It was every teacher's dream class: 15 bright, articulate, and motivated students made up my “Teaching of Reading” course. Spirited discussion and sharing permeated every meeting of this elementary education class. My students debated the merits of whole language, Reading Recovery, and basal readers. They challenged one another, but always with respect for diversity of opinion. They examined their own beliefs and were not afraid to say, “I was wrong.”
If there was a “star” among the “stars,” it was Tom, a progressive thinker, who challenged his classmates and me each day with one word, “Why?” A high school English teacher, Tom was a reflective practitioner who carefully considered not only the state of education, but also how needed change could be accomplished.
Censorship and Reading Texts
To keep my classes current about reading controversies, I have carefully followed the attempts to censor the Impressions reading series since its introduction to U.S. schools in the mid-1980s (Booth et al. 1984). Canada started producing reading series in 1962 to break from the strangle-hold of American basal publishers. All of these series—which have done away with readability formulas, controlled vocabulary, and word lists—feature quality literature, but Impressions is a leader in the field. Teachers applaud the selections and claim it makes children think (Kelly 1990).
Critics, however, caution parents that “nightmarish textbooks await [their] kids” (Mendenhall 1990). The organization of the anthologies into themes has made it an easy target for censors. Accused of promoting everything from Satanism to homosexuality, the Impressions series has come under attack in many of the 34 states in which it is used.
Every semester after studying the philosophies underlying literacy instruction, my “Teaching of Reading” class meets in the Summit County Office of Education, where copies of textbooks from the major publishers are housed. My students develop a checklist of points to be on the lookout for in the books, such as controlled vocabulary and syntax, “one right answer” workbooks, abridged literature selections, and teacher's manuals that assume teachers cannot make professional decisions. I instruct my students to choose their favorite and least favorite series and to be prepared to defend their rationale. Every semester the number-one choice for favorite series has been nearly unanimous: Impressions.
After hearing most of the class members proclaim that they want to use Impressions when they are teachers, I read newspaper clippings and articles presenting both sides of the controversy. They are always outraged. I sit back and let the discussion of the dangers of censorship take its course. I was certain my “dream class” would further broaden my arguments against censorship.
The Dream Class Responds
Once again, the winner was Impressions. I read the articles and waited for the indignation to build. During the long silence that ensued, I grew excited just imagining what my students were thinking!
Finally Don spoke, “Don't get me wrong. I'm opposed to censorship, but I also believe children have fragile minds. We need to protect them.” I looked to Tom expecting the familiar “Why?”, but Tom didn't say anything.
“Have you changed your mind about Impressions?” I asked the class.
“No,” Don replied, “I'm just more cautious now because I'm not experienced in looking for those subtle, harmful things.”
Tina spoke, “I still think what I said was true, but I probably wouldn't use those books because I'd be afraid of what the parents would say.”
Mary agreed, “There are enough good books that you don't have to use ones that might cause you problems.”
I wanted to plead to Tom with my eyes, but he would not look at me. I asked, “Mary, how do you feel about censorship?”
“Oh, I'm opposed to it!” she said adamantly.
“Is this self-imposed censorship?” I asked.
“No. That's not fair,” Mary replied.
I pleaded silently, “Please ask why, Tom.” But Tom didn't say anything.
The discussion continued until we ran out of time. I left class feeling as if I were the only one who believed in intellectual freedom.
The Dangers of Silence
Moffett (1985) discusses the attitudes and emotions, even though mostly unconscious, that impede improvement in literacy instruction. The public “wants to perpetuate a world it understands,” he claims, “a world limited to a particular era and culture.”
My students have learned the lessons of society well. They will fit nicely into the culture of the school where students are encouraged not to think and where teachers are not required to think because a manual will do it for them. The issues are many: academic freedom, social consciousness, and personal growth. Whether the impediments are dictated from without or self-imposed, they threaten the very essence of our humanity: thinking.
Later, I asked Tom, “What did you think of your classmates' reactions to censorship?” He responded, “It frightened me.” But Tom didn't say anything—and that's what frightens me.
