Letters

I have been actively following Senator Jack Reed's amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for the last two years. When I first heard about the proposed bill and its eventual approval as the U.S. Department of Education's Improving Literacy through School Libraries Program, I was hopeful that our small rural school library would be able to apply for funding.

We have a book collection of 7,100 items, with an annual book budget of $1,500. While the Massachusetts School Library Standards require that 70 percent of a school's collection have a copyright date no later than 10 years from the current year, only five percent of our books meet this standard. Seventy percent of our collection is 20 years or older! Granted, our small western Massachusetts town is not at the 20 percent poverty rate [an eligibility requirement of the federal grant program mentioned above]. However, we still cannot afford to replace 70 percent of our collection.

With an annual budget of $1,500, there is no possible way we can bring this collection up to date. My question is why is this program not based on the age of a school library collection? The primary goal of the bill was to ensure that all children have access to current materials. Old, outdated books are a serious threat to all our children's education.

I appreciate and applaud the Senator's efforts to fund school libraries, but I am disappointed with the application's restrictions. And I have voiced my opinion to those individuals who have the power to make a difference. They include John W. Berry, ALA president, Julie A. Walker, AASL/YALSA executive director, James A. Peyser, chairman, Massachusetts Board of Education, Stephen Gorrie, Massachusetts Teachers Association president, Dorothy McQuillan, Massachusetts School Library Media Association president, First Lady Laura Bush, and our state senators and local representatives. I encourage others who are disappointed with the grant application guidelines to also make their voices heard.

We may not be able to alter the grant guidelines at this time, but as professionals responsible for our students' best interests, it is imperative that we express our viewpoints in order to make an impact on future funding criteria.

Karin M. Gravina
Library Media Specialist
Leverett Elementary School
Leverett, MA

I must admit to being confused by a recent letter to SLJ (May 2002 , p. 13). While enthusiastically supporting the results of the Accelerated Reader program in her school, the librarian goes on to say that a "love of reading" isn't as important as an ability to read. Apparently she finds the program to be a valuable resource, but in raising reading scores, not raising reading enthusiasm. I beg to differ.

While the AR program (despite its advertising) does not cure leprosy, I have found it to be a great way to instill a love of reading in children. The key is exactly what the letter writer disparaged when she stated: "How can we stand by and let them read what they want and not be concerned about the fact that they will not be proficient readers…?" "Reading what they want" is the key to proficiency, and that key lies with the librarian, not the program. Students who love to read, CHOOSE to read. Students who CHOOSE to read, improve their proficiency.

The math analogy doesn't work. I'm proficient in math, but I don't choose to do it in my spare time. We don't expect to see people doing math in a dentist's waiting room, or solving quadratic equations on a long plane trip. We don't expect them to balance a calculator on their chests as they lounge on the beach, or sink into a hot bath with a copy of the times tables. Improving my proficiency in math will likely have little impact on my understanding of other subject areas. Reading, however, impacts everything. You have to read to do well in biology, psychology, paleontology and, yes, even math.

Ah, but that's back to proficiency, right? True, a student needs to be a proficient reader, but I have found that students who love to read improve their reading skills by sheer volume of exposure. If that means they're reading what they like, than so be it! In fact, I devise AR tests for those junk books my students are reading anyway. I have the books that they want (and the classics too, of course) and they come in all different reading levels. So the students read more and more—and on it goes. Guess what? Our reading scores are skyrocketing, and so is my library circulation.

First I hook them with the junk food, then I show them the banquet. I had a college professor who said, "Reading is like breathing. Bad breath is better than no breath at all." I couldn't agree more.

Teresa Bateman, Librarian
Brigadoon Elementary School
Federal Way, WA

Thank you for taking the time to review We Sign: American Patriotic Songs (April 2002, p. 80). We would like to comment on an aspect of the review that your readers may take as a negative in regard to this video in particular and the We Sign series in general.

We Sign was created expressly for hearing children. It is meant to build a child's vocabulary, communication skills, and self-esteem using American Sign Language (ASL). It introduces children and their parents and teachers to fundamental ASL words and phrases using music and song. It exposes them to elements of a new language and enhances their learning comprehension by using a variety of proven learning styles—visual, music, physical and verbal, and it is executed in an entertaining fashion so that children will want to stick with it. It was also intended to teach basic ASL vocabulary to the families and friends of hearing impaired children.

Learning a new language is often not an easy undertaking, and We Sign provides a solid, fun foundation to begin communicating more readily with hearing-impaired loved ones. The ASL instructors featured on the videos are experts, and other experts who have viewed the videos find the signing flawless. The reviewer took exception to the fact that deaf culture is absent from the video. Since the series was created specifically for hearing children, inclusion of deaf culture was not part of this video, or in subsequent videos in the series. I hope this clarifies the intention and scope of the We Sign series.

Regina Kelland
Marketing Director
Production Associates
Orange, CA

In pointing out that there is no mention of deaf people or deaf culture in this video, it was not my intent to "pick on" this production, or this series. I wish that I could say that it was unusual for a video such as this to present American Sign Language (ASL) without any context; unfortunately, it is not. There is a wealth of misinformation out there about deafness and deaf culture. It is therefore the responsibility of those who know better to share that information with others.

Ms. Kelland points out that this video series was designed expressly for hearing children. All the more reason, then, to present the language in context; most deaf children understand that context already. One would never presume, for example, to present the French language without at least acknowledging that there is a country called France where the language is spoken, and that it has a basis in French culture. Yet this is exactly what we see time and time again with ASL.

I understand that time is limited, and that it certainly would not be possible, or even desirable, to present the entire history of ASL and deaf culture in a video production such as this. However, it is vital that ASL be presented in context, if only with a brief mention that it is a language (i.e., not just fun movements of the hands, as many children, and even adults, believe) used by deaf people.

I find Kelland's reasoning disturbing, perhaps because it reflects a growing movement in our culture whereby ASL is co-opted by hearing people without any regard for the people to whom it truly belongs. We see it in every report that advocates using sign language with hearing children to boost test scores, and every book that teaches parents how to sign to their babies without acknowledging the rich history of sign language and the deaf people who use it. The problem lies not in this use of ASL, but in the dissociation of ASL from the deaf people to whom it belongs. There has been a long history of oppression of ASL in this country, and this recent trend is a distressing reminder that perhaps we have not come as far as we might think. While I agree that the We Sign series provides sign language instruction in an entertaining fashion for hearing children, I maintain that the lack of acknowledgment of the deaf is a flaw in the series.

Kathy Macmillan
Library Media Specialist
Maryland School for the Deaf
Columbia, MD

A quick reply to Valerie Cloud Kerzner's comments on ADD children and books written for or about them (SLJ, April, 2002, p.15). Let's not stereotype any group of children. While Joey Pigza may have done some extreme things, I hear stories weekly about ADD kids that would match most of his "accidents." My son has provided me with plenty of far-fetched episodes for lunch conversations and he is very different from many other ADD students I work with on a daily basis. There is room for a great variety of portrayals of children with ADD. What a relief it is to see them in many views—lonely, happy, carefree, worried, active, or self-assured. I just wish these titles had been available when I was trying to cope with a "different" child 16 years ago. Authors, WRITE ON!

Eerlene Bisshop Killeen
Library Media Specialist/District Coordinator
Fox Prairie Elementary School Stoughton, Wi

Marianne Berkes's Seashell by the Seashore (Dawn, 2002; Apr, p. 100) is available in paperback and hardcover. The paperback comes with a tear-out shell identification card (as cited in our review); the library edition does not. The ISBN number for the hardcover edition is 1-58469-035-6.