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

[whyiwonderwhy]

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.

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this thread are likely to refer to themselves as "linguists" on other threads and tell us all that grammar rules are outdated) and that traditional education is not necessary.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.

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

Oh really? That sounds interesting. How so?

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.

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.

@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.

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.

No, sorry.

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.

My post about sniffing glue was lighthearted - the poster had basically made up things and then asserted them as truth so it was a bit out there, and her post was not polite at all! I also thought it was a standard MN response and therefore generally acceptable. But if that offended you or her I apologise.

I don't think I have been sarcastic - can you tell me where?

So I'm going to assume that you complained to someone who either a: has no authority or b: thinks you're One Of Those Parents.

Disappointed I won't find out who!

Just as a PS to the above, "should of" etc when I say push I mean, for example, articles on the british council website saying "why not if we all know what they meant" and "why should pedantics tell us how to talk".

No, it wasn't light hearted and you know that. As soneone with so much education you should know is not socially acceptable, especially when pointing out at others being rude. Pot and kettle comes to mind. You apologise as way to placate and make yourself look better not because you trully regret it, this is obvious. No, I won't waste my time showing where you were sarcastic as most likely you would find something to argue about. You are the kind of person who alawys has to come out on top no matter what and try to make yourself sound smarter. You are not. Stop fighting. Take a seat, get out gracefully. Is fine.

Understanding the context of the way death was viewed in Victorian times can be useful to understand wider questions like “why didn’t more people do something about the high death rate amongst children?” I wouldn’t necessarily say that the teacher’s approach was inappropriate; it’s context dependent.

I remember some extremely shocking pictures of the holocaust, both world wars, the Arab-Israeli conflict and other things from my history text books. All taught from first year of secondary onwards. And I’m old enough to have done O levels.

@whyiwonderwhy - I am not sure it matters if the photographs are not specifically on the curriculum, as long as they were useful in the context of the class and in engaging the interest of the students. I would rather have teachers who use the framework of the curriculum as the starting point for their teaching, so that they know that the basics, which will be on the exams, are covered, but also go further to round out and enrich the children's learning of the subject.

Otherwise you end up with teachers who are just vehicles to ensure every child knows the exact same facts as every other one - no individuality, just a sausage-factory kind of learning that doesn't actually educate - where to educate means to build up the child's learning and knowledge.

I would suggest a conversation with the teacher where you are open to listening to them and to learning what their rationale for using the photos was - not a conversation which starts with you telling them you think they are wrong and macabre, and expecting them to justify themselves to someone who has already prejudged them.

@whyiwonderwhy just out of interest - why won't you tell us who you told? I'm not asking for their full name and NI number, just their position and authority!

Sorry wrong post, so I edited. Your response here is fine, but if you read my posts you will see your points have already been answered. This thread was about a "wtf" moment, and the posts here have clarified things.

I spoke to them about a completely different issue. Nothing to do with these photos. And quite a while ago. And you will see I deleted the post where I talked about it. So that would still be a "no"! I admire your tenacity though.

I have not reported this issue, if that is what you are worried about. As I have indicated, the posts here have clarified that there is a school of thought out there which thinks that death and macabre are good things to teach teens and that the way the photos were introduced to the class here is fabulous. And there is a school of thought which thinks the opposite. This thread is not about whether or not I should or shouldn't raise this in real life.

@HuffleMyPuffle hopefully the above will reassure you too now, and so you can back off alittle.

I think that the sniffing glue comment is seen as generally lighthearted and acceptable on MN. I have only ever come across it on MN classics. Honestly. I think the post I responded to with it was pretty off.

No, what makes you a bigot is screeching about "woke" lessons

Maybe the idea that death is gruesome should be challenged

"I'm not rude, I'm just going to act superior and tell everyone they are wrong"

Perfectly put!! 😂

Says the bigot.