Teaching and "propaganda"

[deeperdiving]

DC13 loves history and does well in it. DC has a new teacher and has said that the new teacher is teaching things in a very one sided way. I studied history at university and have instilled into DC the importance of being impartial and distinguishing sources and distinguishing fact vs opinion.

DC has said that they have a weekly current affairs lesson. Latest one was about Harris vs Trump. DC said that the teacher gave the Harris campaign narratives as fact, and when talking about various policies, misquoted things and when talking about US relationships with other countries gave no historical context. DC is quite keen on 20th c history, and is interested in context and why things happened as they did.

So, to illustrate, there are threads on here which have Harris or Trump supporters and for example one person will say "X said this" and the other side will say "no, they said this" and show a clip showing that what was actually said was completely different from what the other side was maintaining. The teacher here is giving the Harris campaign narrative, and DC is slightly confused about it.

Has anyone else experienced this with schools? I am not sure whether the teacher is following syllabus requirements in terms of how to present things. It doesn't seem to be being taught as it was when I was at school!

@Goldenbear

"When these kind of teachers are not encouraging kids to be multi gendered or cats"

The sickness we're dealing with is people like Goldenbear living in an alternative 'post truth' reality.

My biggest fear with teachers is that they'll get sick of all this offensive lying crap and quit their jobs en masse.

Well, can’t see anything that the teacher said about Trump that is incorrect.

Wouldn’t be happy with him talking about forced abortions, though (if he actually did …).

Sorry @Goldenbear - that shouldn't have been directed at you!

It was meant for @Ytcsghisn

Eh? What nonsense. I'm stating a fact which 'is' that the British electorate voted a left wing party in. The Government of the UK is the Labour party is the population of Britain living in a 'post truth' reality? Are we all 'sick' according to your ridiculous exaggerations?!

However, are we discussing the US of A or Britain as there is a 'huge' cultural difference between the two aswell as references to an education system which most on MN would have no clue about!

Oh, I see, I was very confused...erase my last comment as doesn't make sense with post truth reality.

I agree with you, it is offensive and completely inaccurate.

This honestly sounds like age might have misheard or misinterpreted what the teacher was saying, since some of these are actually the opposite of what Trump has proposed. Particularly the one about abortion.

Yes, it’s very important not to gather any relevant facts or find out what was actually said. Just complain immediately and start ranting about leftist indoctrination. That is the essence of Trumpism.

How many people heard Trump's speech about his plans for schools?

• parents to have more control over the curriculum
• prayer in schools
• children taught 'to love their country'.

In other words the right has zero problems with the 'correct' type of indoctrination in schools.

Sounds like the teacher is presenting facts with evidence behind them, and your son objects because the facts contradict what he would like to believe. The fact that Trump is a liar and a convicted criminal with a track record of appalling personal and political behaviour isn't an opinion.

Yawn.

My World History teacher at A Level supported the IRA and thought Stalin was a great guy. He once assigned an essay on whether Stalin was a psychopath. I argued that he was. The teacher failed me because 'there is no definition of psychopath'. In a History essay!

"The teacher failed me because 'there is no definition of psychopath'. In a History essay!"

There is no definition of a psychopath or you didn't include a discussion of understanding of what psychopathy is in your essay? Because if it was the latter you'd deserve a fail.

Also - if you want to persuade people to admire Stalin why would you set them a task of exploring what history has to say about all the terrible things they've done?

I think your memory is playing tricks on you. Are you very old?

It was a mock exam. The assignment would have been taken from real A-Level questions.

It was a fail because 'nobody knows what a psychopath is'. In other words, the teacher assigned an essay he didn't like, because it was on a list of possible essays.

The scope of the essay would have been to discuss Stalin's acts, rather than delve into the definition of 'psychopath'. In a history essay, the meaning of 'psychopath' could be taken for granted. It's not as though it has many wildly different interpretations.

The World History exam consisted of four essays written in a three hour period. Each essay would be quite short, taking exactly 45 minutes to write. It had to be concise. In those days we had to remember facts and figures - numbers killed, where and when, quotations from historians, the full names of those historians and so on. An essay would have a relatively simple argument supported by those facts.

It was not a place to write a detailed analysis of what exactly is a 'psychopath'.

"In other words, the teacher assigned an essay he didn't like"

Why?

"The scope of the essay would have been to discuss Stalin's acts, rather than delve into the definition of 'psychopath'."

Every A level essay requires students to engage with and analyse the terms of the question - saying that as someone with a PGCE who taught at A level.

I don't know. It was likely a past paper from a previous year, maybe even the year before. There would have been a range of questions that the student could select from when taking the exam.

This was a history essay, not psychology. Another teacher might have made a comment, even dropped a grade, but the historical argument was important, not a single-sentence definition of what almost everyone takes for granted.

"This was a history essay, not psychology"

The question requires a discussion of psychopathy and a definition of what is meant by 'psychopath'. I would have failed you if you'd answered that question without addressing that issue.

"I don't know. It was likely a past paper from a previous year, maybe even the year before. There would have been a range of questions that the student could select from when taking the exam."

He didn't have to choose that question.

You're saying he chose a question which would inevitably result in students criticising Stalin. Because he was a fan of Stalin. Make it make sense?

Good grief , who and what made you competent to mark as an A level examiner would?

Stop being so high and mighty.

There might be a reduction of marks for not defining terms but it wouldn't be a fail.

And while we are at it define 'transgender' and 'gender' in ways that it would be reasonable for a woman to give up the sex based rights of women in favour of men who say they have woman gender, that's your topic of choice, so go right ahead and define it. if you can't I fail your ability to have a valid argument on that topic.

It sounds like you would have been a terrible examiner.

But then again I doubt you understand the context. This was quite a different style of exam to what is done now, as I explained.

You're saying he chose a question which would inevitably result in students criticising Stalin. Because he was a fan of Stalin. Make it make sense?

Do you understand what a 'past paper' is?

If all of this was said above, I would definitely consider contacting the school directly. I teach current affairs as part of my form tutor role and it is very much made clear that we are expected to be neutral and to emulate the style of a BBC journalist in that our personal view is not discussed at all. Perhaps the teacher needs more CPD or perhaps they are overstepping but either way, it doesn’t seem right.

Your son sounds great by the way. When a student says sth like that, I would allow them to express their view fully. Phrases such as, ‘so what you seem to be saying is…’ ‘what I am hearing is…does anyone have anything to add here?’ are really useful.

I think the question you should be asking the school is why your son felt like the teacher was spouting propaganda.
If the teacher didn’t mean to do that, then it would be helpful to know they got the tone wrong. If they meant to do that, the school should remind them that they need to leave their politics at home.
Activist teachers think shoving their views down children’s throats will change society. So often, it turns the kids off it all. The teacher thinks he’s cool, has all the right views and can talk to the next generation - the children don’t. If they’re so sure of their views, they should be teaching critical thinking.

I don’t believe the original post, it sounds like goady bollocks to me. Why would a history teacher be spending time on Trump Harris anyway? And if they have strong views on it so what? It’s a history A Level- the modules are historical. There’s nothing in any exam board syllabus that goes past the 1990s.