our children,” said Hicks, whose daughter will be in the eighth grade in a couple of years. “It would be nice if I didn’t need to worry about it.”
She added that she is concerned that other kids might make fun of those who are working on alternate assignments.
Principal Colleen Henry hasn’t heard that anything like that is happening, “but it’s not OK,” she said. “It’s not OK to look down on anyone who doesn’t want to read it. I really applaud the kids for standing up for what they believe in and parents too. It’s OK you don’t want to read this book.”
Gagner agreed.
“I have been talking to the kids about not ostracizing them,” she said.
Graham said that when her daughter is sent to another room to work on an alternate assignment, “I feel like my daughter is in the minority herself.”
The book deals with ostracism, she said. “The kids who can’t read this book, how do you think they feel?”
She said she’s concerned about her daughter’s “right to have a book everybody could read. It puts us in a minority. I’m not sure they considered that.” She has asked her daughter not to talk about the subject, but she has already been asked about it, and that makes the situation more awkward.
Officials should think about how these children feel, Graham said, especially given the theme of the story dealing with exclusion.
“This is a great opportunity to have this discussion,” said SHJH Principal Colleen Henry. “The great thing we get to do in a democracy is have a discussion like this.”
She is excited to see students talking about the themes of the book, she said, such as the idea that a good education breaks down the barriers of poverty.
Among the discussions in the classroom, students and teachers also talk about why the language in the book is not appropriate at school, Henry said.
Henry thinks the conversations about the book are worthwhile as well as the themes in the book.
“They’re getting to the age they’re starting to voice opinions: I like this. I don’t like this,” Henry said. “It’s very important they learn to talk to people you disagree with, to train kids to talk with different opinions and use critical thinking. There are worse things to talk about than books and, I guess, ideas. I really appreciate the parents coming and sharing their concerns about the book.”
Gold said he read “The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian” in 2011, when one of his colleagues, Adam Wieland taught it in the alternative education class at the Junior High. It excited him, and he started planning. Another teacher, Helen Cannon, was planning to teach it too. They were thinking about using it in the seventh grade, but Gagner convinced them to use it in the eighth grade.
“We have four different highly qualified English teachers separately reading this book without talking to each other deciding they want to teach this book,” Gold said. “This book is a book kids are loving.”
Students who don’t like to read can’t wait to read this book, he said. He has had more positive reaction to this book than any other, even the works of Shakespeare, which until now, was the most popular with the junior high students.
“I really think this is an ideal seventh- or eighth-grade novel,” Gold said. Given how much people talk about doing something about the graduation rate and having kids feel connected, Gold thinks it’s sad that a novel with such success is being challenged.
“The conversation that came out of it was incredible today,” Gagner said. She asked her students whether the protagonist, Junior, responded appropriately to the bully who described the reproductive cycle of Native Americans.
Themes of tolerance and the interactions among the whites and Indians segue to more discussion, she said. It catches their attention and shocks the students when Junior says, “Let me tell you about the weirdest fight I ever got into.”
Junior’s best friend’s dad beats his friend horribly, Gagner said. The class talks about why the friend, Rowdy, downplays that in context of the culture on the reservation.
The book confronts alcoholism and drunken driving along with the death alcoholism causes on the reservation, something close to home for Sweet Home and for Gagner.
Gagner is able to connect the book to real life in Sweet Homeby pointing to a cross erected on North River Drive. The cross marks the point where her sister, Amy Maisto, died with two others in a crash while riding with a drunken driver 10 years ago. The cross is still there, and the students know about it although they didn’t know anything about it.
It’s a real-life connection to ideas in the novel, Gagner said. In the story, Junior receives a ride to school on a motorcycle from his father’s drunk best friend.
“In the next 5 to 10 years, when you’re in these situations, you have to think about the decisions, the consequences,” Gagner said.
They examine why Alexie organizes the novel the way he does and how he uses different grammatical structures.
They talk about whether Alexie should have censored himself more when he wrote the book.
“When language from this novel is held up as offensive, it is usually the language of this setting, the antagonist, the bad guy, not the protagonist of the novel,” Gagner said in a letter to parents. “The voice of the narrator is that of a kind, caring and incredibly authentic 14-year-old child, not some monster from another world. If there is a moral to this story, it’s that one can rise above even the most absurdly obscene, frustrating and tragic of circumstances.
“To point to the oppression that the protagonist fights against or the times he admits that it weakens and depresses his spirit, to then say that this makes it a controversial book, well, that is a sad and misguided way of reading this literature.
“It is a complicated, real-world story that hits incredibly close to home with any child battling poverty. It is gritty and rough at times, but it always speaks with the innocence, purity and heart of a child.”
“This is something they can connect to,” Gagner said. “Literature that’s taught in the classroom needs to be great literature. This is one of the greatest books I’ve ever read, and it’s written for kids. He’s the most relevant Native American writer ever.”
She noted that he is the recipient of numerous awards and accolades.
On the permission slip, Gagner included comments from students. Most of them support using the book. They find it an honest story they can relate to as teenagers. Many of them note that the objectionable items in this novel are things they hear in the halls of their school and elsewhere constantly.
“The kids know what’s happening,” she said. “We feel they should be part of the conversation.”
At the same time, she said, they haven’t talked about it in class.
Graham said the students’ views of the book should not be a factor in whether it is acceptable in the classroom.
“I really don’t believe it’s best to involve the kids in the controversy,” she said. “We don’t look to the opinions of children what the curriculum is.”
Those quotes shouldn’t be the deciding factor for the district, she said.
“I hope people consider it carefully,” Graham said. “We’ll move on, and it’ll be fine.”