Why is the Only Option a Lack of Options?

by Annie Bolthrunis, editor

 

I have always been aware that there aren’t many options for people suffering from mental health disorders and addiction problems. Insurance will cover a few days in a hospital or detox and send you home with a slew of prescriptions, appointments, and recommendations, still reeling from the experience of being in-patient in a hospital.

If a patient is able to maintain a medication and appointment schedule, they may be able to successfully navigate the world of recovery. However, more often than not, these inpatient hospitalizations merely physically stabilize a patient without taking into account the emotional problems which are the underlying cause of the hospitalization.

I have a close relative who has long suffered from alcoholism. She has been inpatient in detox units more times than I can remember, with the most recent hospitalization occurring shortly after the start of break in mid-December. In October, she had been in a detox center for five days. When she relapsed, my family tried to find a long-term treatment center that would take her and accept our insurance. There were many options, but we kept hitting the same roadblock:

Her insurance would only cover five to ten days of an inpatient hospitalization that should have lasted thirty to ninety days. The cost of treatment, per day, can be thousands of dollars. Who can afford that? But the larger question is; why are insurance companies willing to pay for several short hospitalizations a year, but not for one long-term treatment session that may lead to a much longer period of sobriety?

It’s impossible to know the answer to this question, but it’s worth thinking about in an age when health insurance coverage is such a big political issue and addiction is at the forefront of our minds, thanks to shows like A&E’s “Intervention” and “Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew” on VH1. Is it really cost effective to treat the same person several times as opposed to paying for one extended stay in a treatment center? Is it morally acceptable to keep bouncing a patient between home and detox without a clear set of tools to use as they eke out their recovery? Detox centers can be great places that offer a good deal of support for their patients, but when those patients are only there for three to five days, how much recovery can you really offer them?

AA and NA are options for a lot of people, but these programs can be overwhelming, especially for a new addict, or for someone who repeatedly relapses. It’s difficult for a person who one week appeared to be doing very well to go back to his or her familiar meeting and tell the group of people they’ve learned to trust that they’ve been lying; they fell off the wagon. Of course, all addicts know that addictions makes liars of everyone, and they will welcome the newly-sober-again member back with open arms, but it’s still emotionally difficult for someone just out of detox to face these emotions head on. This can lead to drinking or drugging. It’s a vicious cycle.

Along with the emotional problems associated with frequent relapse and ineffective treatment, patients may begin to experience negative effects on their health as they become more and more entrenched in the cycle of addiction. Problems such as alcoholic or drug induced dementia, vitamin deficiency, organ failure, malnutrition, and dehydration must all be treated by physicians, which costs the insurance companies yet again.

Overall, this is a very frustrating experience for patients and their families. Watching someone you love suffer repeatedly, and the cycle of repeated relapse and the effects it has on the family can cause enough stress to tear a family apart. I don’t know if there are easy solutions to these problems, but I know that the options available are NOT options. They pigeon-hole people into an ever-increasingly frustrating cycle which doesn’t seem to end – the proverbial snake eating its tail.

This is part of the reason why programs like CLTL are so important. Although CLTL is geared towards prisoners and not specifically addicts, a program that empowers people in a way that detox (and prison, of course) don’t is incredibly beneficial to society as a whole. Instead of breaking people down, a program like CLTL builds people up, giving them self esteem through showing them they have abilities they may not have recognized in themselves. Perhaps, using CLTL as a model, a program for addicts with relapse problems can be created, in conjunction with a hospital, where participants are treated on an outpatient basis (insurance companies may be more likely to cover this kind of program) and not only given tools to deal with their addictions, like so many partial hospital programs, but are given other tools, like self esteem. I think a book club component could be extremely beneficial in this context – as in CLTL, patients could be given a weekly reading assignment, and then have to come in the following week and discuss the text. Patients would get a feeling of accomplishment through starting and completing a task (reading the book or story) and a completely different feeling of accomplishment from participating in a meaningful discussion. Hopefully these discussions would relate to the addict’s experiences as an addict, and give them tools they may not receive in a short term inpatient setting.

 

It seems like this could be a perfect marriage between a long-term in patient hospitalization (which can be financially devastating or even impossible to afford at all) and a series of short term detoxes (which can physically orient a person again but only barely skims the surface of the emotional problems the patient is experiencing).

Important Announcement From Middlesex Superior Court!

Changing Lives Through Literature

Middlesex Superior Court

Probation Department

 

Judge Kathe Tuttman, Acting Chief Probation Offcer Maureen McEachern, Professor Sandra Albertson-Shea and the Middlesex Superior Court Probation Department are starting a female Changing Lives Through Literature Program this Spring. At least two programs per year will run. Each session will consist of twelve weeks with classes being held biweekly.

Middlesex Community College is the host for the groups. Transportation will be made available through the generous donation os the Middlesex County Sheriff’s Office.

There will be a graduation ceremony held at the Woburn location of the superior Court. Our hope is to start a male group in the near future.

If you would like additional information, [leas contact Associate Probation Officer Sylvia Gomes at 781-939-2794 Assistant Chief Probation Officer Stephen Mulloy 781-939-2723.

Hiding in Plain Sight

by: David Sarles

 

 

As my 7th grade class filed up the back stairway to the attic hiding place, an anxious quiet replaced excitement. An in-house field trip, but to where? and why with coats and mittens and double socks? Here, finally, was their replication of Anne Frank’s two years of hiding from the Nazis. Although only one 40-minute’s time in the cold storage attic of the old carriage house converted into their Middle School, the experience sobered up the fourteen students who had studied the two-act play version of Anne’s diary.

I wonder, does this brief glimpse into self-imposed incarceration relate in any way to CLTL students’ insight into the courage of Santiago in The Old Man and the Sea or the struggle to resist evil seen in Joyce Carol Oates’ “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been.”

Prior to reading Anne’s Diary, the class had read Jeanne Wakasuki’s Farewell to Manzanar, about government remanding of Japanese-Americans to internment camps in World War II. That military imprisonment of over 110,000 Japanese, German and Italian nationals in 10 camps and dozens of holding centers in Western states remains a regrettable chapter in American dealings with supposed enemies of the state.

As the 14 students began to realize what had become of the two young girls who are the center of Anne’s diary and the Jeanne’s memoir, they focused on the meaning of resistance. The usual 7th grade taunts and bravados have subsequently been tempered, replaced by something like gravitas. They are as lively as ever. However, their energy lies more towards cooperation in lunch recess, hallway interaction, and athletics. A noticeable reduction in detention notices is one indication of the calming influence of their understanding of Anne’s and Jeanne’s suffering.

Do CLTL students find inner strength through the cathartic readings they absorb in discussion and reflection? Is their close encounter with and resistance to evil effected by their participation in characters through reading and reflection? If what has begun to happen to a group of 7th graders is in any way an indication, then it would seem so.

My 7th graders will be further exposed in their next assignment: a study of Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry, the experiences of a young girl and her sharecropper classmates in a 1933 Jim Crowe state. Violence lies just beneath the surface of Mildred Taylor’s fictionalize biography, just as it does in the policed street outside Anne’s hiding place and in Jeanne’s submachine gun-guarded internment camp. Overlooking the courtyard of our carriage house/school building is the unheated attic where 14 7^th graders shivered in the dark, if only for one short class period. Their courtyard is not a prison exercise compound, is not an internment camp hardscrabble baseball field, is not a segregated school on stilts, but is a place showing cooperative good will. In a small way, these 7th graders may have come to realize, as do CLTL participants, what Anne Frank meant when she wrote, “I still believe in spite of everything that people are good at heart.”

 

 

David Sarles has taught Upper and Middle School English at Portledge for 16 years. Previously, he taught in several other private schools in Connecticut and New York. He also taught English at what is now the Engineering School at Fairfield University and was a Teaching Assistant at Stony Brook. He can be reached for comment here.

Deep Reading as Counterculture – Revisited

by: Bryan Hellkamp

After reading many of the comments from the previous blog post about deep reading as counterculture, I felt many people did not fully understand the concept as a whole. The two ideas of deep reading and counterculture are intertwined. There is no one without the other, and so in order to experience one, we must be willing to participate in the other. On page 29 of Chapter Two in Waxler and Hall’s book Transforming Literacy (2011), they state, “for us, deep reading is about slowing down, but it is also about creating your own pace and environment for thinking. It is about gaining focus while working within a context; and it is about moving forward and shaping a future.” I feel this quote is meaningful. This idea proves in order to participate in deep reading as a counterculture we need to purposefully slow down, be aware of, and be present for the activity we are about to partake in, and, finally, make meaning out of it. When people state that deep reading is now more of a challenge than ever because the technological distractions or the pressures of daily life, people should recognize that deep reading IS a kind of counterculture. If we want to experience deep reading we must be aware of, and prepared to re-prioritize, the way we live our daily lives.

 

If we look further into deep reading as a concept we can say that it is the moment when you are reading and you forget you are doing it; instead you are experiencing. The book is no longer black ink on a white sheet, but becomes what you and the author collaboratively make it. You are no longer inside your house, at the bus station, or in the doctor’s office waiting room. You have departed from your surroundings and are now enveloped inside the book’s environment. Waxler and Hall make the argument that “deep readers constantly move from the story being read to their own self, and they create meaning in the gaps which they experience in that movement.” Deep reading is an experience that stays with you after you have finished reading and allows you the opportunity to reflect upon yourself and grow as a human, using experiences otherwise unimaginable or unattainable to you.

 

Those that have experienced deep reading understand how this can effect us and what repercussions, positive and negative, it can have on our lives. For those that insist that deep reading is no longer a viable option in our digital technological age with the “hustle bustle” mentality of the United States cannot forget the concept of counterculture. This idea has an immeasurable amount of definitions, but, in this regard, for the connection with deep reading it is simply living life in an alternative method to the masses. Today’s mainstream culture has us focused on productivity, multi-tasking, and instant gratification. We are fast-paced and always living life and making decisions based on the next moment as opposed to the present moment. You participate in counterculture every time you fight that insatiable urge to check your Facebook feed, every hour on the hour, when you wake up at 5am to get to the gym because it’s the only opportunity you’ll have throughout the day, or in this case, you pick up a book and dedicate time to lose yourself inside it.

There will always be an excuse, a reason, or an opportunity to not do something. We as a society need to realize that we are the masters of ourselves, and while we may have numerous uncontrollable aspects of our life, we do have some that we can and should control. So live in the moment, live for your friends, your family, and for yourself. Life is what we make of it, and to get the most out of it we must be mindful to prioritize what is truly important to us within it and modify accordingly.

 

 

 

Bryan Hellkamp is currently pursuing an MAT in History at UMass Dartmouth. He received his Bachelor’s degree from UMass Dartmouth in Political Science. He is very interested in the educational system as a whole, and would like to continue his education past the MAT in order to be involved with changing and adapting the system to better accommodate our students’ needs in this current technological age of instant information. He can be reached for comment here.

2b or not 2b, That is the ?

 

By Kerrin Willis and Carolyn Gomes Vieira

English teachers have been teaching students how to decode language and literature in classrooms across the country for generations. If we are advanced, we also teach them how to decode visual forms of literature. In academia, we call this practice “unpacking the text”. But times are changing fast and there are now so many other forms of literary and visual stimuli that need unpacking or decoding. In a digital age, “decoding” and ultimately learning how to switch between codes are becoming increasingly important. In the late 90’s this term became popular when talking about teaching inner city kids how to switch between Ebonics or slang and Standard English. Today this can be translated to “text language,” “screen media,” and academic language. In the digital age, the task of teaching students how to decode has become a job for all teachers.

One code that today’s students are intimately familiar with is the so-called “text language” most often used in emails, texting and social networking sites. The point of text language is to get something across as quickly as possible, boiling words down to their most essential letters, such as u for you and srsly for seriously. In text language, the words are not fully present. They are simply a representation of larger words with deeper and more complex meanings. Likewise, the users of text language are not fully present either. Rather, they are often multi-taskers, devoting only a fragment of themselves to the communication they are attempting to achieve. The result is a facsimile of a relationship between people. This issue is discussed extensively in chapter six of Robert Waxler and Maureen Hall’s book Transforming Literacy. Without either the words exchanged or the individuals exchanging them being fully present, the resulting conversation cannot be deep or meaningful. Teaching students how to switch between superficial and academic language is vital to shifting from the impersonal electronic conversations to the full-bodied conversations we expect in the classroom.

Another code that students are familiar with, but not well versed in decoding, is “Screen Media” such as film, TV and internet. While students access these mediums on a daily basis, many are inept at analyzing them and ultimately decoding the messages that they are receiving. Students feel that watching the movie is the same as reading the book, and yet, most are disappointed when the movie ultimately falls short. That is when you can get them to read the book first. This practice of only watching the movie or worse, only understanding the movie version is very damaging to the student. For example, an implied sex scene is played out in detail on screen and other liberties are taken with the written word to make it more marketable to an audience, not to enhance understanding to the narrative. Usually the film version becomes the director or producer’s version of the story removing many details that could be used to form the student’s individual analysis. This becomes a problem because the students believe that there is a “right” answer in literature and we have to re-teach them to think independently. According to Waxler and Hall, although the use of film in the classroom can “enhance learning” and “often provide expansive dialogue in the classroom,” there is no substitution to reading a novel.

Because they are bombarded by the images on the screen, some have become handicapped in creating those images when reading a narrative. It is now the job of the teacher to re-teach the students how to visualize the words on the page and to decode the visuals on the screen. Also, students have come to believe that the internet is infallible, not realizing that everything on the internet needs to be critically evaluated. This leads to misconceptions and problems in decoding. First, because they believe that the internet holds all the answers and the ultimate short cut, they can become misinformed and by using shortcuts, they lack the comprehensive researching skills needed to complete most high-level assignments. Our job, as teachers, has become more difficult as we navigate through the different types of “screen media” and now have to teach a resistant population how to evaluate and use this type of media in academia. For example, the difference between a blog, an academic site, student-generated information and so on all have varying levels of validity, but because these are all searchable, students believe that they are all valid sources. Some teachers find teaching researching skills difficult because they aren’t as versed as the students in using the internet, in particular, and some are resistant in the idea that this is even part of their job, thus many only allow print as valid sources. But as we continue to go further into this digital world, we must change our view and learn how to teach the students how to use the screen culture in a meaningful way instead of being used by it.

That is not to say that text or media language does not have a valid use. A code that can be expressed and read quickly is valuable when one is trying to relay one-dimensional messages such as “b L8 4 dnr” or “r u coming?”. Texting, film and the internet are all effective ways to communicate in some instances. The problem arises when people attempt to use codes in situations where they are not appropriate, or properly decoded, such as academia. As high school English teachers, we often see students who are confused about what language is appropriate for academic use, and it is our job to provide them with the tools they need to recognize the difference between codes that they might use over the internet and with their friends, and codes that they should use to write and speak in the classroom. The classroom is a neighborhood in which students should be fully present physically, emotionally, intellectually, etc. Their language should reflect this presence, and be a vehicle through which they are able to express it. Teaching them how to code switch between standard or academic language, slang, text language, the visual image, is teaching them to be able to think independently and to evaluate evidence effectively. If they are unaware of the difference between formal and informal language, they will be unable to evaluate whether an internet source is valid or not, a film is an accurate portrayal of a narrative or even lead to problems in interpersonal relationships.

All codes are valid and helpful in their own arenas, and the better we are at learning to use them appropriately and switch between them, the better educated we will be.

 

Kerrin and Carolyn are both High School English teachers currently working on getting their initial licensure at UMass Dartmouth.  Kerrin can be reached by email here and Carolyn can be reached by email here.

Deep Reading as Counterculture

By: Stephanie Gardella and Brandon Strickland

 

“By contrast, deep reading requires human beings to call upon and develop attentional skills, to be thoughtful and fully aware. It teaches humans to be thankful for, and to celebrate, their full capabilities. It makes people, in other words, feel good about being fully human.” – Robert Waxler and Dr. Maureen Hall 

The digital age has drastically transformed the way we think, feel and communicate. No longer are the once cherished stories of such great authors as Charles Dickens and Edgar Allan Poe evoking strong feelings and deep thought that they once did. Social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook are replacing them and consume a majority of some people’s day. Sitting by the fire for hours reading a novel is a past time that is unlikely to be a part of the digital generations’ lives. The gravitational pull by technology is too strong for most. People may be reading more than ever on these social networks, but it is on a superficial level.

In Changing Lives Through Reading and Writing by Robert Waxler and Dr. Maureen Hall they argue that reading on these social network sites “does not require full thinking, full awareness, or full presence.” When it comes to reading, “quantity over quality,” certainly appears to be the maxim for the digital generation. In a time where people are more concerned with what someone is writing on their social network page, deep reading is definitely something that should be emphasized in the classroom. Sven Birkerts coined the term “deep reading” and defines it as, “the slow and meditative possession of a book.”

Although, students may claim they are doing some sort of reading while following Facebook or Twitter, they are not “deep reading.” Reading hundreds of posts about friends and families play-by-play of their mundane daily activities doesn’t exactly conjure about the same type of emotional reactions and deep thinking one would get from reading a novel such as Ernest Hemingway’s “Farewell to Arms.” It is the constant need to be connected to others through an electronic medium that prevents people from losing themselves in a novel instead.

This is why deep reading is such a great addition to anyone’s life. Deep reading, being in their own world when they read a piece of great literature, can help people to form a reconnection with individuals on a different level that they could find on their computer. When someone participates in deep reading one could say they are immersing themselves in a counter-culture. They are separate from what they would normally be interacting with in society and their classrooms, work places, and personal life.

A counter-culture is characterized as a culture with values and ideals that run counter to those of an established society or alternative culture. This counter-culture is where they can find their inner self. When individuals, specifically students, are involved in deep reading they are put into a counter-culture that improves them as thinkers and learners.

Deep reading, according to Robert Waxler and Maureen Hall, “holds possibilities for helping people make meaning and journey towards full understanding of self” as well as helping them to connect to their text. Once they have a connection to their narrative they can begin to connect it with their lives on a personal and emotional level. Then they are able to connect better with others.

When students are in an environment where deep reading is utilized, they are able to get more out of the classroom. Furthermore, the counterculture they participate in when they practice deep reading can go beyond the classroom and their class work. It can help them improve as individuals, improving their life and their relationships with others. As a future educator I feel like reading of any kind is an important part of every student’s education, but especially the act of deep reading. We’re not only trying to help them be better learners but better individuals and better human beings.

Stephanie Gardella has a BA in English from Rhode Island College and is currently enrolled in the Post Bac Licensure Program at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth to gain certification in teaching English at the secondary level. She begins her student teaching in the Spring. She enjoys baking, singing, and spending time with friends and loved ones. She can be reached by email here.

Brandon Strickland is applying to the MAT-I Program at UMass Dartmouth with a concentration in middle school science. He currently has a preliminary license in general science 5-8 and works at the Stone Therapeutic Day Middle School as a permanent substitute. 
He can be reached by email here.

A Reaction to Changing Lives Through Literature

By Tara Knoll

 

On November 2, I sat in on a session of Changing Lives Through Literature led by Professor Waxler and held at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth campus. A senior in the English department at Princeton, I’m writing my undergraduate senior thesis on the role that literature plays in prison and in alternative sentencing programs, with a specific focus on CLTL.

The participants that week were to discuss Walter Mosley’s Always Outnumbered, Always Outgunned, the story of a man named Socrates Fortlow who is trying to negotiate his role as both a human being and as a member of a community after spending twenty-seven years in prison. After reading the text, I was excited to hear what the participants in the program would have to say about it. I had researched the evolution of literature programs in American prisons beginning in the 1940s and their tendency to restrict certain literature out of a fear of the reader’s identification with the criminal, or even a resulting glorification of crime. Would the participants identify with Socrates? With his struggles? Would they like the book? Would they want to talk about their own stories in relation to it?

Although I tried to avoid having any expectations, I couldn’t help but be surprised. As a college student, I’ve grown pretty adept at discerning when a student hasn’t read the text for seminar or precept. The uncomfortable avoidance of eye contact with the instructor, the enigmatically vague comments about some general idea conveniently found on the back cover—such are the dead give-aways (not that I’ve ever exhibited these behaviors myself, of course). It was clear from the start, however, that these participants had all read Mosley’s work. There wasn’t a single awkward silence, nor was there a moment when Professor Waxler had to encourage the participants to speak. Rather, Professor Waxler acted as mediator for the animated conversation that ensued.

As the discussion progressed, I realized that I also hadn’t been prepared for the passion the participants demonstrated with respect to the text. Some had read it multiple times. Others drew parallels between Mosley’s work and the text they had read for the last session, Hemingway’s The Old Man and the Sea. Another participant had written notes beforehand so as not to forget key insights. It was unquestionable that they all cared about the text. Even as an English major who participates in countless seminars discussing works of literature, I was refreshed and inspired by the participants’ engagement with the text. And though their opinions could not differ more—one participant loved the book, another absolutely despised it—the dialogue remained respectful. That in itself was an impressive feat; with eight men, one woman, Professor Waxler, several probation officers and judges, a defense attorney, and a priest participating in the session, the diversity of opinion around the table was immense.

One of the aspects of the program I was most curious about was the interplay between reading and collective discussion. Throughout the session I began to understand that the two exist in a kind of crucial symbiosis; one without the other would simply not allow for the deep engagement and struggling with the text experienced by every reader in the room. The participants generally refused identification with Socrates. One participant declared that he had “hard feelings for the book,” because Socrates “hasn’t earned redemption.” Another observed that Socrates “did a poor job at trying to redeem himself.” Although each reader came into the session with their own reading of the text, shaped by individual experiences and perception, those readings were called into question by the exploration of other interpretations. At one point, Professor Waxler chuckled, explaining, “before this session I always thought of Socrates as much more heroic.”

Through the collective discussion, some readers seemed to change their minds about their initial reading of the text. Others maintained or even defended their own readings, but recognized opinions they hadn’t considered before. The interplay between reading and collective discussion generated participants’ reflection on their own experiences and the text itself. Professor Waxler guided the discussion by pointing to specific situations in the text and acknowledging the different decisions characters could have made. For example, in a later scene in the novel Socrates rats out a man who has been setting fires. Although some participants initially expressed a desire for consistency, even for absolutes—such as snitching is always wrong—the discussion complicated this understanding of right and wrong. What if you have to choose between being loyal to your community, and being loyal to your brother? All of the readers in the room grappled with the complexity inherent in making such decisions. Right and wrong didn’t seem to be the crux of the issue, especially when characters (and people) sometimes have to choose between two options that may seem “right.”

The participants were not shy about drawing connections between the text and their own lives. One participant’s experience as a reader really gets to the heart of my opinion, that after the session participants see both their own experiences and the text a little differently. When the participant first read the text, he overlooked a paragraph in the very beginning that described what Socrates had done that put him behind bars. As he read the book, he found that he really respected Socrates and the efforts he made once he was out of prison. However, when the participant discovered what Socrates had done, he wanted to throw the book down. “I respected everything he was doing until I found out,” he said. Another reader interjected—isn’t that the type of judgment society makes? The realization that we are all susceptible to making those judgments—as readers, as employers, as members of society—was critical.

After sitting in on the session, I made plans to return next month to watch other sessions on the UMass Dartmouth campus and at Middlesex Community College, led by Professor Jean Trounstine. I’m overwhelmed by the amazing work of those who make CLTL possible, and by how helpful they’ve been in my research thus far. I believe that one of the reasons why CLTL is so meaningful is its avoidance of a rhetoric or goal of catharsis, even of therapy in some sense. Literature is not significant because it fixes problems or because it somehow “treats” its readers. Literature, if anything, makes things more difficult; it makes us more aware of the complexity, arbitrariness, and at times injustice in our own lives and society. It’s this awareness that is key.

One participant observed that even though “you do your time and pay your debt to society,” once you get out of jail, you’re still paying. Socrates embodies this constant struggle—the process of being haunted, finding peace, and having that peace shaken. Mirroring Socrates’ struggle, one participant explained, “the hardest part is forgiving yourself.” CLTL engages participants in a constant dialogue with the text and with diverse interpretations and readings of it. As the participants construct themselves as readers, they recognize that they aren’t alone in this struggle.

 

Tara Knoll is a senior at Princeton University where she is finishing her undergraduate degree. Her interest in how literature affects inmates and offenders led her to the decision to concentrate on Changing Lives Through Literature as the subject for her senior thesis.  She can be reached by email here.