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.

But in what context was this taught? Did the teacher contextualize death as a vital lens through which we can see so many changes in history? For example, the transportation of corpses was centrally connected to the rise of the railway network. The photographs also speak to wealth and poverty and the emergence of a growing middle-class, as well as the prevalence of disease as people flooded to the cities to work in factories (which can be traced further back to the enclosure movement). To me, death provides a lens through which to teach all these shifts that you are describing. And a compelling one. Maybe it was a way in?

I do think it sounds odd in that context. Regarding the Industrial Revolution, we learned about Isambard Kingdom Brunel, the spinning jenny, the terrible working conditions in the mines and cotton mills, outbreaks of killer diseases in city slums and immunisations.

Photography was invented during the Victorian era (albeit 20 odd years before the Industrial Revolution). It's not much of a stretch to link it to the unusual subjects of early photographs.

We got holocaust photos in the 90s, no parents complained as their parents had often fought in the war, and we needed to see the horror to understand.

I'd forgotten about the Necropolis Railway! Another Victorian invention and service.

I think it was in Yr 10 that our GCSE History textbook famous photo of Mussolini and his mistress hanging dead. That was in the very early years of GCSE, having replaced O levels, so new books then. You surely can’t be too much older than me if you have a Yr9 (?)

I’d seen crime scene photos of Jack the Ripper’s dead victims in a school library book a year or two before that. Probably other challenging images too, such as WW1 trench war photography v recreations of the same. That was curriculum - can’t remember which year.

I'll be she was fascinated and it made her think very deeply about how the industrial revolution caused overcrowding, poverty and disease.

You're just being a busybody. Your kid must being doing eye-rolls at you grilling her about her lessons and trying to demonstrate that you're smarter than her teacher.

It really isn't a good idea to try to engage children with gruesome stuff. I know exactly what you are talking about. And perceived wisdom here seems to be "oh yeah, i had to go through this at school, it is great". But it isn't a good idea at all. None of the teens in DC's class "love a bit of shock value" and most really could do without it. You could explore social attitudes with one photo maybe, amongst others. Not only showing those photos.

What?!

Have you been sniffing glue?!

It is a good idea to engage them with the the real world and not a sanitised version.

Thank you! I think you might be the only sensible person here!

How do you know so much about all the kids in your kid's class? You're even more of a busybody than I thought. Do you allow your child some autonomy in her social sphere?

context
it is all about context

I don’t see the validity either unless that was the actual subject in the lessons- and the justification from people responding seems weak. The topic was the industrial revolution, not Victorian attitudes to death. It wasn’t about specifically the large mortality rate, but about progress. I also would wonder why this was the sole focus of the lesson within this topic, as it seems whilst it could be a small footnote, the I distracts revolution doesn’t focus on death but progress. I’m sorry OP- you aren’t going to get many agreeing with you.

I think it is recommended to teach the holocaust next year, to 14-15 year olds. But i do agree that it is an important subject.

Hmm. I am coming around to your POV.

I originally thought your AIBU was concern about young teens seeing pictures of dead people. But I am now getting the message that you feel the subject is being taught in a way that ignores the important aspects of that period in favour of portraying stranger offshoots.

And you are better placed to know that than the trained professional who has a history degree, a teaching qualification, and literally does this for a living?

Tell me, op, how would you engage a classroom full of year 9s - and what, exactly, would be the reasoning behind your decision?

I'm a teacher, although now SLT so not teaching. A little shock and awe is FANTASTIC for engagement and I can guarantee they won't forget any of this lesson, of which the photos will only be a small part, with the wider, important context given too. As someone who has taught about the Industrial Revolution I can promise you teens engage far more with the human aspect than the engineering. A good teacher balances both and uses what interests them (and teens are macabre) to support their engagement in the bits that don't.

Thankfully parents don't set the curriculum, or plan lessons - because you clearly don't understand how to capture the attention of 30 teenagers, and keep it.

Your child learnt something today, and was interested enough to tell you about it.

And you think that's wrong. 🤦🏼‍♀️

I, on the other hand, think that teacher has done a great job in piquing their interest in the era with a 😮🤯 moment - which they'll take forward into the rest of the module.

I know it's a bit of a shocker, but teachers generally know what they are doing.

I agree @whyiwonderwhy it's weird.

Thanks for being another voice of reason.

Thank you!

True, and it's an odd thing to show if the class was about the industrial revolution, but not in itself if talking about victoriana. I remember watching Caesusescu's execution on the news with my dad when I was 12, no lasting scars.

Did the OP actually attend this lesson? I have no idea how they have elaborated so clearly on what the focus was, maybe actually it’s all the child paid attention to because they were swept away by it!

Yes, we were 14 before that started, along with Stalin and the gulags. That was about the right age.

You can’t possibly know what the kids in the class all like/ find interesting. By all means ask the teacher why the photographs were shown, but you clearly already have an agenda with this member of staff anyway so you do need to step back a bit and consider what exactly your concerns are.

Also, consider that if you do make a fuss, your kids might be less likely to talk to you about lesson content in future, in case you kick off.

Really saddens me to hear this from a teacher. I studied the industrial revolution at school and at degree level, and I know the teacher and I know the kids and yes I would be able to engage the class without resorting to this sort of weirdness. I know exactly what i am talking about and you really don't. Sorry.