Florida's Reptile Ban - Just My 2cents' Worth

 

I've been following the posts on social media regarding Florida's ban on sixteen species of reptiles, from tegus to anacondas, for some time now.  To be honest, my feelings are very mixed.

I feel deep sympathy for the pet owners who take proper care of their pets, enclosing them in safe, escape-proof pens and terrariums, keeping them for life - or surrendering them to a capable rescue if they can't keep them.  Some pet owners have large reptiles because they're allergic to cats and dogs... tegus are a viable alternative pet for them.  Some have a deep and abiding love for a particular species.  Many have sunk a great deal of money into their hobby of reptile keeping, and actively try to help others to do it right.  These people are being unfairly punished.

I feel a burning irritation towards those "bad apples" whose irresponsible reptile keeping has led to tegus, pythons, iguanas, and more becoming established invasive species in Florida.  Whether the release into the wild came because of an act of God (Hurricane Andrew resulted in the destruction of a breeding facility and subsequent escape of python breeding stock into the nearby wetlands) or because of the countless idiots who buy a foot-long hatchling, thinking it would make a cute pet, and then set it loose when it's too big to keep feeding, Florida an epicenter of invasive species.  And because of these flawed human creatures, the ban has come down on all reptile keepers.

However, I also feel a distinct sense of annoyance towards the reptile owners who are flooding social media with indignation and blindered tunnel vision rantings... "They can pry my tegu out of my cold, dead hands!"  "If they can ban these reptiles in Florida, they can ban all reptiles anywhere!"  "Look out - your pet reptile will be next!"  "This will just mean everyone will be buying from unregulated, illegal breeders!"  "Why don't they ban cats?  Cats are more destructive than invasive reptiles."  Um, no.  Sorry.  NOT HELPING, PEOPLE!  Some of these knee-jerk reactions may have a grain of truth in them, but they don't do anything for the cause of keeping pet reptiles.  Such arguments entirely ignore the very real danger invasives pose to the environment.  What's more, they paint all of us in the reptile hobby as whining, entitled children who think it's their right to own whatever species they want, wherever they want.  That sort of attitude, that sort of thinking, isn't going to do a whit of good when it comes to preventing the wholesale (wholeSCALE?) banning of reptiles in other places.

The fact of the matter is that if reptile owners... or the owners of any exotic, potentially invasive species... want to prevent future bans, they need to band together and take steps that might be troublesome to some, downright disasterous to others.

1) We need to push for permits and licensing of potentially invasive exotics BEFORE the government decides to ban them.  This includes licensing or other forms of registration, and mandatory escape-proof housing.  This will be a hassle to responsible pet owners, yes.  But it will also show the world that owners of exotic pets don't want the natural world ruined just because they like to keep certain species as pets.

2) We need to make it harder for the average owner to own potentially invasive species.  One of the problems with species becoming invasive is the careless, clueless, irresponsible owners who let their pets loose intentionally when they can't care for them any longer or by accident, keeping their pets in habitats that are not escape-proof.  In fragile ecological environments, invasive species are like a loaded gun.  You can't just wander down to your local WalMart and pick up a semiautomatic rifle.  Why should any idiot with a credit card be able to buy an anaconda at a reptile expo?  This means limiting the species that can be purchased in "big box" pet stores or specialty reptile stores, yes... possibly even stopping the sales of reptiles in those places entirely.

3) We need to be active in our local politics.  The needs of a reptile keeper in South Florida are markedly different than the needs of a reptile keeper in South Bend, Indiana... and we need to work to be sure that blanket legislation doesn't apply to all geographic areas.  After all, there's little chance of invasive reptiles getting a toehold in a state where brutal winters keep even native species from thriving.  On the other hand, in a tropical or semi-tropical state, stricter regulations may, in fact, be warranted.  

I don't either suggest or suggest against joining political organizations like USARK - on the one hand, I feel USARK is a good, solid, reputable organization that could do a considerable amount of good for the reptile cause.  On the other, they support across-the-board private ownership, sales, and trade of venomous species and the species most likely to pose a problem to the environment, should they be loosed intentionally or accidentally, which I think is a bad idea.  I'm a reptile fan, but I don't think that just because someone likes reptiles that they should be allowed to own any reptile they choose.

I do wonder, though, what the future of the reptile hobby will look like.  Reptile enthusiasts are not like other pet owners... many are "collectors" rather than traditional "pet owners" for one, and collectors who house dozens of reptiles, breeding and trading them, tend to view their animals very differently than someone who has just one beloved reptile as a personal pet.  I wonder how much of the hobby is driven by these collectors, rather than pet owners... and what that will mean, someday.  

A quick Google search pulled up half a dozen green anacondas, generally considered the world's heaviest snakes, for sale on the popular Morph Market website.  Anyone with $2000 or so to spare can buy one and have it shipped to their doorstep - and some, like the male advertised as "NOT a pet - for breeding only" - are definitely marketed to collectors rather than pet owners.  Should there be blanket legislation to stop this?  I don't think so.  But should just anyone be able to buy a snake that can weigh several hundred pounds and needs to eat whole piglets?  I don't think so, either.

It's a puzzling situation, and I don't think I'm ever going to be able to side with one faction or the other, wholeheartedly.

Teaching Reading and Writing

I'm going to ramble here.  This is not intended to be a thoughtful, well-educated and well-organized discussion of my issues with Columbia Teacher's Workshop.  I'm feeling frustrated right now, because I'm trying to put together my lesson plans for next week, and that always puts me out of temper.  I am just venting.  

I'm not fond of the way my district teaches reading and writing.  If you asked me why, and nobody really does, I'd say it's because I don't really understand the basic concept.  And if I, the teacher, don't understand the concepts behind what I'm trying to teach... is there any chance that my students will?

Our district esposes the Columbia Teacher's Workshop school of teaching reading and writing... known to some as Reader's Workshop and Writer's Workshop, known to others as the Lucy Calkins method of teaching (Calkins herself apparently bristles as being given full blame, or credit, for this).  I have never been fully and properly taught how to teach this way.  I was, many years ago, presented with a hefty multivolume reading and writing program and told that I would be given instruction... but aside from time spent with my curriculum coach because I am so piss-poor at delivering this content, and aside from some incomprehensible sessions during professional development days, I swear I haven't.

Columbia Teacher's Workshop gained noteriety by tossing its highly-trained teaching students into underperforming urban schools and revamping the way reading and writing was taught.  I can pretty much assure you that these young, idealistic and motivated teachers had something more than a set of wordy, overwritten teacher's manuals and a handful of professional development sessions to their credit before they worked their wornders.

All I have really been able to understand, over the years that I've been trying and failing to teach Reader's and Writer's Workshop, is that A) direct instruction of skills is Frowned Upon.  B) You should be able to somehow convey a lesson's worth of meaning and comprehension to your students in under 10 minutes.  C) You should be conferencing with your students daily.  Okay.  I can get behind this, except for the No Explicit Teaching of Skills part.  I think there's definitely a place for direct instruction, modeling, and practice in the classroom.

Only that's not the way it goes.  I've tried to read these scripted, overly-long teacher's guides before... they are deadly dull, and the modeling that goes on in the lessons described is nowhere remotely like I would ever teach my own students (because it's not ME teaching, it's someone else!)  Only rarely am I able to parsel out what the teaching focus is... and when I am, it's not due to anything helpful written in the books.  It's usually Dumb Luck.  So first lesson learned:  The people who put together this model of teaching have NO CLUE how to write for teachers.  Teachers want things quick and simple.  Give us the heart of what needs to be taught, and let us teach it.  Don't spend pages and pages showing us how someone else would teach it.

And now, as I'm trying to write about my frustrations, I come upon my second problem:  I get confused.  Not only do I get confused about how to teach this male-bovine-produced-fertilizer, I get confused about why I'm confused.  I don't like Reader's and Writer's Workshop, but I know for a fact that my reasoning is muddied and unclear - because my understanding of the program is muddied and unclear.  There seems to be nothing about CTW that is simple and to the point.  

My younger sister, who is a much better teacher than I am (she actually reads about how to be a better teacher, belongs to Facebook groups that help her improve her teaching, and seems intrinsically motivated to continually improve herself) suggests that I join a fan group on Facebook and admit that I am confused about how to teach Reader's and Writer's Workshop.  I guess that's her way of telling me I need Professional Help.

I want to know why, when even looking at the CTW books pumps up my blood pressure, I would voluntarily submit myself to the scrutiny and censure of people who LOVE this method of teaching?  I don't want to be taught how to love Lucy Calkins.  (I'm sure she's a perfectly pleasant person on an individual level, truly I do.)  I just want to know how to do what she promotes without losing my mind.  I don't want to, or need to drink the Kool-Aid.

All I really want is the watered-down version of what it is I'm supposed to teach... the barest of eductational goals.  I don't want to be teaching Unit 2: Reading the Weather, Reading the World.  Please... if I wanted to teach my students about extreme weather, I'd have become a meteorologist.  I want to know how to help my students understand informational texts without jumping through the hoops of "researching" extreme weather - which is what I'm supposed to do according to CTW, without being supplied with the appropriate texts for said research.   

And don't even get me started on the next unit, which expects me to teach about the roots of the Revolutionary War (regardless of the fact that this is not in my curriculum, or in anyone's curriculum, at the fourth grade level).  Since when do I need to teach my students about the French and Indian War to teach them what a primary source is - and since when, I want to know, does a FOURTH GRADER need to learn what primary and secondary sources ARE?????  I'd be happy if I could teach my young readers how to find the main idea of a passage, and my young writers how to avoid writing run-on sentences!

I just want to know what to teach my students that is developmentally and age-appropriate.  If the powers that be don't want me to do that by teaching a whole-class book in reading anymore, fine.  Just tell me how to do this in a way that doesn't make my students gawp at me with the same mixture of despair and confusion that I feel trying to teach them.

The Man Who Invented Christmas

 

I don't generally have much use for films made for adults.

Given my nature and my profession, both as a teacher and as a writer of children's books, my preference is almost always for films aimed at families or children.  Entertainment aimed at adults, I often find, is too grim or too disturbing, too vulgar or too focused on romance and relationships.  I just don't enjoy it, regardless of what the critics say.   Oh, sure, I'll go to almost any superhero movie - and fantasies are a safe bet for me, too, but realistic cinema?  Historical?  Biopics?  No thank you.

While visiting my parents for a few days, my son requested a movie night.  He's very congizant of what I like and I don't like, and humors me - at 15, he's got a much wider range of acceptable cinematic entertainment than his mother.  He suggested an old favorite of both of ours - The Princess Bride - but when that was unavailable, we started scrolling through other potential options.

Our wants, as mother and son, were fairly simple - something lighthearted, with a happy ending.  After watching about half a dozen trailers, with reactions ranging from a "meh" from my son to an "I don't think so" from me, we reached the trailer for The Man Who Invented Christmas.  I can't say we leapt with joy at seeing it... but we both agreed that it didn't look half bad, and my parents agreed.  

I loved it.

Now, granted, I know a bit about Charles Dickens from my teaching experience... I've read short biographies of the man, and while I did think the actor (cleanshaven - didn't Dickens have a moustache and beard?) looked rather young for the Dickens I pictured, I was pleased with the casting.  The acting was wonderful, the script had just the right combination of laughs and serious notes, and as an exploration of a writer's process of creation, I found it spot on.

In fact, I loved that aspect of the film above all others.  The notion of a character coming to life and interacting with its creator tickled me silly, since the best characters do just that with their readers.  But yes, they also do that with their creators... and I howled with laughter at the point in the film where Dickens wailed protest to a friend that his characters were refusing to do what he wanted them to.  I've been there myself!  I loved the idea that the characters were physically following their writer around... at one point, he peeked out a window and - hello, dearie! - the characters assembled on the street corner below waved cheerfully up at him.  Scrooge, the old reprobate, even had the temerity to inform Dickens that he felt the book was too one-sided, and had prepared notes to give his own perspective to the story!  I'm not sure my family understood why I was giggling so much, but in many ways, this is a writer's movie, and one that nobody but a writer could truly appreciate.

If you're a reader or a writer, and you're looking for a pleasant way to pass a couple of hours on a winter's night... I'd strongly recommend The Man Who Invented Christmas.  Even if it isn't the holidays anymore.  It's definitely worth a viewing.