Quite pissed off about this, am I being daft?

[FlightAttendant]

Today ds1 went abck to school and was really looking forward to it.

I went to get him at 3.15 and he was absolutely busting to tell me about the 'thing' that had landed in the woodland bit of the playground.

I followed him and a large crowd of grown ups and children was standing around this thing, which looked to me very much like a huge air conditioning unit half buried in the ground, with a slightly blackened tree next to it.

I have to admit I immediately thought it was a kind of set up, for fun - there was stripey tape all round it and nobody allowed to touch.

Ds told me that it had apparently 'crashed' last night, and was from a satellite or spaceship or similar and it even had the voltage written on it!

He loves this kind of thing so was utterly serious and really quite blown away by the idea. They had spent all day finding out about it and someone from the BBC had apparently come and interviewed a witness, with a microphone but no camera.

There is nothing on the BBC website. The newsletter just arrived and there is a large paragraph about it - 'We hope the children enjoyed the 'space mystery' today, our project this term is all about space' etc etc...

I didn't know what to do, so stupidly, probably, I told ds it wasn't actually from a spaceship, and he started to cry

I mean is this just like the Father Christmas thing we do with them, or is it actually rather cruel of them to lie about something so potentially thrilling - I have probably done the wrong thing but he would have found out later anyway no doubt and been MORE upset.

He is insisting the newsletter is wrong and is very cross and fed up.

Can anyone talk me down, I really don't need another confrontation with the HT...I am just so sad for him.

well said claig. I was going to come back to add that teacher expect children to accept what they are teaching them as the truth by lying to them they are introducing the idea that they cannot be trusted, and thus why should you believe what your teacher is teaching you. Some children would be inclined to question everything and argue their point in the name of discovering the thruth. It would be these children who are ten labelled as disruptive because of their resultant aactions but imo would have been the teachers who created the problem by introducing the idea that what they said wasnt true.

Mrz meant to add that there would have also been a destruction zone not and one inpact site and that the children being allowed so close to that incident of possiblity of harm/emergency might have given the wrong impression about accident sites. it could be conceived to be encouraging the goldfish approach to accidents, by can lead to individuals putting themselves at danger in the name of a better view poin of the incident without understanding the need for distance. Thankfully in most common sense ould over rule this, but it would be a problem for a significant number.

WhereChaosTheoryRules according to the Center for Orbital and Reentry Debris Studies they estimate there are around 200 pieces of space debris falling to earth every year some weighing up to two tons. NASA say it averages to a piece a day but none have caused serious damage or injury.

The Things That Fell to Earth How Space Junk Works

Hi FA, I'm good thanks. Hope all's good for you.

Very interesting what you say, and how Claig has expanded it. Interesting discussion.

Thanks Claig. I spoke to a good friend last night on the phone.
I described the incident and he was 'what the f*ck!' and totally concurred that it was ridiculous and unfair.

He then recounted a similar trick used by his social studies teacher in secondary school. He said she came intot he class and told them a story about two groups of teenagers in America, one of whom had apparently the previous week been killed during some scenario...she asked the class to discuss the possible reasons behind the terrible events and how the teenagers' behaviour had resulted in such a tragedy.

The kids were all appalled and shocked. At the end of the lesson she announced it had all been untrue.
He sais that from that moment onward, he remembers nothing of her lessons apart from the stark fact that he never once believed anything she uttered ever again.

I think that might be a more common, if unconscious, reaction among pupils than we assume. They could potentially lose a lot of respect for even a previously highly regarded teacher. I know this is just one example but it surprised even me that a teenager would react like that.

WhereChaosTheoryRules, fully agree that it is the destruction of trust that is so pernicious at such a young age

I agree that no significant damage done to person or injury is the norm but if you look at the site there is a wide area of impact and not just the item. Plus again I would say that the damage to the item would be more significant that just being burried. Look that the ojects, they are significantly charred which significant denting and bits missing.

One of the source papers state that:"During the cold war, Moscow and Washington generally ignored the danger and, from 1968 to 1986, conducted more than 20 tests of antisatellite arms that created clouds of jagged scraps. Often, they did so at low altitudes from which the resulting debris soon plunged earthward. Still, the number of objects grew as more nations launched rockets and satellites into orbit."

The size of the object is less likely to survive without damage. Look at the picture of a heat proof tile that had reentered-it has barely a mark on it, look at the larger objects they did.

Another of the source papers"The spacecraft may have lost power as much as a year ago, but there is no estimate of where it could hit or what damage it could cause.

Only one person has ever reportedly been struck by a piece of space debris ? a woman in Oklahoma who was hit in the shoulder by a piece of material but uninjured."

""If it hit land it could be like a small plane crash, but nobody has ever been killed by a falling space object. Anything that's not designed for re-entry would probably break up"

"NASA's Orbital Debris Program Office states that spacecraft re-entering because of decaying orbits or controlled entry usually break up at altitudes between 84 and 72km from the ground. Larger items break up lower in the atmosphere and lighter objects such as solar panels typically break up around 90-95km."

"More than 100 tonnes of man-made objects make an uncontrolled re-entry each year. Of satellites that re-enter, only about 10-40 per cent of the mass of the object is likely to reach the ground"

Just remeber you cant prove a negative you can just say it hasnt happen yet. But the impact zone and damage to items is proven and there is evidence.

and there is also evidence that huge chunks of space debris can fall to earth leaving minimal damage to the site of impact

Also in your first article
"While out walking her dog with friends before sunrise on January 22, 1997, a woman in Tulsa, Oklahoma, was hit by a man-made object that fell out of the sky. Half an hour before, Lottie Williams had watched an impressive fireball streaking through the sky from north to south. ?I noticed in the sky there was this big bright light, like a fire,? she told a reporter from the Tulsa World newspaper. ?I turned to my friends to say look, and when I turned back it was coming towards us.? Then two sparks shot from the fireball and disappeared over a building.

Later, when a slowly falling piece of charred woven material brushed Williams? left shoulder and hit the ground ?with a metallic sound,? she concluded that there was a connection between the two events, especially since the next day?s news was full of stories about ?space junk? found on the ground in Texas. A large stainless steel fuel tank, which bore evidence of surface melting, had landed in the front yard of a farmer near Georgetown, Texas, partially collapsing on impact."

Yes but they are far fewer then those that have arrive with damage and have been specially treated for the purpose of re-entery. The probability of it being one of thoes piecies with the amount fo sapce junk is much rarer and it would also depend onthe angle or re-entry and impact.

the fact that there are far fewer cases of space debris causing no impact damage doesn't mean that the initial scenario was scientifically incorrect

Question Mrz- when you teach spelling and grammar do you teach the rare cases first or the common cases. This is what the main issue is. Yes it does happen but that is not the norm. It is more important for students to understand the principles of the impact for the majority of the cases before you teach the rarer cases and exceptions. It makes a huge different when they are constructing their concpets about meteorite and meteors where the less damage at impact site is soo much rarer and is the knowledge and understanding that is required for them to comprehend first. if you taught e always comes after i because that is what happens in words with a c first you would then have a lot of very confused children when you taugt i before e as this is the rule and what happens normally.

especially if you didnt state that this wasnt the normal rule.

stupid computer posted to early and yes its full of sp and gr but really cant care today as too poorly to care.

I teach the alternatives together WhereChaosTheoryRules and perhaps so would the school when they start actually teaching rather than just an introductory scenario.

It is very difficult for teachers to get it right. Tell a 10 yr old there is no Father Christmas and they will end up in the newspaper!!

Yes but mrz the 'introductory scenario' is designed to be the memorable bit isn't it? If you approach the children 6 months after the event what will they remember? The 'norm' or the (very rare) alternative. A bit like using someone dressed up as 'The Gruffalo' to teach about wild animals, rather than lions, elephants etc.

And it is the children who don't work it out for themselves, and who are told by the other children, perhaps in a 'haven't you realised yet, aren't you stupid' kind of way, who are likely to be the ones who need the teachers help and instruction the most, and who are having that trust damaged.

I think FlightAttendant has got to the heart of the matter. It's not even essentially about fantasy and imagination. The fantasy games that FlightAttendant and her sister played far surpass anything that any adult
could ever get near, and the two of them didn't need a single prop to enter that fantasy world. All children, always have
and always will have. a sense of wonder and awe at the world around them, since it is the first time that they are ever experiencing it and is therefore truly intense. We, as adults, have seen it all before, and therefore lose our sense of wonder.
FlightAttendant said "I feel that making a mocked up crash landing is a parody of a child's imaginary development"
I agree that it is in fact naff in comparison to a child's imagination.

Other posters have already said this before, but I can't remember who at the moment. It is not even a fantasy, since it was
presented to the children as reality. Only later are the children told that it was all a fantasy. The problem with this is that it is blurring the distinction between
the real and the unreal, and this is the path to madness. This probably explains why the rioters in Ecuador were driven mad
and ended up killing people as a result of listening to a staged radio broadcast of "The War of the Worlds". It also
probably explains why so many of us instinctively feel that this is a "crazy" idea.

becaroo brought up the case of her son

"My son's school did an alien thing the other week...pretended a space ship had crash landed in the school hall
and that there were aliens in it. The room was pitch black apparently and my ds was petrified, they had to take him out
of the room.
He still talks about it now...."

I bet he does, he must have been traumatized, because it was presented as a reality rather than a fantasy.

If armed burglars broke in to my house, if I hadn't already pegged it,
I would probably still be shaking hours afterwards. It wouldn't comfort me much to receive the school newsletter a few hours later, stating
"We hope you enjoyed the burglary today, our project this term is all about crime".

I applaud your post Claig, and not just because I get namechecked a few times

You have both clarified points I tried to make earlier, and added others I had not considered.

You have made a concise and straightforward case against the activities described on this thread. The stark difference between a scenario presented as fantasy and one presented as reality is clearly the biggest issue here.

None of the peripheral factors or arguments need be considered once that is brought to light.

Thankyou for helping me think it through and for reaching this conclusion alongside me and some others. I feel so much better now I know what the problem is/was.
I think I am better placed to speak with ds about it also.

FlightAttendant, thanks for starting the thread. I would never have assumed that it could be so interesting and have revealed so many underlying truths. Everybody has contributed with examples and arguments that have led to where we are now, but I think it was you who really cracked this fantasy issue. By the way I think you should definitely work in philosophy or psychology, time and time again you have come up with some amazing insights.

mwah

Beware!! Me and my bunny buddy, Santa Claus, will send a plague of tooth fairies to all parents who dare lie to their children..... The tooth fairies will herd them up, drop them in a big net, and fly them to Santa's Grotto in Milton Keynes Shopping Centre. Their only way out will be by a magic spell, guarded by a huge, ferocious, fire-breathing dragon in a lair ten metres under the multi-storey.......

I have found it very worrying for many years that we mix up what we tell children - some fact, some fiction, some told as 'fact' but which may be 'fiction', some told as 'fiction' but which may be 'fact'.

Personally, I don't find it acceptable but it is everywhere and for everything.

Children are expected to distinguish between monsters and dinosaurs, ghoulies and ghosties and 'spirit', religious ideas/beliefs of others and yet their own religion is portrayed as 'real'...and so on...

We are now a world of the internet where conspiracy theories abound - and some of which may well be true.

So, do we put these forward to children too? We may as well but the question is, what age?

We also portray spiritualism and a life-after-death scenario on the TV as 'for entertainment purposes only' and yet we have Sunday services with no such warning. Is that right?

There is so much in our world that is changing and I think we need a really serious think about what, and how, we should teach all our children.

debbie - this thread is a year old.