Re: History department opts not to teach optional module

real-not-anti-spam-address@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (D.M. Procida) writes:

Don Levey <Don_SCJM@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I think that is what i meant. Here, students are often able to
take elective classes once compulsories are done. For example,
while one or two years of science classes may be required, a
student may then take more if s/he chooses. The classes are
offered, but the students are not required to take any specific
class (or any from that subject, is minimum credit levels have
been satisfied).

It's not quite like that either.
<snip>.

There are no optional classes. Pupils doing history will go to their
history lessons, and that's that. They won't get to choose which lessons
they attend.

Ah, I understand now. Thank youfor your patience.


Out of curiosity, I'm wondering if their school library does have
any books on the Holocaust (no allegations here, just wondering).

Given the state of some British schools, and the mania for IT, I'd just
be inclined to wonder if they had any books.

I'm not sure if that's :-) or :-(.

There are many reasons why the Holocaust topic might not have been
chosen by a school: lack of teacher expertise in the subject, a feeling
that pupils are not sufficiently mature to deal with that material, or
that the material is inappropriate for the age group, or simply because
there were other available topics the teachers wanted to teach more.

And I can understand all of those, though the first three would
pose some difficulties for the required classes in previous years,
wouldn't they?

Indeed, and many history teachers feel that KS3 (where it is a
compulsory part of the NC) is not a level at which the Holocaust can be
adequately taught (I have taught the Holocaust a little at that level,
in Religious Studies).

Again, being outside the system, it doesn't seem that Religious Studies
would be the place for it. While Jews were the main (but not only)
target, it wasn't a religious issue per se. I'd look for this in
history or sociology, personally.

I'd prefer to know more about the context before making any judgements.

While I'm clearly more willing to make a judgement, I can respect
that.

It goes both ways; knowing a bit more about the context one might
discover something that makes the decision very strongly deserving of
criticism, or which makes it look much more less troubling.

Very true - which is why we've been asking for, and reading, the
clarifications from those in a better position to know.

I hope that you understand why some are more sensitive to
it, though, especially in light of some of the other things that
seem to be going around the country (England) lately.

Of course I understand why people are, and should be, sensitive to this.
I winced when I read the original story. But having been made to think
"how appalling" by the original story, and then discovered that the
frightening and alarming claims have been made up, I'm annoyed to have
heard the cries of "Wolf!".

My time has been doubly wasted, by the original cries of wolf, and then
having to explain why they are cries of wolf.

I hope that I have not wasted your time. There are few reliable
sources of information here, especially in the US about a (local) UK
story.

And the worst thing is, there *are* wolves out there, and the more
people cry wolf when the wolves aren't about, the fewer people who will
take it seriously when there are. The people who are crying wolf about
this matter are defending Jews in the same kind of way that the people
who make hoax fire calls are saving people from burning buildings.

Not quite, but I understand what you mean. I'd say that it's more
like someone calling the fire department when someone else has burned
dinner. Smelling smoke *could* be a real problem, but isn't always.
Given history, though, some are willing to inconvenience the fire
department for a false alarm rather than have others perish due to
hesitation. The fire department, obviously, tends to feel differently.


It would be better to read that and understand the facts and comments
made there than the falsehoods about it that some people keep repeating.

Good point. Though does this report address the school that chose
NOT to offer the optional Holocaust class, or does it discuss approaches
in which it might be handled?

The school was used as an example, but the question more widely is
addressed (and not just the Holocaust either), highlighting ways in
which these difficult subjects have been successfully taught in history
lessons at school.

Yes, as an occasional teacher I can appreciate the difficulties
(as well as the particular function this report is designed to fulfill).

I can't copy and paste because the PDF text is in columns, but have a
look at pages 28 and especially 32-33 for case-studies of Holocaust
teaching, including at schools where there is resentment and ignorance
of Jews amongst Muslim pupils.

I didn't really see much of it in those pages, at least not relating to
the Holocaust. Given the nature of the report, there's not much in-depth
discussion of any of those issues. Truthfully, I'd like to have a
conversation with the committee that researched and drafted the report.

In fact, after my initial reaction of "you supine spineless cowards,
you're letting the whole profession down" when I first read the story as
reported here, reading the report has made me feel that pupils learning
history in British schools are privileged to have so many thoughtful and
intelligent teachers in the subject.

I understand such a reaction, though I don't quite share it. It's what
looks like a "caving in" to anticipated negative reaction that really
gets to me. There are legitimate reasons why that course might not be
offered, but I don't think that is one of them.

--
Don Levey If knowledge is power,
Framingham, MA and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to salearn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: History department opts not to teach optional module
    ... list 12 topics of which pupils will cover eight during the two years the ... There won't have been a class offered covering the Holocaust. ... doing history would do it. ... Though does this report address the school that chose ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Latest Politically Correct Farce
    ... As often reported, I lost 15 of my immediate relatives to the holocaust, ... are upset -- I would be upset also if the UK had taken teaching about ... Another school decided to teach the Holocaust despite anti-semitic ... The report, Teaching Emotive and Controversial History, also revealed ...
    (soc.senior.issues)
  • Re: Eisenhower knew
    ... I also found a similar report on Deborah Lipstadt's blog: ... "This week in England every memorial of the Holocaust has ... Muslim population that denies the Holocaust." ... every school in the country, to visit Auschwitz with the Holocaust ...
    (rec.radio.cb)
  • Re: NBC: does my kid think Im really that stupid?
    ... and Pre-Calc. ... She's an A student and then we get her progress report - ... Good luck with the History!!! ... there's nothing going on at school that I should know about is ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: Re: Ben Stein: Win His Career
    ... holocaust denial to be taught in history class? ... side-stepping the clear question that raises - should school children ...
    (talk.origins)