Learning about Jack the Ripper in year 8

[Lottielou272]

My dd is learning about this in history at the moment. They are looking at graphic photos of the mutilated bodies etc and she seems a bit disturbed by the details.

I suppose there must be a reason why this is on the curriculum but I'm wondering how many schools are doing this? The school is very good generally and I don't have any other concerns.

Oh god I was fascinated by this kind of stuff at that age and would have killed (see what I did there) to learn about that rather than the Industrial Revolution.
Wouldn't bother me in the slightest, but then by 14 I happily had my head in horrors, murders and Lovecraft.

I think it would be better if it was part of a course about poverty, social structures, and the problems faced by poor women in that era rather than just the murders in isolation with no context.

I sort of understand why it tends to get seen as a kind a murder mystery, a bit like the Princes in the Tower, but it seems a bit distasteful to focus solely on the violent murder of a series of prostitutes.

Dd in yr 9 is also doing Jack the Ripper this year. I was actually pleased and said how interesting the subject is and that I loved reading all about it. I also asked her whether she'd like to go on a ripper walk in London. Mother of the year obviously!

I don't think it's necessarily inappropriate - it depends on the context - for example, if it was done as part of teaching about poverty and the treatment of the working classes in Victorian Britain.

Despite what people are saying, some of the material is extremely graphic and disturbing, even though it's black and white. The photo of Mary Jane Kelly, for example (and be warned if you're tempted to Google, it's really grim) - I wouldn't be happy if that was shown but hopefully a teacher would have the sense not to do that.

Yes that photo is very graphic.

Seems a bit gratuitously distasteful to me. There's plenty they could be doing that wouldn't involve pictures of mutilated bodies and serial killers.
I'm not very happy that my Y8 son is having to read The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas. He's very upset by it, as was his brother before him. I have no issue with them learning about the holocaust, but do object to them learning about it in such a chilling way via a story that not only didn't happen, but is so hugely unlikely.

Id have thought that would be more GCSE age (14-16) some of that stuff is pretty brutal.

I guess it depends how it's being reached though.

Yes I would at least have liked a bit of warning about the boy in the striped pyjamas so that I could discuss it with DS. He read it in a day and I knew nothing about it until he'd finished. First English lesson of Year 7.

In primary school I learnt that Jesus was nailed to a cross and forced to wear a crown are of wire... In year 8 I learnt all about Jack the Ripper and in year 10 I went to auschwitz concentration camp in Poland with school.

I'm not traumatised, kids are resiliant and a lot tougher than people give them credit for!

Lottie I've just re-read your post and see that they are being shown pictures of the bodies. How awful - I can see why you're concerned.

Yes, learning about these things is fine.

I don't think viewing graphic images of women's mutilated bodies in the context of learning is appropriate though.

One of my DSs did the Holocaust when he was only 10. A sequence of lessons, not a couple. He started making vile, vile jokes about it. I told him not to but it made little difference.

One evening he said something and I snapped. I've never shouted at him so loudly or so long.

A day or so later he told me all the class made jokes. It was just far too big and horrible otherwise. He was being taught about something completely outside his ability to process it.

I don't think children should be exposed to this level of horror until they're in their teens. Younger children have to brush it off, which teaches them to minimise painful issues.

I don't agree with photographs Of The victims at that age, but otherwise fine. I didn't do it in school but we did slavery in y8 and had a visit to the history museum where we saw the shackles used. It was very sombre, but I believe it was vital we learnt about it and we all took it seriously. In 2 years OP your dd could be looking at photos of holocaust victims, it's all a part of history and something they need to learn about. We didn't have the option of leaving the room either, we could have asked but it never occurred to us. I don't think the school would shw really grousome photos anyway

When I taught JtR to KS3 on placement, it was very much placed in the context of the social history of the age, with a bit of background on the development of the modern police force. I never showed the most graphic photos and the details of the murders were covered in as little detail as possible. Current thinking on teaching the Holocaust advocates against using photos of piles of bodies by the way - the idea being that it dehumanise the victims and doesn't give children a concept of the scale of the Holocaust.

I had far more trouble teaching the JtR coursework to Year 11 a few years ago, when the question asked pupils to look at the Yorkshire Ripper in comparison!

I learnt about Jack the Ripper in Y8 too, and won a prize for my essay on him I remember being very intrigued and fascinated to be honest as I love history. I didn't like the photos shown but if I remember rightly they weren't too graphic. If she really doesn't like it id just have a quiet chat with the teacher and see whether you think the material is appropriate.

Different children are upset by different things. We learnt about testing products on animals and were shown graphic videos and photos (which turned my stomach ) some kids laughed, I hope from nerves but perhaps they were strange, some felt sick and one had to leave the classroom in tears.

Our year 8s do too. It's mainly a hook to learn about life in Victorian England and to develop investigative skills.

Year 8 is that ages 12-13?

If so, perhaps year 9 is more appropriate. However you can't get away from the fact that History lessons will always contain violence and horrors. I remember cringing at a WWI documentary and I was in yr10.

I think you may be misremembering Chinks because the photo of Mary Jane Kelly really is very graphic, and it isn't the only one.

If the photos I'm thinking of are the ones the teacher is using then those are inappropriate (imo).

I'm aware some people (including teens) have an interest and seek them out but that's different to being made to see them. No-one, however resilient, should be made to look at stuff like that if they don't want to.

I really don't think even the photo of Mary Jane Kelly is more graphic than anything the average Year 8 pupils will see on TV. After all, look at all the gore there is flying around in programmes like Casualty.

I think that knowing something happened in abstract (Jack the Ripper killed poor, prostituted women) and being presented with graphic physical evidence (the photos of the victims post mortem) are very different things.

I'm not explaining myself very well but you can learn about the former without needing to look at the latter.

I suppose the idea behind it is to show how the crime was never solved because (perhaps) there were not the same tools available then. And they look at what evidence there actually was.

I remember learning things about the holocaust which I found horrific at a similar age. I think she probably is mature enough to cope with it but the subject matter I think, needs to deal with the issue of psychopathy and why some people are capable of crimes like that.

I always remember thinking I would have liked to have understood why and how it was possible for the far right to rise in Germany to the extent that many people turned a blind eye to what was happening.

They were told that the women who had been killed were prostitutes

Just asked ds if he did JTR at school and he said ' no of course not,I googled it all myself'