Letter to the Editor: an English teacher’s take on textbooks
Dear Joseph,I would like to offer a partialsolution to the textbook problem you wrote about in your article, “Outdated textbooks affect learning,” in the Oct. 10 issue of The Samohi. At present the school does not require students to pay for lost textbooks with money. Most students work off the debt as workers in the textbook room. This has led to a shortage of textbooks presently in use and, in an effort to replace lost books, we now have limited funds for acquisition of new titles.According to your article Lois Thrower points out that funds are most often lost when students choose to work off their fines rather than pay for lost books. Thrower goes on to add that “we don’t want to be a financial burden on those who cannot
afford textbooks, but we need to replace those textbooks.” I have heard the same argument from Leslie Wells, the administrator in charge of textbooks. While I applaud the compassion of these two, the financial crisis should outweigh their feelings.First, it is important to note that the Williams Act does not absolve students from paying for lost books. When the school LOANS a student a textbook for free, the school has met its obligation to the Williams Act. Requiring that we get it back is not out of compliance with the Williams Act. Just as the public library provides a free book borrowing service and then demands payment for lost books, schools may demand money for lost books. Although I am not a lawyer, I have not found any language in the Williams Act that explicitly excludes this interpretation. Students who damage, destroy or lose school property through their own negligence should pay for it. To assume otherwise sets a dangerous precedent where students are not culpable for their abuse or loss of school property.
Second, the policy of working off debts to the school has two problems. We do not need much student work in the textbook room and we need money to pay for books. What is the point in seeking the asset of student work hours in the textbook room when we have a very limited need for them and at the same time avoid seeking the very thing we need: money!Third, we should not assume that Samo is placing a financial burden on a student who has to pay for the replacement of a lost book. A financial burden is caused by a requirement that a student have an asset to get an education. Since students have a right to a free and appropriate public education, they deserve access to that free education including BORROWING of books. But students do not have a right to place a financial burden on a school above and beyond the efforts of that school to provide access to that free and appropriate public education. When a student loses a book that Samo gave him to BORROW for free, Samo meets its Williams Act obligation. When the student loses it, the student places a financial burden on Samo! According to Wells, “this year alone we have spent close to $13,000 in replacing textbooks” to make sure that we can meet our obligation to loan books to students for free. That is a $13,000 financial burden placed on the school by its students.
Fourth, if students know that they can pay off lost books by “working” in the textbook room, they will have less motivation to carefully care for their books than they would if they had to pay for them. Our leniency in part has let this problem blossom.Our compassion has been abused for too long. Let’s change the policy. If a student loses a book, that student should either pay for the replacement or pay for 50 percent of the replacement and work off the rest either in the textbook room (where some help is needed) or cleaning up this school (where a lot of help is needed).
This change in policy will not fix the problem entirely, but it will provide for more textbook funding. This would be a huge benefit to all students. Furthermore, a stricter policy will teach all of our students to live up to their obligations. That’s not a bad lesson to teach.
Sincerely,John Harrisjdharris@smmusd.org