User talk:Amb401/sandbox

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

First Intentions

For "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" article, I intend to find better sources than some of the ones we found, such as the amazon review of the book. I intend to add specific cases of censorship to the "reception" column and potentially create an entirely different section specifically for "Censorship". I intend to rework some of the sections where sentences tend to run-on. I intend to look into the "Movie" section in order to present some critiques as well as positive reviews of the movie from credible sources.

Research Citation List

Citations: Works Cited

1. Bernard, Peter. "BOOK BAN? Pasco parents object to assigned book." May 20 2016. Web.
2. CANDACE PRESTON-COY, and Staff W. ThisWeek. "Parents and Students Defend Reading Choices." ThisWeek Community Newspapers (Columbus, OH): 01A. Apr 26 2007. Web.
3. Christopher, Placek c. "Dist. 41 Debates Reinstating ‘Perks of being a Wallflower’." Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL): 3. May 29 2013. Web.
4. ---. "Dist. 41 Debates Reinstating ‘Perks of being a Wallflower’." Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL): 3. May 29 2013. Web.
5. "During the Second Week of School, a Ninth Grade Pre-AP English." Post-Tribune (IN)Nov 26 2008. Web.
6. LUCCA, VIOLET. "The Perks of being a Wallflower." Film Comment 48.5 (2012): 86-. JSTOR. Web.
7. Luther Turmelle, New,Haven Register. "Banning Books Detrimental to Students, Wallingford Residents Told." New Haven Register (CT)Oct 06 2015. Web.
8. "The Perks of Teaching 'Perks'." Record-Journal (Meriden, CT): D01. Aug 23 2015. Web.
9. Vo, Eric. "Committee Returns 'Perks' to Curriculum." Record-Journal (Meriden, CT): A01. Apr 25 2015. Web.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amb401 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC) 

Rough First Drafts

First Contribution Draft (Citations to Add on Live Page)

The Perks of Being a Wallflower has come under some fire in schools recently. The book discusses some subjects considered taboo by parents in school systems. Specific cases have brought to light the arguments both for and against censoring this book. Following a parents concern with some of the imagery in the novel, the Wallingford School District in Connecticut banned the book from classroom use. The ban sparked a lot of debate, with some parents and teachers arguing against the ban. They claimed the book allowed for positive discussion in classrooms about serious issues facing many students. The classroom offered a safe space in which the students and teachers could discuss. According to one teacher in particular, “It is my belief that education is an expansion of our children's awareness of the world," Goot said. "... I don't believe our students should be restricted from choices." With only one real opposition it seems to letting the children read the book, a majority of the responses to the ban were in favor of returning the book to the curricula. In another effort to ban the book, a concerned parent in Porter County Indiana wrote to her 9th grade son’s school in an effort to rid the students of the sexually explicit imagery within the book. She wrote that no person should read such filth. The school met recently to discuss the decision on whether or not to ban the book. The school decided that if there were to be an educational merit in teaching the book, the book should remain. The school eventually agreed with the parent in banning the books from classroom. “The committee ruled that the book was ‘too sexually explicit and repeatedly vulgar for high school students’”. Overall, the controversy surrounding this book has sparked discussion over educational merit in young adult books.

Second Contribution Draft (Citations to Add on Live Page)

When a book displays sexually explicit imagery or makes references to drugs, cases of censorship arise especially within high school academics. In Particular, the novel The Perks of Being a Wallflower has seen many instances of censorship. The reason a book gets censored is in regards to the school district deeming the book as having no educational merit. In some cases, school districts implement policies in regards to explicit material. For instance, Olentangy Liberty High School made parents sign off on certain book before teaching the material in class, but recently the policy changed. In the new policy, certain books went under review and were deemed by the school board as inappropriate for the students. In particular, The Perks of Being a Wallflower made headlines when upset parents complained about the new policy. They believe that schools should not remove their right to parent by removing books because a select group of people find it inappropriate. The parents opposed to the book ban felt they should speak out because they’ve, “’been silent too long,’ Roger Ingles told the board. ‘While we've stayed silent you've heard from a small group of parents who want to dictate reading content.’” Ingles wants to do something before his children are, ”limited to reading Dr. Seuss." The school offered a wide selection of titles for kids to read, so if the parents did not want their children reading a certain book they could go to another one. The parents in favor of the book wish for the teachers to have free reign in teaching rather than having their hands tied. The opponents to the book argue the sexually explicit nature of the book exposes children to risqué subjects. However, in response, the parents in favor of the book argued that by banning the book the parents are sending a message to their children that the children cannot be trusted with mature material. This in turn diminishes the maturing effect that the school can have on the children. By keeping the children studying “safe” material, the children will lack exposure to some real world issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amb401 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Dan Ruesche on Rough Drafts

Hey, Alex. Some really good things going on with your drafts. I like the way the first half is a quick general overview of cases regarding the book, whereas the second dives more deeply into one specific cases. The info you got from your research looks like it will be very helpful to improving the page. Overall, I'd work on things like varying sentence structure and making the general tone of your writing more encyclopedic. Also, parenthetical citations would be helpful. Ruesch97 (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Joe Carney Regarding Rough Drafts

See my email regarding my edits. Jtc79 (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Joe Carney jtc79 Jtc79 (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Final Decisions for which Cases I will work On

Ohio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amb401 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Final Draft for Ohio

2007

Olentangy Liberty High School in Powell, Ohio made parents sign off on certain books before teaching the material in class, but recently the policy changed. In the new policy, certain books went under review and were deemed by the school board as inappropriate for the students. In particular, The Perks of Being a Wallflower made headlines when upset parents complained about the new policy. They believe that schools should not remove their right to parent by removing books because a select group of people find it inappropriate. The parents opposed to the book ban felt they should speak out because they’ve, “’been silent too long,’ Roger Ingles told the board. ‘While we've stayed silent you've heard from a small group of parents who want to dictate reading content.’” Ingles wants to do something before his children are, ”limited to reading Dr. Seuss." The school offered a wide selection of titles for kids to read, so if the parents did not want their children reading a certain book they could go to another one. The parents in favor of the book wish for the teachers to have free reign in teaching rather than having their hands tied. The opponents to the book argue the sexually explicit nature of the book exposes children to risqué subjects. However, in response, the parents in favor of the book argued that by banning the book the parents are sending a message to their children that the children cannot be trusted with mature material. This in turn diminishes the maturing effect that the school can have on the children. According to the parents opposed to the ban, by keeping the children studying “safe” material, the children will lack exposure to some real world issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amb401 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment on other Major Edit

Also, my major edit is taking the entire "Styles and Themes" section and rewording it for clarities sake.

Going through the page I feel the Glen Ellyn case needs more elaboration.

After Going through the Page Elaborations I Feel Need to be added

Additions to the Glen Ellyn Case (Citations to Add on Live Page)

Following the removal of the book from the school's curriculum, a 4-2 school district vote, the school district established a letter of consent that parents will have to sign off on when the school covers more, "mature" material. This is subject to the school's definition of, "Mature". The letter now contains, "strong" language clearly informing the parents' of the students what the material these, "mature" books will cover. The letter allows for parents to have the final say over what their children can and cannot read. The letter informs the school of which books the parents consider inappropriate for their individual child. The teachers have listed the material covered in their classrooms and the material available in the library on the school website for all parents to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amb401 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Additions to Florida Case (Citations to Add on Live Page)

Spokesperson from the Pasco County Schools, Linda Cobb states the reasoning for the committee, saying, "[The Perks of Being a Wallflower does have some value but you have to consider your audience. So that's why we have the committee so they can decide, is it appropriate for any students at all?" However, those in favor of the book, like Jacquelynne Harris, argue the book allows for students to encounter, "mature" subject matter within a classroom. Others, like Mirna Manriguez, argue children are "growing up" faster than ever, and society as a whole needs to stop being sensitive about everything. The school district sent home a letter to parents discussing the controversy surrounding the novel in question, and the letter discussed the actions being taken on both sides.