Daily Mail's Hatchet Job On Teachers After MN Thread

[adoptmama]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2581883/Teachers-rants-mother-hit-four-letter-words-lessons-Complained-14-year-old-daughter-studying-play-containing-400-swear-words.html

I remember OPs thread well. In fact I am the first of the teachers whose MN comment is selectively quoted by the Daily Mail.

Selectively, because what I also pointed out to the OP is that she had acted in a very unreasonable manner by naming the school and making the teacher and her daughter easy to identify. I also called her out on the way in which she manipulated the head teacher's comments to her to make it sound as if she were supported by the school in complaining about the teacher's choice of text.

OP said she was asking for the thread to be removed because she had made herself and her daughter's school too identifiable. Obviously she doesn't have those concerns now, since she has named the school to the press! Of course that wasn't the real reason she wanted it removed.

Nor did she ask for it to be removed because she was so 'shocked by the vile abuse.' She asked for it to be removed because NOBODY agreed with her, wanted to sign her petition or felt she had any case against the school. After all, she failed to withdraw her child from the class when given the opportunity to. She was told by poster after poster her actions were unreasonable and her petition a joke.

I received an email from MNHQ on Friday - which I did not see until Saturday morning - asking me if I wished to contact the 'journalist' writing this story. I wanted to re-read the thread first, but couldn't for the reasons given above. By then it was apparently 'too late' because the deadline was to comment/contact was thought to have passed anyway. And the story is now published.

Of course the Daily Mail journo didn't just 'happen' to see the thread and decide to write a story. After all, the thread was only there a couple of hours before the OP had it deleted. The Daily Mail ran this 'news' story because OP contacted them, wanting to publicise her petition and her disagreements with the school. Furthermore she clearly copied the thread before having MN delete it so that she had the quotes to give to the Mail.

So dear Daily Mail, let me clarify a few things for you:

• I stand by my comments about the OPs desire to impose her values on the school and enable censorship.
• I stand by the fact that I use expletives. It's a free world and a public forum. The fact I chose to swear on it does not devalue me as a teacher. Many, many other people swore on the thread. Presumably however a news story saying 'people swore on public forum' is not as 'newsworthy' as a headline about 'teachers' foul mouthed rants' and a 'torrent of foul mouthed abuse by teachers'. It's the T Word isn't it? You just love to teacher-bash.
• Many - apparently non-teaching - posters agreed with what I and other teachers posted about the OPs attitude towards the use of the text and her attempt to impose narrow minded values on the curriculum and have a highly respected play removed.
• the OPs actions in naming the school and making the teacher identifiable were disgusting. As I said at the time, the teacher concerned remained - and has remained - professionally quiet on the entire matter. Unlike the OP. The fact she has now taken this 'story' to the Daily Mail is of no surprise.
• I'm always happy to stand by my opinion Daily Mail. Perhaps next time you are scrambling to try to fill a few column inches before deadline you could make a greater effort to contact people before you go to press or alternatively, you could fill your paper with something a little more useful, unbiased, researched and, dare I say it, not culled off a public forum?
• any of the students I teach would have been shame-faced at producing such a deliberately biased, one sided and ill-informed piece of writing. They would have commented on the fact the writer was deliberately selective in the quotes used and sought only to produce a piece of shock-value writing to inflame feelings and be provocative. The writing was not designed to add anything to a debate on the value of the play - the value of the play is never mentioned, nor is anything said of the high critical acclaim it has received - but was clearly, from the start a piece aimed at bashing teachers and flattering the point of view of the complainant mother. My pupils would also have pointed out, Daily Mail, that having quotes from 2 posters who 'claimed to be teachers' does not allow you to extrapolate a headline about 'Teachers rants at mother' or a comment about a 'torrent of foul mouthed abuse by teachers' as you lack any convincing evidence that the commentators are teachers. So you apply collective responsibility to all teachers on the flimsiest of evidence.
• Although, just for the record, I am a teacher. And in my classroom Mr. Petre, DM journalist your average article length (published in the last 12 months) of 617 words would be considered a 'disappointing' level of work. In my classroom 617 words is barely a paragraph and would not be considered sufficient to allow a proper examination of the issue under discussion. It's amazing what the internet can tell us, isn't it?

[EvilTwins]

The original poster on the thread wanted others to sign a petition. When others said they wouldn't be doing that, it got silly.

[Delphiniumsblue]

I don't think that DM ever let facts get in the way of a good story,which is why I never read it.

[Blu]

All material in school is introduced in an age-appropriate progression, though.

I'm not talking about swearing or even exposure to nasty happenings - they are well seasoned in stories with nasty happenings by about Yr 4!
I don't think my 12 year old would 'get' Blasted, and my preference as a parent would be that he learns a little more about what sex ought to be and can be before he is steeped in very adult material about violent sexual abuse.

Teachers, of course, do make these choices in an informed and discerning way, though, and my DS's school are studying A Midsummer Night's Dream, not Blasted.

[clam]

If tiaramisu is a troll who's been banned, how come she's posting on the MalaysiaAirline threads?

[Feenie]

It is definitely tiaramisu, clam? Cos this one was tiaramAsu.

[MoominIsWaitingToMeetHerMiniMe]

Blu But I'm not saying a 12 year old should be studying 'Blasted'. At 16, yes. And I don't see the problem with plays like Mogadishu, Chatroom, Citizenship etc for 14 year olds.

But my point really was that you could argue that any play's use of anything is 'gratuitous', and someone else will rightfully argue back that they are using it to make a point about something. Just because one person considers it gratuitous is no reason to strike it off the syllabus altogether.

[RustyBear]

tiaramasu's last post was just before noon today, presumably she was banned after that...

[Blu]

mowtown: In the original thread the vast majority of posts in responses to the OP are simply and calmly putting another pov and suggesting another perspective. Some people are suggesting she talk to the school rather than start a petition against a play many other parents regard as an admirable piece of writing.

The OP also questioned the professionalism and subject knowledge and experience of teachers and called for them to be regulated in the material they use. Adoptamama understandably reacted to that.

The OP did noting wrong in putting forward her pov - but posters questioned the ethics of making her dd and school identifiable, used some swearing in response to being told not to (hardly a first on MN), and THEN the OP complained of disrespect, told MN she was worried about making herself so identifiable and got the thread pulled.

Then she went to the DM and raised a storm about teachers on MN using bad language - when all the journos who have subsequently taken up her cause haven't even been able to see the whole thread.

Banning things and calling for censorship is a serious matter. I would, in time honoured fashion, defend to the death a society in which GS can air her views about suitable language in schools. She has an absolute right to give her opinion.

To air that opinion and vilify those who have disagreed with her, having caused their opinions to be deleted ....shocking.

A quick google tells me that her cause has now been championed by a horrendous white supremacist site, Daily St*rmer. Well done GS!

[Ubik1]

Moomin perhaps my attitude is a little more conservative.

I haven't read Blasted so can't comment. But I would think very carefully about the themes of the literature I presented to a class.

I don't like censorship but I think some books are best explored in a child's own time, at their pace.

That doesn't mean academic Eng Lit should avoid challenging topics, but the point of it is surely to learn to critically evaluate texts and learn to form a coherent argument.


.

[EvilTwins]

Ubik - out of interest, which plays do you think are appropriate for GCSE groups?

[Ubik1]

you could argue that any play's use of anything is 'gratuitous

Well you could. But that would be a bit silly, wouldn't it.

[Ubik1]

I'm not a teacher. Why do you ask?

[EvilTwins]

I ask because you're able to say what shouldn't be taught, so I was interested in what you think would be appropriate.

[Blu]

Moomin - I haven't used the word 'gratuitous', I think I am interested in the age appropriateness of very powerful and not gratuitous material. Mostly anything which is actually gratuitous (even extended descriptions of landscape) undermines the quality of the work, anyway.

Nor would I bar 14 year olds from Mogadishu, Chatroom, etc.

Not sure I would do Blasted with 16 yos in school, tbh. Though I would take a 16y I knew to be capable of appreciating it to the theatre to see it.

There are plenty of threads on MN that carry warnings in the title, and requests that material in threads be flagged up if it of a certain nature, because we understand that certain material can be triggering. As you say, kids I schools are 'captive'. If you arrived as an unaccompanied minor as a refugee from Bosnia and saw your mother raped and your brother having his penis hacked off you might not cope with sitting in a classroom going over a text like Blasted for the whole of the Spring term. Having a Duty of care, schools do have things to take into consideration in addition to literary quality.

[Ubik1]

It would be a very long post Eviltwins

The point I am making is that you have to take into consideration the themes of certain material when presenting it to a class - surely all teachers do this.

They don't just rock up to their GCSE class and go:"Right kids, here's Trainspotting, let's go straight to the bit where the junkie fucks his 8 months pregnant sister in law doggystyle in the bog."

But you might choose Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep because the themes are fascinating and asks questions about the experience of being human in a technological world.

Sorry have to go to sleep as nightshift beckons.

[MoominIsWaitingToMeetHerMiniMe]

But part of learning about these plays and pieces of literature is in the context.

If we say some texts are best discovered at the pupil's own pace, then there's a lot of very important texts that will never be discovered, because unless they have a real passion for the subject, they may never go out of their way to read them - and quite often, it's reading the more challenging, emotive texts that help them to develop a love and a passion for the subject in the first place! If my drama teacher had only let us read Shakespeare and Ayckbourn, I'd never have enjoyed it the way I have since discovering Sarah Kane and similar writers. And in turn, the ones who just wrote what was 'accepted' at the time - the well-made play etc - haven't inspired me to write for theatre at all. It's the ones who pushed the boundaries who have - I'm sure that at the time, they never would've taught the plays of the Angry Young Men, and yet now 'Look Back In Anger' is considered one of Britain's biggest theatrical achievements. Same goes for playwrights like Caryl Churchill and Shelagh Delaney; at their respective times they were considered a) revolutionary and b) shocking, and yet I'd say they're crucial for pupils of all ages studying drama to understand the evolution of theatre, and the censorship laws.

I'm not suggesting 12 year olds be forced to read 'Blasted' or act out scenes from 'Saved'; but an awareness that these sort of plays exist and the attitudes towards them will help them develop an understanding of theatre. Once they reach 14, some of the 'tamer' ones - in their themes, rather than their language, because I find it quite laughable that the OP of the original thread is bosom-hoiking over 14 year olds being exposed to swearing (as if they never hear it anywhere else!) - can be introduced. By 16 I don't think any play should be considered off-limits.

[EvilTwins]

Not sure what point you're making, ubik. I may have misunderstood earlier - I thought your "conservative" approach (as you call it) meant you were against the texts we were discussing on this thread. We're not talking about English Lit GCSE, btw, but Drama. The two subjects are taught in very different ways.

[MoominIsWaitingToMeetHerMiniMe]

Blu but surely the school's duty of care to that pupil would dictate that they excuse them from that class if they wish to be excused, rather than preventing a whole class from learning about it?

I think my point about nothing being off-limits after 16 is because while some schools still force pupils to do GCSE drama, A Level Drama is an option, and those who want to take it would (I'd hope!) be prepared and aware of the fact that sometimes theatre deals with the less-pleasant side of life - again, why I think maybe gently introducing some of these aspects at 14 isn't a terrible idea - and they need to be prepared to be exposed to texts designed to make the audience feel uncomfortable. I see what you mean in that in school, pre-GCSE years, they have little choice, so going into graphic detail before then probably isn't wise, but by 14 the majority of students in a drama class have chosen that class.

We studied Artaud at A Level, so of course we were exposed to texts and performances that were designed to make us feel uncomfortable and exposed.

At university level, the difference between students who've just studied Brecht and Stanislavsky, and the students who've studied Brecht, Stanislavsky, Berkoff, Grotowski, Artaud etc becomes quite noticable.

[Blu]

I think it is really important that young people deal with material that challenges their moral, political and philosophical views - Saved - great stuff! A Taste of Honey - well, now it wouldn't challenge them as the controversial material is now our basic understanding of diversity, but it's good for them to understand the context and how freedoms have progressed, why and how.

Reading Ulysees as a fifth former ignited my grow-up literary interest.

Ubik- the Wikipaedia synopsis of Blasted is quite good in that it lays bare the bones of the morality in the piece...but in performance (I saw the revival at the Lyric) it is ...hard to take. Like the fact that she has had sex to pay for a sausage - she came in semi-naked bleeding rectally and vaginally...

[Blu]

Moomin: Yes, I think the post-16 / A level /optional point is important.

[Ubik1]

When I said conservative I was responding to someone's description of Blasted. I haven't read it. I haven't read Mogadishu either. So I'm not "against" them, I don't think swearing is a good reason not to study a text...but there are many other reasons why it may not be appropriate.

i think asking some children to swear in a drama class may cause some discomfort. I wouldn't have enjoyed it at all.

[pointythings]

I would far rather my DD was presented with this sort of modern drama by a qualified teacher able to put it into context and dig deeper into meaning than that she ended up picking up stuff in a library or online without knowing what she was getting into.

Also, times change. I'd be willing to bet that when Chaucer wrote his stuff there were people saying 'Oh, you can't read that filth, it's got swearing and sex stuff in it, won't someone think of the children' - yet now it's more or less part of the curriculum.

Actually, Lady Chatterley's Lover wasn't long ago at all. (Not that I think it's great literature, far from it...)

[Ubik1]

But I wouldn't have chosen drama the drama lot would have loved all the swearing.

Blasted sounds...um..challenging.

[saintlyjimjams]

I took my 12 year old to see a play with quite a lot of swearing in it last week - he told me that after you've started secondary school (& he's at a grammar) swearing is not at all shocking.

He's also been involved in a play dealing (in a very non intense way) with issues around homosexuality - I've been very interested to see how that's made him think hard about the issues concerned. He can have a very sensible & mature discussion about homophobia for example.

He wants to do drama for GCSE & I very much hope the chosen texts challenge him.

I saw the original thread & the DM article & thought the same about the mail making it sound as if teachers at the school had been swearing at the idiot parent. Ridiculous 'paper'

[Ubik1]

There's a wonderful scene in Sunset Song where the new minister preaches a rather racy sermon from Song of Solomon and the whole village is practically drooling by the end.