SW Missouri District bans 2 books, including Slaughterhouse5

mikepegg44

Go Beavers wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

Here's a link to the DOE page:

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/focus/what_pg2.html#howdoes

The first thought that comes to my mind is that funding can, in a sense, balance things out for the poorer states.

I found links to websites with generalized answers. I was asking you if you knew what they did. Funding doesn't balance out anything...teaching to national standardized tests doesn't make for a good education...neither does tying funding to the results of those tests.
As far as education loans to students...that might be the biggest boondoggle of them all. it seems to me, and I could be wrong certainly, that continually raising the out put of stafford loans so that students can "afford" the rising costs of tuition by going further and further into debt simply allows for the rising costs of tuition. Meaning colleges know that the federal government will continue to raise the amount that they give out to students based on the costs of tuition at a university so they know that they can keep raising them up while offering nothing new to the students except more crowded class rooms so that the university can pay for research projects for the professors who aren't really there to teach anyway ... I wonder if state schools would be charging 18000-20000 a year in tuition for 35000 students if the feds weren't subsidizing most of it. Maybe the cost of a college education would be fucking reasonable. who knows, none of us ever will because attacking the department of education and the programs there in makes one ...how was it said...bat-shit crazy...

Do you want me to defend the DOE's existence?

It sounds like your suggesting that DOE is colluding with universities with regard to the rising tuition, which for public universities, is around $7,000 to $7,500 a year, not $18,000.

I'm not sure how a low interest loan is a boondoggle. The loan amounts also haven't kept pace with the rise in tuition amount, and many are denied federal aid. Also, federal Pell grants aren't loans.

Please don't tell me how much the school I attend costs now. 448 a credit, 640 for out of state. Full time student at 15 credits is 6700 or 9600 depending, a semester. for the 120 credits that is 53,000 for a degree. 53,000 for a degree. that is of course if there are no tuition hikes during that time. That doesn't count living on campus, or not, which would mean for most people more student loans. I realize not all of them are federal, but lots of them are... add room and board and what do you have?
No i do not think they are colluding. I think the program was started with great intentions but has now created a situation that universities count on to continue to grow. Administrators are running businesses.
Ask yourself one question, if the universities couldn't count on a large portion of their students getting financial aid...do you think they would be able to grow at the rate they grow and charge what they charge?
Without that money, tuition rates would HAVE to go down as the amount of people who can "afford" school wouldn't drop to the point that the universities would either have to double the cost, or have tuition at the very least stagnate and stay the same year in and year out. Without government help Most universities would have to charge less to keep the same number of students. At least that is how I feel about it.
I realize grants are not loans. I am not an idiot. People leave state schools in debt, that is unless they go part time and work full time. Even then it becomes more and more difficult to pay the bills. The answer isn't more federal loans, it is a complete and utter overhaul of our education system.

Go Beavers

mikepegg44 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

The first thought that comes to my mind is that funding can, in a sense, balance things out for the poorer states.

I found links to websites with generalized answers. I was asking you if you knew what they did. Funding doesn't balance out anything...teaching to national standardized tests doesn't make for a good education...neither does tying funding to the results of those tests.
As far as education loans to students...that might be the biggest boondoggle of them all. it seems to me, and I could be wrong certainly, that continually raising the out put of stafford loans so that students can "afford" the rising costs of tuition by going further and further into debt simply allows for the rising costs of tuition. Meaning colleges know that the federal government will continue to raise the amount that they give out to students based on the costs of tuition at a university so they know that they can keep raising them up while offering nothing new to the students except more crowded class rooms so that the university can pay for research projects for the professors who aren't really there to teach anyway ... I wonder if state schools would be charging 18000-20000 a year in tuition for 35000 students if the feds weren't subsidizing most of it. Maybe the cost of a college education would be fucking reasonable. who knows, none of us ever will because attacking the department of education and the programs there in makes one ...how was it said...bat-shit crazy...

Do you want me to defend the DOE's existence?

It sounds like your suggesting that DOE is colluding with universities with regard to the rising tuition, which for public universities, is around $7,000 to $7,500 a year, not $18,000.

I'm not sure how a low interest loan is a boondoggle. The loan amounts also haven't kept pace with the rise in tuition amount, and many are denied federal aid. Also, federal Pell grants aren't loans.

Please don't tell me how much the school I attend costs now. 448 a credit, 640 for out of state. Full time student at 15 credits is 6700 or 9600 depending, a semester. for the 120 credits that is 53,000 for a degree. 53,000 for a degree. that is of course if there are no tuition hikes during that time. That doesn't count living on campus, or not, which would mean for most people more student loans. I realize not all of them are federal, but lots of them are... add room and board and what do you have?
No i do not think they are colluding. I think the program was started with great intentions but has now created a situation that universities count on to continue to grow. Administrators are running businesses.
Ask yourself one question, if the universities couldn't count on a large portion of their students getting financial aid...do you think they would be able to grow at the rate they grow and charge what they charge?
Without that money, tuition rates would HAVE to go down as the amount of people who can "afford" school wouldn't drop to the point that the universities would either have to double the cost, or have tuition at the very least stagnate and stay the same year in and year out. Without government help Most universities would have to charge less to keep the same number of students. At least that is how I feel about it.
I realize grants are not loans. I am not an idiot. People leave state schools in debt, that is unless they go part time and work full time. Even then it becomes more and more difficult to pay the bills. The answer isn't more federal loans, it is a complete and utter overhaul of our education system.

Not saying you're an idiot, just saying that Pell grants are something that comes from the DOE. Also, I was giving the average cost of tuition, not tuition at your school. I'll make the argument that tuition increase has come from the decrease in funding from the state and federal level. If enrollment declines, what's going to be cut is services, not tuition.

The American higher education system is the best in the world, although that status is being challenged more and more recently. It doesn't need a complete overhaul in order to reduce the level of tuition increases.

BinauralJam

pjhawks wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

That same kid your trying to protect is allowed to watch the news right? what could be more horrifying? but if we stop them from reading this book, everything will be alright then. You cant stop kids from information now a days, it comes in too many varities.

did you read the part where it said the books could be read for extra work/credit? again that's not censorship but a CHOICE to not have it a part of the curriculum or in their library. every school has only so much space in their library so choices have to be made on what books to include and not include. these books were chosen not to be a part of that - that's not censorship if they are still ALLOWED to read the books for some credit.

I missed that, i see what your saying, good point.

mikepegg44

Go Beavers wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

I found links to websites with generalized answers. I was asking you if you knew what they did. Funding doesn't balance out anything...teaching to national standardized tests doesn't make for a good education...neither does tying funding to the results of those tests.
As far as education loans to students...that might be the biggest boondoggle of them all. it seems to me, and I could be wrong certainly, that continually raising the out put of stafford loans so that students can "afford" the rising costs of tuition by going further and further into debt simply allows for the rising costs of tuition. Meaning colleges know that the federal government will continue to raise the amount that they give out to students based on the costs of tuition at a university so they know that they can keep raising them up while offering nothing new to the students except more crowded class rooms so that the university can pay for research projects for the professors who aren't really there to teach anyway ... I wonder if state schools would be charging 18000-20000 a year in tuition for 35000 students if the feds weren't subsidizing most of it. Maybe the cost of a college education would be fucking reasonable. who knows, none of us ever will because attacking the department of education and the programs there in makes one ...how was it said...bat-shit crazy...

Do you want me to defend the DOE's existence?

It sounds like your suggesting that DOE is colluding with universities with regard to the rising tuition, which for public universities, is around $7,000 to $7,500 a year, not $18,000.

I'm not sure how a low interest loan is a boondoggle. The loan amounts also haven't kept pace with the rise in tuition amount, and many are denied federal aid. Also, federal Pell grants aren't loans.

Please don't tell me how much the school I attend costs now. 448 a credit, 640 for out of state. Full time student at 15 credits is 6700 or 9600 depending, a semester. for the 120 credits that is 53,000 for a degree. 53,000 for a degree. that is of course if there are no tuition hikes during that time. That doesn't count living on campus, or not, which would mean for most people more student loans. I realize not all of them are federal, but lots of them are... add room and board and what do you have?
No i do not think they are colluding. I think the program was started with great intentions but has now created a situation that universities count on to continue to grow. Administrators are running businesses.
Ask yourself one question, if the universities couldn't count on a large portion of their students getting financial aid...do you think they would be able to grow at the rate they grow and charge what they charge?
Without that money, tuition rates would HAVE to go down as the amount of people who can "afford" school wouldn't drop to the point that the universities would either have to double the cost, or have tuition at the very least stagnate and stay the same year in and year out. Without government help Most universities would have to charge less to keep the same number of students. At least that is how I feel about it.
I realize grants are not loans. I am not an idiot. People leave state schools in debt, that is unless they go part time and work full time. Even then it becomes more and more difficult to pay the bills. The answer isn't more federal loans, it is a complete and utter overhaul of our education system.

Not saying you're an idiot, just saying that Pell grants are something that comes from the DOE. Also, I was giving the average cost of tuition, not tuition at your school. I'll make the argument that tuition increase has come from the decrease in funding from the state and federal level. If enrollment declines, what's going to be cut is services, not tuition.

The American higher education system is the best in the world, although that status is being challenged more and more recently. It doesn't need a complete overhaul in order to reduce the level of tuition increases.

We will just have to disagree, I think tuition would come down as enrollment decreased in universities around the country. demand drives cost. but the cat is already out of the bag on the cost of a college education...and herding is going to be a bitch.

gimmesometruth27

here is more....

Missouri School District Bans 'Slaughterhouse-Five' And 'Twenty Boy Summer'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/2 ... 13078.html

The school board in Republic, Mo., voted 4-0 to eliminate Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse-Five" and Sarah Ockler's "Twenty Boy Summer" from the high school curriculum and library, respectively, after a local man led an effort to deem the novels inappropriate.

Wesley Scroggins, a business professor at Missouri State University, who also pioneered a movement to reshape middle school sex-education classes in Republic's schools, wrote in a column last year that Vonnegut's classic contained enough profanity to "make a sailor blush," and warned that "Twenty Boy Summer" was similarly dangerous.

"In this book," Scroggins wrote, "drunken teens also end up on the beach, where they use their condoms to have sex."

Of the members of the school board who voted on the issue last Monday, according to UPI, only one -- Melissa Duvall -- had actually read either of the books in question.

The superintendant of the Republic district, Vern Minor, was out of town and did not return emails and calls requesting comment, though he told UPI on Monday that Ockler's "Twenty Boy Summer" "promotes or sensationalizes sexual promiscuity," which contributed to the book's removal.

Outside of the Republic School District, "Summer" has received positive reviews, with Booklist and Kirkus both deeming it a mature, romantic work in the vein of Nicholas Sparks and Jodi Picoult.

After the banning was announced, the author took to her blog where she lambasted the decision.

"Not every teen who has sex outside of a relationship feels guilty, shameful, or regretful later on," Ockler wrote. "And you can ban my books from every damn district in the country -- I'm still not going to write to send messages or make teens feel guilty because they've made choices that some people want to pretend don't exist."

"That's my choice," Ockler continued. "And I'll never be ashamed of my choice to write about real issues."

"Slaughterhouse-Five" -- Vonnegut's satirical World War II, time-traveling saga -- was voted the 18th greatest English-language novel of the 20th century by the Modern Library and was featured in Time magazine's "100 Greatest Novels of the 20th Century" issue.

It's also one of the most frequently "challenged" books of the past few decades, according to the American Library Association.

In 2000, "Slaughterhouse-Five" was removed from the sophomore reading list at a Coventry, R.I., High School, after a parent complained that it "contains vulgar language, violent imagery, and sexual content." In 2006, the book was ultimately "retained" on the Northwest Suburban High School District 214 reading list in Arlington Heights, Ill., after a board member "elected amid promises to bring her Christian beliefs into all board decision-making," pointed out a few controversial excerpts she'd found on the Internet.

In 2007, "Slaughterhouse-Five" was challenged in a Howell, Mich., court to determine whether it violated laws against "distribution of sexually explicit materials to minors." The county's top prosecutor ultimately decided against any legal action.

"It is clear that the explicit passages illustrated a larger literary, artistic or political message and were not included solely to appeal to the prurient interests of minors," the prosecutor wrote.

It seems many parents and school board members are under the impression that their kids still get their "kicks" from reading classic, American novels, rather than going on the Internet, watching television, talking to their friends or doing any number of things.

Scroggins' original call to action, written in September 2010, questioned the values of the school board, and asked parents to get more involved with issues like this.

"This is unacceptable, considering that most of the school board members and administrators claim to be Christian. How can Christian men and women expose children to such immorality?" he wrote.

The award-winning children's author Judy Blume, whose books have frequently come under fire from schools, might have put it best when she wrote:

"It's not just the books under fire now that worry me. It is the books that will never be written. The books that will never be read. And all due to the fear of censorship.

"As always, young readers will be the real losers."