Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, February 20, 1995 TAG: 9502210021
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
It is a shame, generations of American girls would agree - sobbing their eyes out after Beth, the sweet sister, dies in Louisa May Alcott's ``Little Women.''
But this 11-year-old didn't read the classic 19th-century novel. After first seeing the Hollywood movie, she read a shorter, modernized and much simplified version of the book, based on the screenplay and written by Lawlor.
It may seem fairly innocent. Certainly, retelling a classic story on a child's level is nothing new.
But in recent weeks, Lawlor's book has become a lightning rod in the longstanding and often bitter debate over whether U.S. educational standards are being dumbed-down - lowered so more students will meet them.
``Obviously, if you attract a child back into reading with something like this, then it's a good thing,'' said Christopher Cross, president of the Council for Basic Education in Washington.
``But the worry is that if this is all they're reading - if you end up substituting a book like this and basically lowering your standards and lowering your expectations - then you've got a problem.''
Such worries are especially relevant because American children's reading habits and ability continue to be dismal, Cross said.
A 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress survey indicated students spend very little time reading, either for pleasure or for schoolwork, but they do pass three or more hours a day watching television.
Although U.S. college entrance tests indicate recent improvement in math skills, they show little improvement in verbal skills, Cross notes. And although some schools are teaching more reading these days, many still are not.
Lawlor insists her intentions were the best.
The Evanston, Ill., author of 13 children's historical and modern novels wanted to make the classic accessible to a new generation and pique children's imaginations to read again.
``If you talk to a woman who's 40 to 50, she has memories of `Little Women,''' Lawlor said. ``So do women 30 to 40. But anything below that, and it's not part of their history.''
Youngsters who see the film and then want to read the book often can't, she contends. Alcott's 550-page novel - with a complex plot, intricate Victorian writing style and Civil War background - is just too difficult.
``The reality is, today, you have to grab their attention right away, or you'll never interest them,'' Lawlor said.
Jean Osborn, who helps run a center for reading at the University of Illinois in Champaign, said the real point is to get children to read. ``What they read is almost less important, in this argument, than just the fact that they read,'' she said.
Classic stories have always been retold in simpler versions for children, agreed John Holdren of the Core Knowledge Foundation in Charlottesville, Va.
Holdren's group, in fact, recommends that schools teach a shortened but original version of Alcott's book to fifth-graders.
But he dislikes Lawlor's book. He finds particularly disquieting what Lawlor believes she did best - updating the language and mood to make the story more familiar to modern youngsters.
And, Holdren and many educators point out, children learn new vocabulary by coming across a word they don't understand and trying to figure it out. Sometimes, they look it up. Sometimes, they ask a parent.
Yes, agreed Lawlor. But in the past, children who got stuck on a word or an idea had a parent at home to turn to. Among the children she works with as a reading and writing consultant, that happens less often.
by CNB