Someone sent me this link on Facebook. What do you think?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/24/catherine-ariemma-students-klan-outfits-video_n_588065.html?ref=fb&src=sp

I think that teacher didn't. Think, that is. Sounds like an interesting way to learn history but not very well thought out.

I'll be a pariah on here, but other than perhaps warning the faculty that "today is the day we're doing our documentary film on the Klan," I have no problem with this.

I'll be a pariah on here, but other than perhaps warning the faculty that "today is the day we're doing our documentary film on the Klan," I have no problem with this.

 

Why not? This group represents HATE.

Why not? This group represents HATE.

 

So do you ignore it's history or do you teach your students about them so that they can be ready for the next such group to come around?

I'll be a pariah on here, but other than perhaps warning the faculty that "today is the day we're doing our documentary film on the Klan," I have no problem with this.

 

I agree that she should have not only alerted the teaches but also all of the students just so they wouldn't be shocked at the sight.

 

It leads to the question that asks if there is any subject that is too sensitive to be recreated ?

 

Would it be acceptable to have "ovens" in a Holocaust recreation at a school with Jewish students?

 

Would a noose be too much when discussing the Klan or slavery?

 

I think the argument can be made that there is a way to teach the subject or recreate it and get the full magnitude of it across to the students without having to be 100% realistic.

No, lets ignore what happened in history, it's not like we're doomed to repeat it if we do.

No, lets ignore what happened in history, it's not like we're doomed to repeat it if we do.

 

Its not that simple. There's a line you can't cross and the question is where it begins.

I agree that she should have not only alerted the teaches but also all of the students just so they wouldn't be shocked at the sight.

 

It leads to the question that asks if there is any subject that is too sensitive to be recreated ?

 

Would it be acceptable to have "ovens" in a Holocaust recreation at a school with Jewish students?

 

Would a noose be too much when discussing the Klan or slavery?

 

I think the argument can be made that there is a way to teach the subject or recreate it and get the full magnitude of it across to the students without having to be 100% realistic.[/QUOTE]

 

Fair analogies; especially if students are in the ovens, wearing the noose.

 

Agree wholeheartedly with the bolded.

I find it interesting that some of the people who might tend to call Richard Mapplethorpe exhibits (of peeing on the Christ and pictures of fists up another's rear end) "art that should be displayed," excoriate a high school documentary film about the Klan. I'm also interested to see whether our teacher brethren on here support the idea of being required to run content by the Principal before being able to teach a subject. Who gets to draw the "line" Clyde speaks of? Drama teachers putting on productions about homosexuality? How does a lesson plan about Nazi activity during the Holocaust shock the conscience any less than a play about Nazi activity during the Holocaust where students where Nazi uniforms with schwastika's? How does a documentary film about the Klan with students wearing Klan uniforms shock the conscience any less than a lesson plan about the Klan with photographs of the uniforms in a book?

 

It seems to me there are 2 elements here: 1) surprise and 2) content. Element one could have been easily dealt with. Element two could not have been cured no matter how much advance notice was given. If we are going to censor items offensive to one student, we need to censor items offensive to any student.

I'll be a pariah on here, but other than perhaps warning the faculty that "today is the day we're doing our documentary film on the Klan," I have no problem with this.

 

I agree.

I find it interesting that some of the people who might tend to call Richard Mapplethorpe exhibits (of peeing on the Christ and pictures of fists up another's rear end) "art that should be displayed," excoriate a high school documentary film about the Klan. I'm also interested to see whether our teacher brethren on here support the idea of being required to run content by the Principal before being able to teach a subject. Who gets to draw the "line" Clyde speaks of? Drama teachers putting on productions about homosexuality? How does a lesson plan about Nazi activity during the Holocaust shock the conscience any less than a play about Nazi activity during the Holocaust where students where Nazi uniforms with schwastika's? How does a documentary film about the Klan with students wearing Klan uniforms shock the conscience any less than a lesson plan about the Klan with photographs of the uniforms in a book?

 

It seems to me there are 2 elements here: 1) surprise and 2) content. Element one could have been easily dealt with. Element two could not have been cured no matter how much advance notice was given. If we are going to censor items offensive to one student, we need to censor items offensive to any student.

 

I couldn't agree more. As a society there is a large portion that feels there is some right to be free from offense. Look at the legal challenges by the ACLU to such offensive images and nativity scenes, the Ten Commandments and a cross that was erected and a memorial to fallen soldiers. I'm offended if at the playing of the National Anthem I see someone not standing or not removing a hat. Should that behavior be punished because it causes me distress and I'm offended by it?

I would have no problem with it if the teacher went through the proper channels. Make everyone aware what is going on, and then possibly present it to the school so everyone can get the context of what is going on.

 

If the teacher had good intentions, I see nothing wrong with the idea. I think that History classes are too unauthentic and very culturally biased, so maybe this is the way she felt as well. I think it was a decent idea, just poor judgment on how to carry it out.

I find it interesting that some of the people who might tend to call Richard Mapplethorpe exhibits (of peeing on the Christ and pictures of fists up another's rear end) "art that should be displayed," excoriate a high school documentary film about the Klan. I'm also interested to see whether our teacher brethren on here support the idea of being required to run content by the Principal before being able to teach a subject. Who gets to draw the "line" Clyde speaks of? Drama teachers putting on productions about homosexuality? How does a lesson plan about Nazi activity during the Holocaust shock the conscience any less than a play about Nazi activity during the Holocaust where students where Nazi uniforms with schwastika's? How does a documentary film about the Klan with students wearing Klan uniforms shock the conscience any less than a lesson plan about the Klan with photographs of the uniforms in a book?

 

It seems to me there are 2 elements here: 1) surprise and 2) content. Element one could have been easily dealt with. Element two could not have been cured no matter how much advance notice was given. If we are going to censor items offensive to one student, we need to censor items offensive to any student.

 

 

I personally could not teach under a principal that required me to clear content before teaching. Here's the rational, my current principal taught 4th grade reading before becoming an administrator. Now she is a phenomenal leader and school administrator, but in what way is she qualified to make decisions about advanced chemistry and physics content (my subject areas)? With all do respect, that is a decision that the school pays me to make.

 

With that said, this teacher is actually using a very strong teaching method to teach her students. It is not uncommon for teachers in any subject area to require students to make a movie or preform a skit. Hearsay hit the nail on the head, the teacher could have limited surprise but the content here is the problem. Why are we demonizing a teacher that was attempting to have students understand a period of time that otherwise they could have just read about.

 

Are you going to treat me the same way for teaching kids the theory of evolution, geologic time (the earth is 4.6 billion years old), the big bang theory? All are areas of controversial content, but still need to be taught just like a history teacher must cover civil rights and that time period.

I personally could not teach under a principal that required me to clear content before teaching. Here's the rational, my current principal taught 4th grade reading before becoming an administrator. Now she is a phenomenal leader and school administrator, but in what way is she qualified to make decisions about advanced chemistry and physics content (my subject areas)? .

 

Science was never my strong suit so I must ask. Are there controversial issues in chemistry and physics?