My little brother had this book years back, and I decided to pick it up and read it out of curiosity.
The story was a little strange. There's a burnt-out teacher who just sits back and lets his students do whatever they want, and one student who decides she's not going to take it. So she writes a little essay badmouthing the teacher and tacks it to the wall. Upon seeing this, the teacher angrily takes it down, but later decides to do something positive with the situation. He decides to let the kids make their own newspaper.
The book goes into some detail about what it's like to make the newspaper, giving us a view of Cara Landry's excitement and the effect the newspaper project has on the class. It was pretty neat. But then, the book began to get heavy-handed.
When Cara writes a very personal editorial on divorce, the principal, having always hated this teacher and looking for a reason to fire him, decides to use the editorial and its "inappropriate" content as his excuse to do so. This results in the teacher deciding to preach to his kids about the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and finally inviting them all to witness the disciplinary hearing that he'll stand in, where he may or may not be fired.
I felt the book was a little ridiculous in its presentation. I found the story interesting up until it decided to turn into a lesson.
In an attempt to tell an adult story in a way that kids can understand, it gets a bit clumsy. We're told at one point that the principal calls his secretary - who's right next door to him and who he could easily walk over to - on the phone merely because using the phone makes him feel more important. An adult character quirk some of us could appreciate. Later, we're told that the principal uses certain language to try to make the teacher look bad when writing his request to have the teacher removed - examples of "big words" are used to show that he means business.
Probably the most glaring example of the gap in understanding of the audience, though, was when the teacher is explaining to the class that he's about to go to a disciplinary hearing and may be fired from his teaching position, and in the telling, "[doesn't] paint himself as a victim." Excuse me? As an adult reading this, I know what that expression means, but what about the kids this book is ostensibly written for? I realize that explaining how the teacher basically admitted that, yes, he did wrong and was a lousy teacher for years and is only now getting what he deserved back then, but it's not his fault, so don't think he wants pity, can be a little time consuming to write. But still, to use the expression "paint himself as a victim" to sum up that point shows to me that this author was at a loss in trying to appeal to the savvy adult audience who might walk away with a moral from the tale, and the kids whose level it was allegedly written at.
The moral is apparently the value of the First Amendment, represented by Cara's "controversial" editorial about divorce, that proved to be meaningful to one of her classmates. Or maybe it's how even a lousy teacher can earn a second chance by finding something important and meaningful that gets his kids to think and learn. Or maybe that schools should let kids write about important issues that affect their lives, and give them an outlet to do so. All good messages, I think many will agree.
If that's the case, however, this probably should have been a book for adults. The story is certainly very "adult", and I think a book like this would be better written at an adult or YA level, maybe in short story form. As a kids' book that tackle "adult" themes in ways that likely will go over many kids' heads, I feel it's just too clumsy to really work. As an adult story, I think it could have been written in more detail and put into Reader's Digest. Hence the 2 star rating.