GCSE history topic - Jack the Ripper.

[seeker]

I know I am very old, and very old fashioned, but SURELY Jack the Ripper is not a suitable topic for a GCSE History module?

It seems to me to be wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to start!

I can understand the 'whodunnit' angle, but that's all . I wouldn't be impressed.

I can sort of see what you mean but it was a historical event that shook the whole of London (well, the East End anyway!) at the time. Who defines what history is? If it's in the past, and noteworthy then it's history I suppose...

A History teacher friend of mine swapped syllabuses to the exam board that does this as itb engaged the children more. Teenagers do like thw more dramatic elements of History! They used to do a trip to LOndon to a museum or exhibition on the topic too

I don't see a problem with it. I would have thought the subject would give a lot of avenues of thought.

ie
Why these 5 murders became infamous when there were hundreds of murders in the City that year

Sorting out the myths from the facts

Issues of poverty in Victorian England

Policing in Victorian England

I agree it's history, and dramatic and there is lots of scope for examining sources and I can see why it would engage pupils. But Jack the Ripper was a serial killer of women.

The Moors Murders are history and dramatic too. Would they be considered suitable for history? Or the Yorkshire Ripper?

Maybe they will. Jack the Ripper was a different era so more like a story now IYSWIM. The others are still too recent and in living memory but give it another 100 years... thankfully I won't be around to see that

Seriously - is it really just me that's bothered by the thought of young teenagers (the child I'm talking about isn't 13 yet!) studying a man who killed women presumably for some sort of sexual gratification as part of their history GCSE? I must be even more boring and out of touch than I thought I was!

I can't really say, I work in a history setting so have a different perspective I think. I deal with mostly Holocaust education and when you take that apart and look at the images and personal stories that year 9s are taught, it's all extremely upsetting. We are very careful how we handle it and I think that is the key.

Ah, the Holocaust is different - it's vital that they are taught about that.

I just think the Jack the Ripper thing seems somehow sensationalist - "ok kids we know history is really really boring and you'll only be interested if we add a bit of horror to it. So, here's some blood and guts for you"

And I'm also uneasy about the serial killer thing - we are all aware that some people find this sort of thing titilating, and that society has an ambivalent attitude to the murder of women, particularly the murder of prostitutes...Oh, I don't know. It's hard being a 70s feminist in this day and age. I am a anachronism - a living dinosaur, like the coelocanth!

The actual murders, I think, would get very little attention. The topic could and should cover:
Poverty and social conditions in the Victorian slums
The Victorian attitude to women/the poor
Immigration in the late 19th century (Ripper murders were assumed to have been committed by immigrants because no 'Englishman' would be capable of them)
How the murders inspired massive changes in social and housing policy

Also interesting to examine - policing methods and how the media dealt with the issues.

The Ripper murders have an historical resonance that make them extraordinary imo, though possibly 13 is a little young to grasp all of the complexities.

Still dubious. On all levels. These are 12-13 year olds - do you really think they are capable of the levels of insight necessary to learn enough to justify the topic?

Oh, thought it was GCSE History?

Yes, Y8 too young imo.

Sorry, it is GCSE. But it's at dd's friends school where they have bizarrely just gone back to school after half term as Year 9s and started their GCSE work. Which has miffed dd considerable as she is 7 months older than friend and won't be a Year 9 until September!

Spring heeled jack would be more interesting and less gratutitous...studying someone who disembowelled women as a hobby is not history.

The history of the work house or public executions in Victorian England would cover the same ground.

Ghengis Khan at least changed a nation's history. And he was a right bastard too...if the intention is to study violent bastards in history?

I agree, it is not really history...are they trying to compete with reality TV?

Yay - someone who agrees with me!!!!!!!!!

Isn't this Jack the Ripper "unit" just the same as the knife crime English "unit"?

Where is British social, economic and political history taught - the Chartists, the Great Reform Act; the 1906 Liberal Reforms etc etc. Or is all that not "relevant" enough - and do we assume that Jack The Ripper" is something the children can relate to more.

Today my daughter (aged 14) told me they'd just learnt how Jack the Ripper killed his victims. Why is this on the GCSE syllabus? Hope it's nothing to do with sexing up the subject with a bit of violence against women... I've asked the Dept of Education to explain.

Good grief, strange topic indeed. That said my history nut of a son would probably enjoy doing Jack the Ripper. Horror and gore appeal to him. But I wouldn't want it on a history syllabus.Ever. It's a bit gratuitous and sensational a topic for the classroom IMO.
Not that he's likely to get to do it here in Ireland we don't have GCSE the equivalent is Junior Cert and the syllabus goes from the Mesolithic Age to power sharing in Northern Ireland in 2007. He loves it doesn't find it dull at all.

I'm confused as to why year 8 & 9s would be studying gcse topics when you don't do gcses until year 10-11

But I wouldn't be unhappy about my year 7 dd studying this topic.

Hello Seeker

I completely understand why you would have reservations about this topic.

However FWIW , I think if it is taught in a sensitive way this could be a good thing - as PPs have said - a good way to talk about actual historical documents versus contemporaneous hearsay. It needs to be portrayed very factually . By which I mean X killed Y and Z at X location. None of the stuff of novels .

You must judge for yourself. Am also 1970s woman / feminist thing and actually as long as done in the right way , I would support this .

However , only my opinion

AG

I did this for GCSE History 12 years ago and it was BRILLIANT. Easily the most interesting thing I ever studied in history. We were in the East End too so visited all the sites and stuff.

It was great because there are so many sources of information and they all contradict one another because of the lack of reliability surrounding forensics, the press, the newly formed police force at that time... It is so engaging and ties into lots of cross curricular stuff like forensic science, the beginning of the vilification of Jews at the start of the 20th century, industrialisation in the UK and London, the treatment and role of women at this time in history in the UK.... Our teacher even took us on a trip to the cinema to see the Johnny Depp Jack the Ripper film that was out at the time and then we went on the Jack the Ripper walk round the murder sites (which I've subsequently been on 6 times further )

I got an A* and I really think that studying such an interesting topic helped that.

As a history teacher (although having a break for dc at moment) I can completely see the merits of studying this as a topic, although it is not something I have taught myself. It would normally (through Edexcel for example) be studied as part of the topic 'Crime, policing and punishment in England c1880–c1990' and seems to focus on the effectiveness of Victorian policing as opposed to all the gory details of the murders and answering questions on that. An example GCSE question, using sources, would be "Study Representations 1 and 2. They are both representations of the effectiveness of the Metropolitan Police in 1888.
How far do these representations differ?". One of the sources is this:
One of the reasons why the Whitechapel murders are remembered today is because they focused people’s attention on the failings and inadequacies of the police. Before the murders, there was already considerable press criticism of the police. The police were seen as incompetent and inefficient. A senior government official E.G. Jenkinson, who had a special responsibility for crime and the police, complained about drunkenness and immoral living in the higher ranks of the police force." You are not going to get a question saying "describe a murder"!

It is also likely that the case will be compared to other cases the police dealt with later such as Sidney St or the Brixton Riots, so it is more looking at how policing changed rather than a simple study of here is a string of murders... I think it is perfectly acceptable if it is going to engage pupils and get them wanting to learn more about history, and seems to be a really good topic for allowing pupils to develop sourcework and comparison skills.

Plus, history, whichever period you choose to teach, is full of horrible things going on, the Romans for example killed huge amounts of people in amphitheatres - just because things happened a very long time ago doesn't make them any less real - unfortunately history is full of unpleasant people and events and there is no avoiding this.

dontevenblink

great post