At first blush, the contentious Gilroy Unified School District
school board meeting of May 6 seemed to be about one particular
book — Victor Villasenor’s Rain of Gold, a 562-page work of
nonfiction — and whether it should remain on the core reading list
for English literature courses at Gilroy High School.
At first blush, the contentious Gilroy Unified School District school board meeting of May 6 seemed to be about one particular book — Victor Villasenor’s Rain of Gold, a 562-page work of nonfiction — and whether it should remain on the core reading list for English literature courses at Gilroy High School. But more significant than the book’s fate was the content of the debate, which revealed a school board more interested in maintaining cultural diversity than achieving academic rigor.
Before dipping into the Rain of Gold debate, we’d like to pause and praise those who were instrumental in the adoption of a high-caliber English literature textbook (McDougal-Littel) for all high school grades. To be commended are the English department staff, the Reading List Advisory Group members who provided meaningful input, and GUSD parents who forced the district to address curriculum deficiencies in the first place. This same group also revamped the English department’s criteria for literary selections, which has led to a core reading list heavy in college-board approved texts.
As English Department Chairman Peter Gray explained, the McDougal-Littel textbook provides “a wide variety of fiction, nonfiction, drama and poetry at every grade level, from a variety of sources that gives us a framework in literature and grammar instruction and writing that vastly improves the consistency and overall quality of our program.” In other words, GHS students and parents can look forward to higher-quality instruction. And the district can anticipate measurable improvements in written and verbal English language test scores.
It should be noted that these positive curriculum developments have come about in spite of a school board and a district administration that acts more as roadblock than conduit for change.
But back to Rain of Gold, which, as Gray remarked, simply doesn’t belong on the core reading list. “In terms of how it’s written and what I can do to teach the kids and how it connects in a standards-based way to English instruction, I found it wanting,” Gray said, quickly adding that “we are committed as a department, and myself as the chair, to replacing Rain of Gold with a work by another Chicano author.”
Did our school board embrace the subject matter expert’s opinion? Did they acknowledge the wisdom of the rigorous reading list criteria — an outcome of a painful year of task force meetings and intense public scrutiny? Did they honor Gray’s assurance that he would find an appropriately diverse replacement for Rain of Gold? No. Instead they responded with lethargic resistance to change.
Despite Gray’s remarks and other clear indications of Rain of Gold’s literary shortcomings, Trustee Jim Rogers remained unconvinced. “I have never heard any complaints about it,” he said. “The book has been on the list for eight years” — as if longevity establishes merit. Board members Bob Kraemer and T.J. Owens also displayed skepticism, making it clear that Rain of Gold should remain for now.
Board president Jaime Rosso allowed his personal fondness for Rain of Gold to rule him and make him deaf to Gray’s assurance that an appropriate, culturally diverse replacement would be found.
Whether Rain of Gold remains isn’t our greatest concern. After all, it’s just one book – and a secondary one at that – on a long list of books. It’s the board’s reaction that gives us pause. Could a school board do any more to publicly undermine the authority of the man responsible for implementing the high school’s English lit program?
We wish that the board were half as concerned about the steady decline in written and verbal English language skills as they are about saving a poorly written novel of dubious literary merit written far below its assigned grade level. With the notable exception of Trustee Tom Bundros, who was adamant the book be removed and quite clear on the need for stringent reading list criteria, the outcome of the Rain of Gold debate leaves us deeply concerned about the board’s lack of support for real, ongoing curriculum reform efforts throughout the secondary education system.
