SCHOLASTIC! TERRA, TERRA, TERRA!

[LWolf]

Now that I've caught your attention, I would like to state, one more time for the record, that much of the hysteria regarding Scholastic's involvement in tpt911 is not factually based. Here are some facts:

Scholastic did not produce or distribute this film.

The film is not being distributed to schools.

Scholastic produced a study guide for the film. Poor choice of film, obviously, but Scholastic produces many study guides. This is one of many, not an isolated thing.

Scholastic responded to the complaints by revising the study guide. The revision isn't bad; if you were going to use a study guide to "study" that particular piece of propaganda, it might suffice. Most of us have enough to do already, without adding a tv docudrama to what we're doing in class.

The study guide is available for download from Scholastic's site. I don't know if they mailed it to high schools or not; I teach middle school. We get a ton of mail from ed publishers, most of which hits the recycle bin without ever being opened. It is highly doubtful that all high schools got a copy of this guide in the mail.

Teachers are not required to download this study guide, use it, or even acknowledge the docudrama in their classroom. Schools do not sit around waiting for the latest "free" junk mail to tell them what to teach.
Scholastic's main market is schools. They produce all kinds of free study guides, as well as selling many of the books, programs, etc. that schools use.

Many corporations and other groups provide schools with study guides. Many of those study guides are marketing their products. It's a common practice, not a sudden ambush.

I would suggest that Scholastic is obviously a minor player in this controversy. Time, attention, and energy would be more appropriately spent on the producers and distributors of the actual propaganda piece.

I'll also add that, as an educator, I won't be boycotting them. As a matter of fact, we got the year off to a great start. We're reading one of my favorite recent novels for my students' age level. They are so fascinated with it that I hear them discussing it at lunch time; a good indication that we're headed the right direction. It's published by Scholastic. So are most of the books in my classroom library, that have helped develop literate students over the years.

I've never needed or used their study guides, but I sure love the books.

[JuniperLea]

1. They dabbled their toe in incorrectness

They may as well have jumped all the way in.

What they did is wrong and no matter how many rights they have done, this time they were wrong.

They need to be watched for further incorrect behavior. They brought this on themselves for being stupid enough to be sucked into the Right Wing propaganda machine.

Enjoy your rose-colored glasses. Please, do not share them with your students.

[NJCher]

4. as a fellow educator

Enjoy your rose-colored glasses.

...I recognize the practicality of what lwolf is saying. I don't think she has on rose-colored glasses. She is simply telling us the way it is. Her perspective is from the inside.




Cher

[JuniperLea]

13. You think it's practical to let bygones be bygones

Because the company has done some good things? How about letting bygones be bygones with Hitler? I hear he painted some interesting works.

:eyes:

Propaganda is wrong. The movie is propaganda and so is the study guide. What part of that do you not understand?

[LWolf]

19. See # 16. n/t

[JuniperLea]

23. By that logic

You would accept and honor George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and Rummy the Dummy if they were to say "ooops" and change their ways. And you would trust them. And you would give them kudos and support because they changed their ways.

:eyes:

Anyone and any company that allows themselves to be sucked up into the right wing propaganda machine even for a split second is dangerous. Extremely dangerous when they produce educational materials. I'm sure they will be more careful in the future, but it wouldn't surprise me to see propaganda coming from them in a more covert fashion.

I guess you are willing to let them try to fool you twice.

[LWolf]

30. I don't think I said anything about

trust, honor, or kudos. The only support I called for is in acknowledging a positive response by retiring the attacks on that specific charge.

A political protest is not worth the time or energy involved if everybody knows that the protesters don't really want a response, and will continue to attack regardless of what the opponent in question does.

People protested, rightly, and Scholastic responded quickly and, imo, reasonably.

It's a pretty well known thing: reinforce the behaviors you want, withhold reinforcement from the behaviors you don't.

[JuniperLea]

45. Companies are not children, nor are they human

They are run by humans, sure, but with keen motives in mind. Mostly profit. Your psychology 101 doesn't work on companies. Ask any PR professional. There would be no need for PR firms (a multi-billion dollar industry) if things were as simple as you suggest.

Making changes is far less than what they should have done. Their materials should have been pulled, completely. There should be NO study guides for propaganda movies, period.

Once a company has laid down with dirty dogs, you can never guarantee they will be flea free going forward. Bottom line.

You may understand children and teaching, but you clearly have no clue when it comes to corporate America.

[LWolf]

51. This part is correct:

It's primarily about profit. Which is why I didn't interpret the "guide" as a political move, especially after they revised it. IMO the revision was appropriate.

The profit motive responds to the market, and I believe that's the point of protests and boycotts; to hit them where it hurts. When you are influencing the bottom line to make your point, it gets made quickly, as it did in this case. Of course, when the situation is corrected, what point is there left? How does it further the fight against propaganda to continue it? If a quick response doesn't positively affect the market, why should a company bother to make that response the next time?

Frankly, I don't see that as Psych 101.

[JuniperLea]

55. why should a company bother to make that response the next time?

I understand your anthropomorphic thoughts on this, but a company does not respond to warm fuzzies.

[LWolf]

57. Dollars are not warm fuzzies, obviously. :eyes: n/t

[kaygore]

21. I agree--If Scholastic saw P9/11 the guide should have focused on

Propaganda

The guide did not do so.

But truly, when Scholastic saw P9/11, they should have bowed3d out. Period. Realizing what was actually going on. Dick Robinson and te people at Scholastic are not idiots. They knew what they were doing: Aiding and abetting a lie for political manipulation.

[LWolf]

31. Bowing out after you've already

provided flawed materials isn't responsible, either. Refusing involvement with the project would have been the most appropriate choice; since it is too late for that, revising the flaws in the guide, which takes some measure of accountability for the error, is the next best step.

[JuniperLea]

44. No, pulling the material completely is the ONLY next best step eom

[LWolf]

52. We'll have to disagree on that one. n/t

[JuniperLea]

43. Bingo!

And changing costumes does not change the character. A liar is a liar is a liar and it takes a whole lot more than changing one tune to make that liar believable again. Scholastic is not the media! They can ill afford to take sides on ANY issue.

[goclark]

47. as a fellow educator

I have worked with Bush loving teachers who would be thrilled to download this crap and spend a week "discussing" it with the class.

For the 2004 election, a Bush lover was in charge of the Mock Election for US President.

Without checking with anyone, he got on the intercom and announced that Bush won the School Wide Election.

When the Principal grabbed the box and counted the votes, Kerry was the winner.

What if only 50 teachers use it, do you realize how many young minds that would be ~ way too many.

ABC knew that and so did Scholastic.

[Chimichurri]

2. A company who is in the business of educating our kids should

never be involved in any type of propaganda -ever. Sorry but they don't get a pass.

[LWolf]

8. They are not in the business of educating our kids.

In the sphere of public education, states, districts, schools, and teachers are in the business of educating kids. Publishing companies don't do the educating, and while they market materials, they don't select the materials used.

[JuniperLea]

15. A company who markets materials used by educators

Should not be involved in propaganda. Propaganda is evil. It is a large part of what is killing our country! And you want to give it a pass. I could hardly find that more disturbing.

[LWolf]

32. Propaganda is not acceptable in any form.

We agree on that much.

I didn't say, or imply, that I wanted to give propaganda a pass. That's a falsehood. It's a sad day when you have to provide your own false fodder to be disturbed; I can find plenty of real things to be disturbed about.

The propaganda is the "docudrama." Scholastic did not produce it. I agree that they should not have involved themselves with it; that's not my point.

My point is that they are not the primary villain here, and that when we protest something, and the protest works, we ought to move on to other more pressing issues. In this case, how about the actual perpetrators who wrote, produced, funded, and aired the propaganda itself?

[Chimichurri]

25. Semantics. They make money selling teaching materials to

educators. So yes, they are in the business of teaching our kids. They don't select what teachers teach in the classroom but they peddle the products teachers use.

[LWolf]

34. No teacher is required to purchase their stuff.

When a teacher uses anything produced by any publisher, they have professional discretion about how they use it. It's not like teachers are hanging out by their mailboxes waiting for the next load of spam so that they can rush in to present it, like a provided script, to students.

The final responsibility for dealing with propaganda lies with teachers. Recognizing and analyzing propaganda is in many states' grade level "standards," so some might choose to do just that. It's our responsibility to evaluate materials and use them appropriately, or not at all.

AND NO, SCHOLASTIC DOESN'T TEACH OUR STUDENTS. WE TEACH OUR STUDENTS.

As a teacher, I think I can say that with some authority.

Acting as if Scholastic is leading us around by the nose is devaluing our professional knowledge, skills, and practice.

[LynneSin]

3. I'm still glad that we pressured them

But from what I heard, their final results was a study on Media & Accuracy, which I think would be an excellent dialogue about that docucrap on ABC.

But even if you don't use this stuff, there are right-wing numnuts teaching our children and might consider using it.

[LWolf]

10. I'm glad they were pressured, too.

The "revised" version is better.

There are rw teachers who might consider using it, although they now have to contend with the "critical examination" piece, which would hopefully put them off. Happily, though, I think that the rw contingent of educators is a small fraction of the whole. I've spent my entire life living, and much of it teaching, in rw strongholds, and teachers in these areas are generally much less conservative than the larger community.

[nosillies]

5. Thanks for a little dose of logic and common sense.

Not that it matters -- it's not cool to be logical anymore, I'm afraid. :D

In a perfect world, children and those who are uneducated would not be exposed to propaganda. But this isn't a perfect world, and one can boycott all one wants, but propaganda won't go away. Therefore, I'd much rather students who were exposed to this also be exposed to a revised study guide that encourages critical thinking and the questioning of common beliefs.

Critical thinking, and the refusal to blindly follow your peers, is terribly important, no matter what your political stripe.

So when you get slammed here, know that you are not alone!

[MrModerate]

6. My problem is that this shows bad judgment . . .

They prepared the guide either not recognizing that the show was ahistorical propaganda, or worse, concurring with same.

I also get aggravated by the catalogs my kids bring home,which in my day focused on books, and these days seem to include an inappropriate number of toys.

[LWolf]

16. It did show bad judgement.

I'm thinking that if we want our protests to count for something, then we need to acknowledge a protest that works.

Bad judgement in producing a guide at all, but good judgement in quickly responding to protests and revising it. The revision is pretty good, in this educator's opinion.

If you want big organizations to listen and respond, then you have to support them when they do. Not by using the material, in this case, but calling the attack dogs off would be a good move.

[nosillies]

26. Agreed

How refreshing when you hear a person or a corporation say something along these lines:

"I did something that I thought was OK at the time. Many people have brought it to my attention that maybe it wasn't such a good thing. Through well-made points, not foul language or empty rhetoric and threats, they have convinced me that I was wrong. So I'd like to take this chance to make it right. Here's what I'm going to change."

Today, the person or corporation who does that is a "flip-flopper," or is slammed for ever even thinking about doing something wrong. As someone who has also worked with students, I find that today's disturbing trend of not admitting to or making amends for mistakes (a la the Bush administration) is creating some pretty pathological young adults. I have much more respect for an entity that can change, develop, learn, and grow than I do for an entity that pretends to be perfect (but I'll admit that people who pretend to be perfect or are too self-righteous are one of my biggest pet peeves).

edit to add a couple of points: No, just because a politician/corporation says oops, sorry, does not mean I would accept them/patronize them. If, however, said politician/corporation said oops, sorry, here is my plan of action to right my wrongs, and here are the steps I have already taken, then that person/business absolutely will have my respect. Not necessarily my vote or custom, but absolutely my respect.

This morning, my child colored all over the wall before I took him to daycare. According to the reasoning of some, screw him, I shouldn't even bother to get him from daycare today. He f**ked up, so that's that, he just like all those other dumb children (or corporations, whatever) out there, so I can't be bothered. He certainly does not deserve my love and respect when he pulls out a sponge and tries to help me clean it off the wall.

[mmonk]

7. When truth is hard to find, we don't need to even entertain

the thought of propagandizing where children are involved.

[LWolf]

11. That's true.

I'll be concerned about this when I hear an actual teacher wanting to use the docudrama to teach from.

[praeclarus]

9. you don't say...

"Many corporations and other groups provide schools with study guides."

Many corporations and other groups were involved in the
making of the propaganda. Many corporations and other groups
are involved with voting machines. Many corporations and
other groups will glady make products that kill you and lie
about it.

So what is your point exactly?

[LWolf]

12. My points:

1. If you don't like free "study guides" being made available to schools by various groups, then you ought to address that problem at the source. To ban all outside materials from the nations schools would be overkill, and somewhat Orwellian. Good luck with that.

2. Scholastic did not produce or air the propaganda piece you are concerned about. I think you ought to be focused on the corporations/groups who did.

Easily understood points; got it now?

[JuniperLea]

20. Yes, very easily understood

You would accept a study guide from anyone, even companies involved in the spreading of propaganda. That's interesting. Fairly disgusting, but interesting.

[LWolf]

40. That's a falsehood.

Or a determinedly deliberate misunderstanding.

People tend to resort to those "strategies" when their stance is weak. It's a kind of propaganda in itself, and it's even worse when it comes from the Democratic side of the divide, imo.

I don't use commercially produced "study guides." I never have. I've stated so frequently. Including in the post that opened this thread; it's at the bottom. Here's another:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&fo

[JuniperLea]

42. No, it isn't.

The movie is blatant propaganda. Any study guide which follows or using this movie in any form is also propaganda. The only way it would not be propaganda is if it were used specifically and only for media or historical studies in the use of propaganda.

Schwarzenegger has changed his tune and have even apologized to a degree on some issues. I still don't support him. No amount of costume change can make a difference. Same deal with this company. And a liar is a liar is a liar. It takes a lot more than one tiny action to change that.

[LWolf]

56. It most certainly is.

You are not referring to the movie, or to Arnold. You are referring to me, stating that I would accept a study guide from anyone, which is blatantly false. I've posted numerous times that I don't use any free "study guides" from any marketer. Unless you think that accepting their effort to revise means I think teachers ought to rush out and embrace the docudrama as appropriate for classroom use. If so, you are simply wrong. I've never stated that, and I don't appreciate you suggesting that I have.

[Chimichurri]

29. Don't you suppose it's the responsibility of Scholastic and

companies like them to assess whether or not a product pitched to them is factually accurate? They had no involvement in developing this propaganda piece but they did write the material accompanying the miniseries.
"A new classroom discussion guide for high school students is being created and will focus more specifically on media literacy, critical thinking, and historical background."

So they were involved in propagating the "discussion". I wonder if Scholastic went as far as debunking the outright lies within Pt9/11 in it's new discussion guide. Somehow I doubt it.

[LWolf]

41. You don't need to wonder.

Just go to their site, download the guide, and read it. That's how everybody else will get it.

Here, I'll help you:

http://www.scholastic.com/medialiteracy/

This is the link to the letter about the guide, and the revisions. There is a link at the bottom that takes you to the guide itself.

Here are the lesson objectives:

<snip>

Students will:

1. Define different types of visual media.
2. Analyze media messages through a critical lens.
3. Identify the purpose of media messages. (i.e. inform, entertain, persuade)
4. Consider how the media may be affected by social, economic, political, and other factors.
5. Engage in peer-to-peer discussion and debate.Use primary sources.

For the record, they don't debunk. They do set students up to debunk it themselves.

[EFerrari]

14. It is not hysterical to object to the marketing of Republican history

to our kids. Nor is it inappropriate to put Scholastic on notice if they get in bed with the noise machine. It amounts to an expansion of the Republican distribution network and it needs to be challenged.

There is nothing ambiguous or hyperbolic about that. There are plenty of other outlets selling books at a discount but none with the reach Scholastic has to move the politics of fear into our school system -- or, what is left of our school system.

[LWolf]

18. See # 16. n/t

[EFerrari]

27. What "attack dogs" are you referring to? There is no current

action against Scholastic.

They were responsive last week and I agree, they should get credit for that. And, they need to clarify their relationship to propaganda. As an educator, I'm sure you realize the implications of our high school system being used to distribute disinformation.

My mail box at Berkeley was always overflowing with materials from publishers. I don't recall getting study guides inspired by political operatives. That I would have noticed. lol

[LWolf]

37. Overflowing is right.

I don't know that we stop to think about political maneuvers; we know it's a marketing thing. This one would have been passed on to the recycling bin by the mailboxes like all the rest without notice if the "docudrama" had not been so obviously dirty.

I didn't really consider Scholastic the political operative here, but the tool of the operatives. As always, I saw it from a marketing perspective. I'm sure the protest prompted a marketing response, too. That's ok, as long as no one expects us to peddle what is marketed and as long as they work with the prospective customers.

The "attack dogs" here at DU are those still starting threads calling for action against Scholastic days after they addressed the issue.

[EFerrari]

48. I don't consider that interrogating Scholastic's relationship

to propaganda is an "attack".

I think of it as a community service.

The first book I ever bought with my own pennies was from this company. I'd like to be able to continue to feel good about it. :)

[LWolf]

50. I agree with that.

The first move was important. Perhaps you aren't one of those calling for further boycotts. I thought their response was lightening quick, at least in the world of education, and pretty reasonable. Scholastic used to be my favorite company for things like book orders and book fairs. I was disappointed to see them gobbling up competitors. Still, in the age of megamergers, they are the biggest, and often the best, game still in town.

[JuniperLea]

24. I'm sure they will be more careful next time

And the propaganda will be more covert.

Anyone who slips into bed with the bad guys, even for a split second, deserves to loose all credibility forever and ever amen, imho.

[EFerrari]

28. It must be nearly irresistable from a business perspective. n/t

[vickitulsa]

17. Don't tease! What's the book your students are fascinated with?

And thanks for the straight skinny on Scholastic. I'd never heard of them and didn't notice they were included in boycott suggestions re tpt911. But it's always wise as well as morally imperative for people who boycott for whatever reasons to pick their targets accurately.

As many times as bad actors (in the generic, not specific, sense) on the other side have been suspect for and even caught trying to mislabel, misdirect, manipulate, criticize, deceive in subtle ways and outright lie about persons, organizations, and commercial interests in order to hurt these targets with boycotting efforts, we should remember to be very careful when placing blame and directing criticism at specific entities.

Which brings to mind a very important and broader point about how Dems and others who are "on our side" or leaning our way perform in our efforts to expose and punish any people or operations of the opposition.

Because a lot of people who are new to considering voting for Dems and just to be ethical and responsible in our behavior anyway, I think we should keep in mind that our people are going to be under some unusually intense scrutiny from now on. I believe we should take special care in all our efforts to promote our causes and people and defeat the opposition to avoid any libelous or slanderous results, intentional or not.

"Smear" might be too strong a word to use in many cases where the intentions and cursory research efforts are good and honest but just don't go far enough or in some cases go too far. So, considering how much smearing goes on under this administration in their campaign and image-shaping work, we ought to be extremely diligent to avoid any activities that could smack of smear tactics.

It's simply our duty to do this! Any other approach could lead us to morph into hypocrites like those we despise.

(And yes, I know I'm sort of preaching to the choir here, but felt it should be said. :))

[LWolf]

22. The Book:

Chasing Vermeer

A many layered, complex mystery taken on by a very liberal class of 6th graders, with a very liberal teacher. They all wish their school and teachers could be like that, and they are all fascinated with the clues, reading, re-reading, arguing, and forgetting the time.

As I have done. I have to go to school!

[WinkyDink]

33. I'm glad I'm retired. I used to FIGHT THIS FIGHT, and successfully,

I might add:

"Many corporations and other groups provide schools with study guides. Many of those study guides are marketing their products. It's a common practice,..."

[LWolf]

38. Were you the educator dumping them

in the recycling bins, or the marketers trying to find an entry?

Public ed is riddled with marketing by those that produce the materials we use. Some are more ethical than others, but they are all out for the $$$.

If we're looking for some ed publishers to demonize, how about a couple that have multiple-generation intimate relations with the BFEE? Scholastic isn't one of those.

I'm not exaggerating; we really do keep a recycling bin, and a large trash container, next to the mailboxes. You probably knew that. ;)

[JuniperLea]

46. We're not talking about

"Many corporations and other groups" that provide study guides. Yes, there's advertising involved. We're talking about Scholastic here. Their sole reason for being is educational materials. Totally different beast. And they should be ashamed of themselves.

[SmokingJacket]

35. Well, I can't boycott the publisher of Captain Underpants.

I will be the most unpopular mother EVER.

However, I do plan to send a little letter telling them how I feel about their choice of that piece o' crap to make a study guide out of.

Anyway -- if a teacher can't make their own "study guide" for a movie, they shouldn't be teaching. Canned curricula make shitty educations.

[roody]

36. This is the boycott I've been waiting for.

I'm tired of sending home the book orders and kids only ordering Strawberry shortcake glitter pens.

[LWolf]

39. That bothers me, too.

Of course, many of the best literature is also published by Scholastic. If I boycott them, I can't provide the books for my students to read.

No more "Inkheart?" No "Chasing Vermeer?" So much literature that I'm not willing to give up. I don't purchase or use the teacher materials, but I do appreciate the cut price on the book orders. The order I put in today did not, thankfully, include anything but books.

[EFerrari]

49. No one has called for a boycott on Scholastic that I know of.

Have I missed something (again!)?

The reason to continue the dialog with Scholastic is *we are their target audience*. We can make inroads with them that we can't make with ABC. But, I haven't seen anyone call for a boycott. :shrug:

[LWolf]

53. Yes.

I'm not going to go looking for all of them again, but there were numerous threads doing just that after Scholastic's response was posted. Hence this thread in response.

[Pirate Smile]

54. I just got the order forms out of my kid's backpack. I've always

liked ordering books from them.

I know they responded to the pressure re PT911 but some people were still unhappy with their response.

I was just wondering what to do.

Thanks for the thread.