Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Speaking of the K-12 here, and mostly abut teens. I ask this reading through the comments on another thread here about a family upset that their teen read a monologue about lesbianism in an acting class. But I'm asking about more than that.
Subject material may be upsetting to kids in literature, history, science classes. They may not believe what the teacher is saying(politics, current events), or the material may be different that the way they've always understood it (history, literature), or touch on controversial subjects (religion, sex, race). Any or all of that can make a teen deeply uncomfortable.
Is that OK?
I'd argue that students who are never discomfited in school are generally getting an inferior education. Kids who don't get out their wheelhouse aren't truly learning IMO. Yeah, you can always differentiate this by how something is taught, what is being taught, how it's graded, etc. And I'm not suggesting something like 50 minutes of weeping and wailing every period. But I am asking in general. Should teens (or their families) have an expectation that classes shouldn't ever really upset the students? Like I say, that's not a real education in my book
Not sure about the meaning of the question but will take a crack at it. I would think that what is taught in school should reasonably match the average expected emotional development for that age group. Yes, it's OK for kids to be upset about what they have learned in school at times, but it depends on what is taught, and to what grade/age group. Also depends on state guidelines for curriculum.
Speaking of the K-12 here, and mostly abut teens. I ask this reading through the comments on another thread here about a family upset that their teen read a monologue about lesbianism in an acting class. But I'm asking about more than that.
Subject material may be upsetting to kids in literature, history, science classes. They may not believe what the teacher is saying(politics, current events), or the material may be different that the way they've always understood it (history, literature), or touch on controversial subjects (religion, sex, race). Any or all of that can make a teen deeply uncomfortable.
Is that OK?
I'd argue that students who are never discomfited in school are generally getting an inferior education. Kids who don't get out their wheelhouse aren't truly learning IMO. Yeah, you can always differentiate this by how something is taught, what is being taught, how it's graded, etc. And I'm not suggesting something like 50 minutes of weeping and wailing every period. But I am asking in general. Should teens (or their families) have an expectation that classes shouldn't ever really upset the students? Like I say, that's not a real education in my book
A student, indeed anyone, doesn't have a right to be "upset" about a topic. However, and this is a big however, "upset" also depends very heavily on how age appropriate the topic is, how it is being taught, why it is being taught, the appropriateness of the language used for the age of the students, and the validity of any learning objectives from the material. Questions like, is it appropriate for the course at hand? Is it being presented in an academic, dispassionate way or is it being presented for its "shock" value?
What if it were Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn, with it's liberal use of the n-word? Would students have a right to be offended by that?
Last edited by toobusytoday; 01-19-2023 at 11:56 AM..
Reason: removed previously removed quote
Speaking of the K-12 here, and mostly abut teens. I ask this reading through the comments on another thread here about a family upset that their teen read a monologue about lesbianism in an acting class. But I'm asking about more than that.
Subject material may be upsetting to kids in literature, history, science classes. They may not believe what the teacher is saying(politics, current events), or the material may be different that the way they've always understood it (history, literature), or touch on controversial subjects (religion, sex, race). Any or all of that can make a teen deeply uncomfortable.
Is that OK?
I'd argue that students who are never discomfited in school are generally getting an inferior education. Kids who don't get out their wheelhouse aren't truly learning IMO. Yeah, you can always differentiate this by how something is taught, what is being taught, how it's graded, etc. And I'm not suggesting something like 50 minutes of weeping and wailing every period. But I am asking in general. Should teens (or their families) have an expectation that classes shouldn't ever really upset the students? Like I say, that's not a real education in my book
I think there are two issues here. First, what do students need to know? Second, is what they need to know important enough to be taught even if it does make them uncomfortable. And, to an extent, we get back to what is age appropriate.
For example, we all studied a certain level of World History in elementary school. In World War II we probably didn't get into any detail about the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Perhaps a mention, but no discussion about whether we should have done that. But in our middle school's 8th grade World History, students debated whether or not it was appropriate. So a big part of the question is -- when something should be taught.
Sex ed is another difficult topic (although perhaps more difficult for the parents than the students). But they have A LOT to learn. For example -- and this is a true story: In our school system sex ed was (depending on the year) a opt-in or opt-out program. Students were not allowed to verbally ask questions to the teacher. Instead, at the end of the class period students were allowed to write their questions on index cards. Before the next class, teachers would review the question to decide which could be answered based on the school system's approved curriculum. If a question was allowed, the teacher would respond verbally the following day. If a question was not allowed, the teacher would read the following scripted response: "I'm sorry, but I am not allowed to answer that question. You should go home and discuss the topic with your parents". But kids needed to learn a lot. One question that came up was: "Can you grow sperm in an aquarium?" Think about how we portray sperm in photographs. It was a real question to the student.
But I will tell you this: In teaching 9th grade earth science, where evolution was part of the approved curriculum, I never had a student upset about the topic. I did have a few parents upset about the topic, including several who said -- literally -- "I don't want my son [or daughter] to think".
Speaking of the K-12 here, and mostly abut teens. I ask this reading through the comments on another thread here about a family upset that their teen read a monologue about lesbianism in an acting class. But I'm asking about more than that.
Subject material may be upsetting to kids in literature, history, science classes. They may not believe what the teacher is saying(politics, current events), or the material may be different that the way they've always understood it (history, literature), or touch on controversial subjects (religion, sex, race). Any or all of that can make a teen deeply uncomfortable.
Is that OK?
I'd argue that students who are never discomfited in school are generally getting an inferior education. Kids who don't get out their wheelhouse aren't truly learning IMO. Yeah, you can always differentiate this by how something is taught, what is being taught, how it's graded, etc. And I'm not suggesting something like 50 minutes of weeping and wailing every period. But I am asking in general. Should teens (or their families) have an expectation that classes shouldn't ever really upset the students? Like I say, that's not a real education in my book
If they're assigned upsetting material, they're not going to get a good education anyway, because the upsetting material will be off-putting to them. They won't understand the material, and won't retain whatever they're supposed to be learning from it. It will all just be a waste of time for them.
This is where everything tnff mentioned is key: good teaching/good lessons, carefully-chosen material that's age-appropriate, the well thought-out and age-appropriate learning objectives, etc.
The way Tom Sawyer/Huck Finn are taught, is to put the language in historical context. So students know, "this is how some people spoke back then, but we don't talk like that now, because it's not nice".
This is not a difficult issue. Teachers have been presenting the Mark Twain material for generations.
High school students should be made uncomfortable at times. That's not the same as upsetting, though.
High school is a good time to challenge beliefs and having the students defend and support their beliefs is an effective way to teach. It is possible to have students defend beliefs without having harmful adversarial attacks. Historically, students have debated for and against many timely topics without their being harmed emotionally. A good and positive debate does not permit ad hominem attacks.
Science class explaining this trend ? I'd say "suck it up sweet cheeks"
Is it Engish class with pornographically explicit language ? I'd say the teacher needs to be arrested for child abuse.
I used extremes on purpose here .....
I saw a video of a parent reading a portion of a literature book assigned to his daughter's class. He warned them of the explicit language and said he was embarrassed to read it...and by George....it was explicit !!! The school board yelled at him to stop.
Science class explaining this trend ? I'd say "suck it up sweet cheeks"
Is it Engish class with pornographically explicit language ? I'd say the teacher needs to be arrested for child abuse.
I used extremes on purpose here .....
I saw a video of a parent reading a portion of a literature book assigned to his daughter's class. He warned them of the explicit language and said he was embarrassed to read it...and by George....it was explicit !!! The school board yelled at him to stop.
And one of our posters attacked me in another thread for 'censorship' because I persuaded an English teacher to use age-appropriate materials (as opposed to assigning a book where a teenage girl was raped on a pool table).
What students 'choose' to read is a lot different than what students should be 'forced' to read.
So I agree with what I think you're saying...make it age-appropriate. What not acceptable in middle school may be acceptable in high school. What's not acceptable in high school may be acceptable in college.
Do kids have a "right" not to be upset by subject matter in class?
No. They have a right to be upset at times. That's okay and mostly good for them.
But NO ... they don't have the right to (somehow) impose their sensibility on the words or actions of others.
Speaking of the K-12 here, and mostly abut teens. I ask this reading through the comments on another thread here about a family upset that their teen read a monologue about lesbianism in an acting class. But I'm asking about more than that.
Subject material may be upsetting to kids in literature, history, science classes. They may not believe what the teacher is saying(politics, current events), or the material may be different that the way they've always understood it (history, literature), or touch on controversial subjects (religion, sex, race). Any or all of that can make a teen deeply uncomfortable.
Is that OK?
I'd argue that students who are never discomfited in school are generally getting an inferior education. Kids who don't get out their wheelhouse aren't truly learning IMO. Yeah, you can always differentiate this by how something is taught, what is being taught, how it's graded, etc. And I'm not suggesting something like 50 minutes of weeping and wailing every period. But I am asking in general. Should teens (or their families) have an expectation that classes shouldn't ever really upset the students? Like I say, that's not a real education in my book
Some people are just very sensitive, so that if you cut out anything that might possibly offend some people, you would not have much of an education. In this politically, economically, and socially polarized society, there is very little that everyone will agree on. Yet, critically, students should not be deprived of the opportunity to learn about things like evolution or climate change, with a huge body of established scientific facts, simply because some people find it objectionable. That would lead to a much less informed populace and be harmful to society.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
