In order of publication date, we've got con:
Furthermore, a story with a positive ending does not necessarily make for effective educative material, especially when minors are the recipients. For example, simply because a porn star is reformed doesn’t mean we should have children read the sordid details on his or her way to purity.
And then pro:
'Diary of a Part-Time Indian' does not reflect moral deterioration of any sort. To the contrary, its inclusion in the curriculum only reflects our schools’ continued commitment to providing students with the most well-rounded, in-depth, and unbiased education possible: teaching independent thought and not just regurgitation of the rhetoric of the consensus.
It is not that the “naïve and simple” adolescent world of 'Nancy Drew' and 'The Hardy Boys' is now virtually extinct, as one parent observed; that world never existed in the first place. Educators and students alike have examined the changing world of the 21st century in order to understand that it is a waste of time and materials to pretend that teenagers live (or have ever lived) that type of life.
It is definitely reasonable for parents to demand that public schools provide excellent education. However, it is completely unreasonable, unrealistic, and undesirable for parents to try to control every aspect of public education and to try to impose their individual views and preferences on the entire school system.
As a parent, I understand first-hand how difficult it is to raise good human beings in a world that is often vulgar and negative. However, the answer is not to remove from the curriculum an award-winning, distinguished book that can help our young people to become more empathetic human beings. Students in Westfield live in a sheltered, highly homogeneous society.