Well, I haven't read the book, so I can't say for certain, but it appears to be a book about a boy who has a doll. I really fail to see what the grounds for objection are; what's the problem? Are you worried that this will teach kids that some boys have dolls? Because they already know that.
Now, as I said, I haven't read the book; I suppose it COULD be dangerous. Maybe the doll tells him to take a bunch of PCP and then shoot the President. But children are not so stupid that they blindly accept every idea presented to them without questioning anything. The cure for bad speech is good speech, not censorship. If you're worried about what your kids are being taught, talk to them about it- don't hide behind the government.
Yes, there's nothing wrong with this book. It can have a place in a list of "easy reading" books for children.
Look at other books about Sam from the same author. Sam seems to be a boy with a wide range of interests. He is not limited by gender stereotypes but at the same time not obsessively doing only girl stuff. The author strikes a balance.
I think the current debate about trans identities put some people on edge. This book is unrelated to changing gender. Let's not get paranoid about these things, either. I still prefer this book to some of the many books hammering in gender stereotypes. For example, the main professions of women in children's books are still princess, teacher and witch.
Exactly!
Since I don’t know what the book is about, I would read it myself first to determine if it’s appropriate to have in my classroom. Strangely, I can’t find any substantial information about this book or even the author, other than that the character gets jam on the doll and doesn’t know how to clean it. It’s not even in my school board’s library system. It’s too bad, since now I can’t vote honestly on the poll.
“a boy holding a girls doll?”
THAT’S the problem? Would it be a problem if the book cover had a girl holding a truck or an airplane? For goodness sakes, people are triggered over the smallest things.
but it's "his" doll.
valid point, no, I don't have a problem with that. but why required book?
So then what is the problem here? I’ve managed to research a little more about this book series. It’s what we call “levelled reading”. This particular book is an extremely simple story with easy words, and very repetitive. It’s designed for children just learning to read on their own without too much intervention from the teacher or adults at home. It’s to encourage independent reading and not for the teacher to read in front of the class. That’s why it is part of a required reading program. It’s not there to push an agenda, it’s there to encourage literacy, comprehension, reflection, and that reading on your own can be fun.
This whole post is literally the definition of “judging a book by its cover”. Is it a book that I would use in my kindergarten classroom? I don’t know. We have a few other approaches to independent reading and practicing phonetics here. This book is a tool, and nothing more.
Ty for your thoughtful reply. I have to believe teachers examine and question what is being taught.
What I heard from the teacher is, "I'm supposed to read this to the class"... what would you do? They do promote reading on their own. maybe they take home and read as well, don't know.
I had my initial reaction for sure and so did the teacher. at least questioning it.
As a kid I don't recall any books like this.
Tell me what repetition does to a childs mind? Forms a pattern... of what?
p. s. why not "teddy bear". That's neutral if there's any questions about "gender" identity going on.
Should I work on a childrens book that I can relate to..."Jonnys B-B gun". It's a tender sad story of a boy with a B-b gun, that does something wrong and is sad about it. true story. I wonder if NYC would make that required reading? It be "social emotional as well".
Either the teacher reads it aloud, or children are to try and read it on their own - with a book like this and in a grade 1 classroom, the latter would make much more sense.
Repetition of sight words and rhyming phrases helps to solidify recognition and memorization of phonetic sounds, digraphs, and differentiation between vowel sounds. This has worked for decades. “Goodnight Moon” is a good example, another good example is “Brown Bear, Brown Bear”. It can also help us spot students who may be struggling with dyslexia and get started with early intervention.
Sure, the toy could have been a teddy bear. But it is a doll, and you are reading too much into that fact. There is no “gender identity” issue at play here, until an adult such as yourself comes along and declares such. Children will not see it this way until the idea is planted in their heads by an adult. Boys in my classroom can and do play with dolls, just as the girls can and do play with the tools and trucks. Children learn through play, there is no agenda being imposed.
is there research as to what they are learning from such? Note this is one book, there are others in the book rack I've heard that some teachers, hide them.
I'm not the one making decisions.
Required reading? You require my kid to read that?
hows this sound... Im starting to think we need more run of the mill "dudes and southern redneck hillbilllies in these schools and teaching... have to admit, there's not much diversity in this big city. If there was, kids be learning fun stuff... dirt biking (Suzie rides his dirt bike), football, car racing, finding stuff at the creek, playing with dogs and shooting bb guns.
Maybe things are just different in a big city...
Allowing kids to play with what they want seems different than required reading... am I wrong? Give them a choice of books to read, ok fine.
Research about what? Please clarify. Are you talking about learning through play?
Well, where I am we don’t have “required readings” for kindergarten but books are available and children choose one book to take home over the weekend. I’m sorry, I’m getting a little bit of an aggressive tone from you - maybe that interpretation is incorrect. I’m just trying to share my expertise if you are willing to listen.
I'm here to ask the question and I'm having fun probing ideas using my creative mind. ok... I don't see where my tone went negative, slightly sarcastic for contrast. My point being... there is a "bent" in this school system I refer to. A book with a boy learning to shoot his b-b gun while riding his dirt bike would never be required reading here.
Research - how exposure influences childrens minds and thinking. Children learn by repetition and are paying attention to the emotion of situations to learn... I think.
I don't recall reading much more than "Georgie and the Ghost", Peter Rabbit and a few others. Whatever I read, is burried deep.
I support that approach of let children select the books they want to read that interest them. Required reading with a boy playing with a doll... that's something I'd question, if I were a 1st grader parent.
Let the teachers decide what book to read, and let parents review. Doesn't that make sense?
this is deemed ok in schools but not charlottes web along with others? gtfoh, fire me then, no
Opinion
13Opinion
No, because First Grade is really just about reading and the very basics of life. I don't see the point in giving much story at this point. When I was in First Grade in 1969-70, it was "Sally, Dick, and Jane" which was fine and challenging enough. I remember sitting next to Billy DeVito and asking him what this word was because I was trying to pronounce it and couldn't. What was the word?
Who
It was the first time I had seen a WH- word...
So, I don't need any gender crap at 6 and 7.
I just wanna "See Spot run."
There is no “gender crap” in this book as far as I can tell from my searches.
@musicbrain5 Hey, I am a liberal, so I am not uptight about "alphabet issues"...
But anything that unnecessarily complicates the worldview of a 6-year old is, well, unnecessary. I haven't read the book, but if a 6-year-old kid starts questioning why Sam plays with girl dolls, then that's a distraction from learning basic vocabulary, phonetics, and reading skills.
Let me explain in a different way...
When I was a very young boy, there were older kids who lived across the street from me. I assumed their last name was the same as their mother and father. But, it wasn't. To me, that made no sense; why would it be different? I didn't know anyone else in which the kids' last names differed from the parents. (The answer is that the mother was a widow and had remarried; the kids are from the first marriage.) OK, does that question or the answer need to be in a First Grade reader "Brian's Dad Has A Different Last Name"?
No.
First, I should have asked my parents or other elders about this discrepancy of names. I likely did and was given some fuzzy answer that my primitive mind accepted because parents are God.
But, more importantly, a First Grade reader on this subject introduces a question/concept that isn't necessary at that age.
>>> The object of a First Grade reader is to teach the fundamentals of reading and vocabulary and phonics. It is not to introduce societal concepts that are gradually learned anyway through osmosis when the child is older and begins to ask questions.
Overall, I do think the set of book in this extended series ("Jump Rope Readers") is OK. There are quite a few societal concepts introduced and I suppose even at that age, it's OK. In a sense, I was "indoctrinated" too, LOL, because I grew-up in the 1960s and 1970s watching Star Trek in which the future society of The Federation then espoused many liberal (and conservative to a point) values.
I would not read it at school if it was policy. Some parents maybe upset about reading a book like that to their kids. I don't have an issue with that. When you are a public servant like a teacher, you should follow the rules. It's like asking a cop, should you enforce that law... well duhhh?
That being said, if I read it at home and found it suitable for my own kids reading, then I would have no problem including it at home. If some other parent found out, I would expect them to extend the same courtesy to me (even though I am a teacher) and allow me to read whatever I so choose to my kids, without question.
No, I would not read it. It is the role of a teacher to teach children the skills they need to be productive members of society, not to teach them beliefs and values, politically correct or not. Those should be taught by the parents.
Some liberal teachers say it's their job to teach acceptance and inclusivity... they are wrong and misinformed.
Please explain why teaching (actually we model) inclusivity and acceptance is wrong.
@musicbrain5 I didn't say it was wrong. It's not a teacher's responsibility. A teacher should stick with the basics... reading, writing, 'ritjmetic... and leave teaching morals to the family.
School is so much more than core academics, though. School is a place where children also learn social skills like building and maintaining friendships, co-operation with peers, communication skills, critical thinking, observation, punctuality, etc. These are all extremely important soft skills that will serve them well into adulthood, so they have the potential to become productive members of society.
You can drill all the math and reading you want down a kid’s throat, but will they know how to build a relationship with other people? How to ask questions and think critically? Work together as a team with others? Respect and treat others with dignity and compassion? Likely not. These are things that can absolutely be taught at home, sure. However, it’s important for children to have a network outside of their immediate family. I have worked with so many children who come from abusive families, neglectful parents, drug and alcohol addicted families, foster care, who are homeless - those are children who rely on school to provide them with a safe environment where they can learn how to be human beings.
No.
Children are precious and their childhood's will stay innocent. They are there to learn letters and numbers and the basic building blocks of knowledge.
It is EVIL to try and indoctrinate parents' children with fringe political stances and to try and push controversial cultural stances on other people's kids.
In what what is this book promoting a fringe political stance or agenda? We are only looking at the cover here. Have you read the contents of the book to be able to make that judgment?
In what way** sorry for the mistake.
@musicbrain5
True, to some extent.
Without reading the whole book and seeing if it is actually more innocent then it looks but I have to make some assumptions to answer the question. Without seeing the actual content we are all basically "judging a book by its cover" but we can't really give an answer either way unless we just make some assumptions.
If anyone wanted to get really semantic about it the most realistic answer would be: I don't know... I'd have to read the book first then I'll have an answer.
Those that wouldn't need to give their head a wobble. Like what the actual fuck is wrong with people they get triggered over a toy?
It creates pause. Do boys play with girl dolls that much really?
As I read it, Sam plays dress up with his doll. Do boys do that? The rest of it was ok, actually promoted family values. Promoted the man as caregiver... the guy makes dinner for mom whom works. Maybe it's promoting a boy learning to love his woman (e. g. doll). Or is it feminizing men too much?
Maybe just society changed over time... it's not a book I'd seen as a kid.
I'm not the only one that questioned it. Make it a "teddy bear"... and that's normal to me.
Actually pretty sure it's good for teaching parenting skills.
My 3 year old absolutely will play with 'girl dolls" as much as his iron man or Spiderman figure. Kids in general also love dress up. None of these are triggering unless you're some mentally handicapped weirdo with toxic idea of masculinity and such.
I appreciate your view, thank you.
Wait a minute, what the heck is a boy doing with a stuffed Barbie? Yeah no thanks, I’ll read them Touching Spirit Bear or Jurassic Park like a Giga Chad.
i did not open the book, content known...
That's some bullshit. Smh these kids are going to grow up so confused. No I wouldn't read that. They can fire me.
required reading in nyc...1st grade!
gotta wonder why
Can't believe that's actually required. But should have known it was in a state like New York. Surprised it wasn't California.
No way in the world would I read that to any child.
damn straight!
@lightbulb27 Thank you for the Like
It looks fine... why would I break policy over a regular-ass kids book?
a boy holding a girls doll?
why is that required reading? I ask as a teacher asked me.
No, a boy holding a boy's doll. "HIS doll." Why is anything required reading? I don't know lol I'm not a teacher.
A boy holding a doll, this doesn't look ideologically motivated at all
Are we that sensitive now that lose our minds over a book?
God, help us all.
They say never judge a book only by it's cover.
So I can't say much more than that.
Yes I'd read it, some boys like dolls, some girls like fire engines,
Hell np. Nor would I read it to my kids.
I would not expose my class to this garbage.
The dog would eat it.
Nope
Nope.
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
