Page 2 | Teacher showing photos to kids of victorian dead children - slightly disturbing

whyiwonderwhy · 2025-04-25T22:51:21+00:00

I am finding this so disturbing I can't sleep! However I might be being oversensitive, who knows. It is the "but - WHY?" bit which is bothering me most. The lesson was about the industrial revolution, and the subject of photography came up, 2 of the earliest photos were shown to the class (13-14yo) and then....I wish I could say the teacher showed photos of some of the extraordinary engineering inventions of the day, or of busy streets, or China, or something wonderful and extraordinary...but no, the teacher showed 10 photos of dead children and talked about how the Victorians would photograph dead children as though they were still alive, with the rest of the family, in a commemorative way. I have seen some in the past (I didn't learn about it at school however) and they are moving and tragic and disturbing. Nothing else, just these photos. Just wondering...why? why would the teacher do this? Any ideas? This teacher has form by the way. A lot of it. But this has for some reason blindsided me.

Original poster

whyiwonderwhy · 02/05/2025 11:18

GrammarTeacher · 29/04/2025 05:15

There is nothing unusual about being interested in sciences AND humanities. I am myself. Three of my current Year 13 English Lit students ate holding medical offers including one from Cambridge. Being interested in the world around you is normal. And it is a total fallacy that these areas do not overlap in anyway.
Woke, or caring for people who aren’t like you and being aware of structural issues, isn’t a problem either. Jesus (as written in the Gospels) is pretty woke.

Show quote history

There is nothing unusual in what you say, many of the children who do well in one area do well in the other areas too and there is overlap as you say, and many have extensive personal knowledge of more than one area but I was talking about holding oneself out as having professional expertise in wide areas (able to do research in relation to those areas and acting as consultant for example) not about having wide personal interests or knowledge. The two things are different, do you see what I mean? But having wide knowledge is good, great in fact, and we should be encouraging this in children.

OP posts:

Original poster

whyiwonderwhy · 02/05/2025 11:14

HonestAquaMember · 02/05/2025 10:57

@whyiwonderwhy so glad you're back!

Can you please clarify who you spoke to who was the higher up you mentioned? I'm still very interested in knowing this pertinent information.

No, sorry.

OP posts:

Original poster

whyiwonderwhy · 02/05/2025 11:14

nyancatdays · 02/05/2025 11:01

My main beef with the woke or progressive education ideology is that it limits education, it believes that teaching rules in relation to grammar isn't necessary (the "historians" on this this thread are likely to refer to themselves as "linguists" on other threads and tell us all that grammar rules are outdated) and that traditional education is not necessary.

Well, that’s extremely rude. I don’t go about calling myself a linguist “on other threads”, and I don’t even know what you’re on about to be honest. Have you not noticed that in the last decade state education has become obsessed with grammar, SPAG and so on? The very last thing current education “progressives” are about is getting rid of grammar - the complete reverse. Do you even have kids in the education system?

Really wish I’d not bothered taking all that time the other day to reply to your posts at length to explain lots of aspects of academia. Can quite see why the other historian poster hasn’t come back to carry on having their time and goodwill wasted.

What you are saying here about grammar is completely incorrect and it does seem odd that you are not aware of this. There is a massive push for "descriptive" grammar books which move away from traditional grammar, and a move away from rules and a push towards saying "should of" not "should have". The falling standards in literacy for decades prompted a move by the government a few years ago to introduce far more grammar but there are countless articles on the net about the fact that there are insufficient teachers who themselves have a strong grasp of grammar - because of progressive moves in the 60s/70s/80s - sufficiently to teach it. Have a look at the pressures on academics in the 60s - 80s to move away from trad grammar and to re-write the rules. It had a catastrophic effect on literacy levels.

I have shown goodwill too! I am not sure why you think showing goodwill is relevant to how other posters form opinions or discuss points, other than showing courtesy and respect, which I have? I wasn't referring specifically to you in relation to saying that the historians here would be linguists on other threads.

OP posts:

nyancatdays · 02/05/2025 11:01

My main beef with the woke or progressive education ideology is that it limits education, it believes that teaching rules in relation to grammar isn't necessary (the "historians" on this this thread are likely to refer to themselves as "linguists" on other threads and tell us all that grammar rules are outdated) and that traditional education is not necessary.

Well, that’s extremely rude. I don’t go about calling myself a linguist “on other threads”, and I don’t even know what you’re on about to be honest. Have you not noticed that in the last decade state education has become obsessed with grammar, SPAG and so on? The very last thing current education “progressives” are about is getting rid of grammar - the complete reverse. Do you even have kids in the education system?

Really wish I’d not bothered taking all that time the other day to reply to your posts at length to explain lots of aspects of academia. Can quite see why the other historian poster hasn’t come back to carry on having their time and goodwill wasted.

HonestAquaMember · 02/05/2025 10:57

@whyiwonderwhy so glad you're back!

Can you please clarify who you spoke to who was the higher up you mentioned? I'm still very interested in knowing this pertinent information.

Original poster

whyiwonderwhy · 02/05/2025 10:52

HuffleMyPuffle · 29/04/2025 01:14

Ah

It's quite obvious now

This teacher is a progressive teacher who teachs things you perceive as "woke"

The person "high up" you spoke to was a lobbyist against whatever agenda was being pushed who then presumably also tried to bully the school to fire this teacher but you were both unsuccessful because the teacher was following the school's own anti-discrimination policies

You can't say more because you know that you'll be labelled a racist/transphobe/homophobe/whatever and it's a risk to you yourself to be outed as such

You have now tried to therefore latch on to a different reason to get them fired - criticising their teaching standards

And you feel you are an authority on how history is taught because you studied history 30 years ago and refuse to believe that styles change (which they have and happened whilst I was at school like 15 years ago)

Do you think that the teacher might be a progressive? That would mean, to me, to be teaching things according to certain mindsets which are branded to be related to societies being open and democratic. But I don't know whether the teacher is doing this for sure.

I grew up in the first wave of "progressive" and know how much damage it can do. Progressive means basically a reduction in education - the positives are supposed to be a freer and more natural existence but what it actually means is that there is a huge gap between the educated elite and the not educated masses, meaning that grooming by extreme groups and more frustration and unhappiness and less understanding of the world around them which means less tolerance. So what half the posters on here are advocating will actually achieve the opposite of what they have been told it will achieve.

I think that the more educated (ie trad ed rather than prog ed) children are the more opportunities they will have personally, socially and professionally, more likely to understand governance and its complexities and therefore better able to engage in democracy.

"Higher up" meant someone within the education authority, just to be clear! Not lobbyists. Good grief - are there lobbyists about all this? I don't think so. More likey there is a monopoly going all one way.

I am not any of the phobic things you say. I am a traditional liberal democrat if anything.

Nothing should have changed in the last 30 years other than any genuine changes in the subject matter as a result of bonafide research in the intervening period, or changes related to child development research. Sadly the latter has most definitely not happened - showing macarbre photos to a bunch of 13/14 year olds would fit into neither description.

I am not sharing details other than what I have shared because I don't want to.

And see your chum's charming threats about mental health and social services. Is that connected to the progressive agenda too? What a world.

I have given you the courtesy of a polite reply without accusations or invented scenarios. Perhaps you could do the same for me.

OP posts:

Original poster

whyiwonderwhy · 02/05/2025 10:44

HuffleMyPuffle · 02/05/2025 10:41

OG she's back

At least OP has now clarified it's actually fuck all to do with photos of dead kids and everything to do with their bigotry

How rude you are and how ironic that you think that I am rude!

I think that showing a number of photos of dead victorian children in a lesson which was nothing to do with the subject is macarbre. That doesn't make me a bigot. I am not a bigot.

OP posts:

Original poster

whyiwonderwhy · 02/05/2025 10:42

GrammarTeacher · 29/04/2025 05:17

I also did a degree and post-grad in the 90s and it’s your experience that seems odd to me quite frankly.

Show quote history

Oh really? That sounds interesting. How so?

OP posts:

HuffleMyPuffle · 02/05/2025 10:41

OG she's back

At least OP has now clarified it's actually fuck all to do with photos of dead kids and everything to do with their bigotry

Original poster

whyiwonderwhy · 02/05/2025 10:33

pollyglot · 29/04/2025 20:34

This from the OP:

You seem to have a wide area of academic interest - from medical to humanities - this will seem confusing to anyone with a traditional academic background.

If I am not misinterpreting the context, as I have merely skimmed these last few pages of tiresome and pointless dissention, you have me extremely confused. Correct me should I be wrong.

"Anyone with a traditional academic backgound"...can you explain your definition, OP?There seem to be so many people these days obsessed with their own self-importance of simply having a degree, and being an "academic"...IME, as a woman who graduated in the early 70s, a degree or two is simply the springboard to a life of autodidacticism. My degrees in Latin , French Literature and Archaeology/Anthropology opened the door to an amazing life, travelling, reading, gathering up learning like a trawler on the seafloor. While working FT and raising 3 kids as a solo parent, I picked up Uni papers at 3rd year degree level in Greek Art and Architecture, Japanese, Roman History, and at year 1 level, Spanish and Italian.I also worked as a field archaeologist in school holidays. In my retirement, I'm now into writing my 5th book, in the process of which I have learned all about the American Revolution, the wool industry of Yorkshire, the cholera epidemics, lead mining in Cornwall, emigration in the 19th century. My brother, a hightly qualified oncologist, taught himself German, became an absolute expert in Naval battles of WWI, and the battles of the Western Front, in addition to obtaining his pilot's licence, building his own computers, climbing Mt Kilmanjaro, and to Base Camp at Everest. He could talk about absolutely any subject with a deep knowledge and understanding.

So, OP, what as a "traditional academic background'? The narrow focus on one area of study? Or the key to the door of a wonderful, intellectually rich life?

Edited

You are talking about personal interests and your personal life, and it all sounds lovely, whereas my post was to someone who consults in relation to education and policy and was about that. Can you see the difference? So, I have wide interests, but a narrow area of expertise. I wouldn't be holding myself out as an expert in relation to my general interest areas/asking for funding for research/acting in a consulting capacity.

Hope that is clear now. Sadly the poster didn't answer my questions though, hey ho.

My main beef with the woke or progressive education ideology is that it limits education, it believes that teaching rules in relation to grammar isn't necessary (the "historians" on this this thread are likely to refer to themselves as "linguists" on other threads and tell us all that grammar rules are outdated) and that traditional education is not necessary. That is the sad thing about this thread. The people arguing in favour of progressive/woke think that they are doing the best thing for "ordinary" people. They aren't. Without the fundamentals in education which you recieved in your time, the children will not have the same opportunities for both career and interests - and also socially for that matter - which you had. You are arguing in favour of the side which will close down the rich inner life you were privileged enough to get.

This isnt really about my DC, it is about wider issues.

OP posts:

pollyglot · 29/04/2025 20:34

This from the OP:

You seem to have a wide area of academic interest - from medical to humanities - this will seem confusing to anyone with a traditional academic background.

If I am not misinterpreting the context, as I have merely skimmed these last few pages of tiresome and pointless dissention, you have me extremely confused. Correct me should I be wrong.

"Anyone with a traditional academic backgound"...can you explain your definition, OP?There seem to be so many people these days obsessed with their own self-importance of simply having a degree, and being an "academic"...IME, as a woman who graduated in the early 70s, a degree or two is simply the springboard to a life of autodidacticism. My degrees in Latin , French Literature and Archaeology/Anthropology opened the door to an amazing life, travelling, reading, gathering up learning like a trawler on the seafloor. While working FT and raising 3 kids as a solo parent, I picked up Uni papers at 3rd year degree level in Greek Art and Architecture, Japanese, Roman History, and at year 1 level, Spanish and Italian.I also worked as a field archaeologist in school holidays. In my retirement, I'm now into writing my 5th book, in the process of which I have learned all about the American Revolution, the wool industry of Yorkshire, the cholera epidemics, lead mining in Cornwall, emigration in the 19th century. My brother, a hightly qualified oncologist, taught himself German, became an absolute expert in Naval battles of WWI, and the battles of the Western Front, in addition to obtaining his pilot's licence, building his own computers, climbing Mt Kilmanjaro, and to Base Camp at Everest. He could talk about absolutely any subject with a deep knowledge and understanding.

So, OP, what as a "traditional academic background'? The narrow focus on one area of study? Or the key to the door of a wonderful, intellectually rich life?

Sodesperatelysad · 29/04/2025 14:23

Does anyone know if the op has a degree in history? And possibly what decade she got this in? I think this would really help me with my replies on this thread.

Lyraloo · 29/04/2025 09:59

whyiwonderwhy · 28/04/2025 23:16

Why don't you go and pick on someone else?!

Show quote history

Because you think it’s ok to “pick” on everyone that disagrees with your narrow minded narrative. Did you immediately turn off your television when the news had pictures of the pope in his coffin? Millions of people tried to file past his coffin to pay their respects, not one of them was reported as traumatised! But I expect you had sleepless nights about it! I don’t understand why you don’t give up on this now, you’re very much in the minority and no one is going to change their minds because of your convoluted nonsense. I’m now going to bow out if this boring conversation.

HuffleMyPuffle · 29/04/2025 09:17

HonestAquaMember · 29/04/2025 08:24

Just been catching up and I can't see but -

did we ever find out who she spoke to 'higher up'??

I'm really invested, as at this point, she may have a direct line to God, and as an RS teacher, it would be incredibly useful to have those kind of contacts!

No she's been evasive about that

Now she's busy interrogating posters about their credentials and where their funding comes from...

HonestAquaMember · 29/04/2025 08:24

Just been catching up and I can't see but -

did we ever find out who she spoke to 'higher up'??

I'm really invested, as at this point, she may have a direct line to God, and as an RS teacher, it would be incredibly useful to have those kind of contacts!

Matronic6 · 29/04/2025 07:35

whyiwonderwhy · 28/04/2025 23:07

If they are in horrible histories then that is why children will raise the topic - the children who read horrible histories will raise the subject in your classes.

horrible histories are not adored by everyone, by the way!

what do you want to know about my dc's feelings or opinions?

Show quote history

My point is 10 and 11 year olds have raised the topic and their peers were not horrified I'm sure 13/14 year olds can cope. I think the Holocaust is also part of the KS3 curriculum, so it seems in line with content deemed appropriate.

Of course Horrible Histories aren't adored by everyone, I never claimed they were, but there is a reason they chose that theme to appeal to kids.

I also made clear I know nothing about your child's feelings as you have made it entirely about your opinion. You haven't actually said if your daughter was upset. You also alluded to how well you know the whole class yet haven't mentioned any of these kids actually being upset. So if none of the kids were upset I don't understand what your complaint is.

Also noticed you have made comments about traditional education, there is no traditional education it comes from the National Curriculum. There is a nationwide wide initiative to diversify the curriculum and represent a different history rather than simply the white British narrative.

GrammarTeacher · 29/04/2025 05:17

whyiwonderwhy · 28/04/2025 23:03

I did a degree in history in the 1990s, and what you say sounds completely different to what I experienced - and what I experienced in academic life at that time was pretty much how academic life had been for many decades before that! If I go back to my old university now, will I find these substantial changes, or will I find much the same as when I left?

My profession hasn't changed much, certainly. In terms of resources, and precedent, and study, not much has changed.

So I don't entirely recognise what you are saying, other than the changes I see in my DC's education in relation to how a small number of teachers teach. Most of the teachers are excellent and teaching traditional education along the lines of my own education many years ago. In relation to history, some of the history teachers are teaching traditional history, and others I guess you could say are following a more "woke" agenda

Thanks for your replies, all very interesting.

Show quote history

I also did a degree and post-grad in the 90s and it’s your experience that seems odd to me quite frankly.

GrammarTeacher · 29/04/2025 05:15

whyiwonderwhy · 28/04/2025 22:49

What was the "misinformation" you wanted to research, re misinformation given to health care workers which affected how they then dealt with patients?

You have referred to "woke" and just to explain to you that I think that the anger about this is to do with the fact that vast amounts of money were being given to forward particular political agendas, at the expense of welfare of the majority.

You seem to have a wide area of academic interest - from medical to humanities - this will seem confusing to anyone with a traditional academic background. And I think I understand that you are basically saying that you want to support what people call "woke" and get rid of "traditional"?

I really appreciate your honesty. To bring this back to this thread, would you say showing a bunch of photographs of dead victorian children in the middle of a class on the industrial revolution is a "woke" sort of thing to do? Do you think that in the face of serious drops in education standards, rather than trying to persevere with traditional education and instead start teaching things like how victorians photographed the dead is "woke" because it opens up the minds to new and woke ways of seeing things?

I have colleagues who for many years have worked on programs to eradicate TB and Malaria in certain regions. With the defunding and closure of USAID these are gone, overnight

I think you are saying the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater? I don't think that that is the intention - I would hope that any research which is as important as you say there would be opportunities to claim funding in the future

Edited

Show quote history

There is nothing unusual about being interested in sciences AND humanities. I am myself. Three of my current Year 13 English Lit students ate holding medical offers including one from Cambridge. Being interested in the world around you is normal. And it is a total fallacy that these areas do not overlap in anyway.
Woke, or caring for people who aren’t like you and being aware of structural issues, isn’t a problem either. Jesus (as written in the Gospels) is pretty woke.

HuffleMyPuffle · 29/04/2025 01:14

Ah

It's quite obvious now

This teacher is a progressive teacher who teachs things you perceive as "woke"

The person "high up" you spoke to was a lobbyist against whatever agenda was being pushed who then presumably also tried to bully the school to fire this teacher but you were both unsuccessful because the teacher was following the school's own anti-discrimination policies

You can't say more because you know that you'll be labelled a racist/transphobe/homophobe/whatever and it's a risk to you yourself to be outed as such

You have now tried to therefore latch on to a different reason to get them fired - criticising their teaching standards

And you feel you are an authority on how history is taught because you studied history 30 years ago and refuse to believe that styles change (which they have and happened whilst I was at school like 15 years ago)

Missanimosity · 28/04/2025 23:58

whyiwonderwhy · 28/04/2025 21:29

Where have I been rude? Let me know and if I agree I will have it deleted. Again, HTH, HuffleMyPuffle.

Show quote history

You asked a poster who answered your question politely if she is sniffing glue. You were sarcastic numerous times and you fight with eveyone who does not agree with your opinion. But the glue part told me l I need to know, if this is the first thing you can come up with to an opinion given, that shows how you are. And that is rude.

adviceneeded1990 · 28/04/2025 23:56

whyiwonderwhy · 28/04/2025 23:31

I studied history at uni before moving to a different area of study, and my degree definitely focused partly on the history of the working person - at the core, not as a "nuance". In relation to the great inventions, I am talking about advances in science - I didn't mention "great men" - the "great men" of the period were those who abused their privilege in order to make money at the expense of normal people - again this is basic traditional history which I was taught which is more important than a number of photos of dead children. In relation to the great inventions, they were stupendous, really incredible advances in a short period of time, and looking at who the engineers were, where they came from, is also fascinating in terms of social history.

I would be happy to have that coffee, but I think that we will be agreeing to differ. I think to summarise where I am coming from here is that well taught traditional history covers all of the nuances you can dream of already and this should be covered first, before diving into deep side interests.

Show quote history

If you did your degree in the 90s, doesn’t this come down to there being a chance that the way things are taught has perhaps changed in the intervening 30 years?

nyancatdays · 28/04/2025 23:33

whyiwonderwhy · 28/04/2025 23:22

I don't think that focus on ordinary people is woke at all. I explained upthread what I thought was important in relation to teaching about the industrial revolution, and why the photos were not helpful or important in relation to that. There is only so much time to cover the subject, and showing significantly more photos of dead children than of anything else seemed to me to be downright weird and incomprehensible - as I said. I have since then read your posts and I realise that this is a subject which is likely being "pushed" forward, and I have sought to understand why that might be.

In relation to Marxism, you are right - when I was at university the professors who taught about the industrial revolution were all probably marxists! Talking of which, how do you think Stalin and the Soviet Union should be taught? Do you think there should only be focus on gulags, kulaks and purges, or do you think that it is important to teach about other aspects?

Edited

Show quote history

I don’t think it’s a subject that is being pushed forward. I think it’s just a topic that the teacher finds interesting, and is hoping will pique the interest of some bored 14 year olds and get them to connect with the subject.

On the Soviet Union - well, my own school history on this was endless gulags and purges and learning the Five Year Plans by heart (for both GCSE and A-level. Woe, as the students say.) But actually I would have liked to learn more about what it was like to live in the USSR; what people’s houses looked like; what they ate; what children did at school, etc. The one kind of history does not have to negate the other. We can do both.

MsDitsy · 28/04/2025 23:33

Just out of interest, how do you know exactly how long was spent showing these photos and the context unless you were in the classroom? Are you taking what your child told you as gospel, as their interpretation of time and effort put into showing the photos as this may be different to other children in the class.

Are there any other lessons which have had topics/resources that you don't approve of?

What did your child think of the lesson, if they were talking about it to you it sounds like they were very engaged.

My very worst and most disturbing lesson was dissecting a small frog. That still haunts me.

Original poster

whyiwonderwhy · 28/04/2025 23:31

Ruthietuthie · 28/04/2025 23:21

Amazing last post from @nyancatdays on what teaching this "more nuanced history" could involve, and why it matters. Yes to everything she said.
@whyiwonderwhy, I was reflecting on one of your early posts. In addition to wanting to be certain the "great men, great inventions" were still being taught, you also said that other important topics to you for this period would be, I quote, "changes in buying power, the wealthy whose wealth came from the fact that children women and men were working 12 hour days down mines etc, the rise of the middle classes." To me, this seems like you too would call for a more nuanced history that also including the history of working people? I think if we all got together over coffee, we would find that we agreed on a great many things. Teaching history in a nuanced and engaging way (which beginning with these photographs COULD be, as we have argued, not that it DEFINITELY WAS - I wasn't in the classroom either, maybe it was a shoddy lesson by a clueless teacher, but to declare it that outright because of the very topic, well, I don't think you can) doesn't mean that these important topics won't be taught. Just that they won't be the only things taught or the perhaps the starting point.

I studied history at uni before moving to a different area of study, and my degree definitely focused partly on the history of the working person - at the core, not as a "nuance". In relation to the great inventions, I am talking about advances in science - I didn't mention "great men" - the "great men" of the period were those who abused their privilege in order to make money at the expense of normal people - again this is basic traditional history which I was taught which is more important than a number of photos of dead children. In relation to the great inventions, they were stupendous, really incredible advances in a short period of time, and looking at who the engineers were, where they came from, is also fascinating in terms of social history.

I would be happy to have that coffee, but I think that we will be agreeing to differ. I think to summarise where I am coming from here is that well taught traditional history covers all of the nuances you can dream of already and this should be covered first, before diving into deep side interests.

OP posts:

nyancatdays · 28/04/2025 23:26

You have mentioned how research into this area will inform politics, policy, war etc - therefore to some extent this could be seen in a lobbying type context. How this fits with decision making processes within universities, I am not sure. Is there influence? Historically that has been the accusation but there is very little evidence the public domain.

Well, in that post I said death informs all those things, not research into death. The way cultures think about death is intrinsically part of war, politics, policy.

However, research into death does inform public policy (the kind of research @Ruthietuthie is talking about on mortality statistics influences health policy to help keep people alive, for example). Research on maternal and infant mortality in the past influences medicine, public policy, education systems, urban planning, law, etc. etc. - usually with the aim of saving lives!

Research into death in military history, law, social history and medicine informs public policy about all these things. And there are histories of all of them, too. But, if what you are essentially wanting to know is are academics promulgating some kind of covert political agenda, the answer is no. Academics (and universities) generally hate being told what to do or think, and most of us would deliberately do the opposite of anyone else’s political agenda. (As anyone who manages groups of academics will know 😆)