Firstly.
As to debate, there are times to seek concensus, and times to explore differences. As long as the debate doesn't tip over into vitriol, there's nothing wrong with a frank exchange of views. Surely that's what we want in our classrooms - that pupils should be prepared to have their veiws challenged and have to defend them?
Not to offend - there's the skill.
Secondly.
Sorry. If someone expressing John's opinions applied for a post in my department I fear I would not employ him or her.
There is a lot about John's posts which ARE worthy of great respect. Energy. Commitment and enthusiasm. Fine ideals, even.
But:
a. it is absolutely unprofessional to try to indoctrinate. A teacher has no right to try to impose her/his political views on the pupils. That is the Prime Directive.
b. what John is advocating (though I suspect not doing) is poor history teaching. Part of understanding history must be to understand other people's beliefs and value systems. It is impossible to explain why the atomic bomb was dropped without understanding Truman's standpoint; and Truman genuinely believed that he was doing the right thing. Thus an historian is obliged to acknowledge a mind-set which believes it was right to drop the A-bomb. What you and the children make of those arguments is up to them and you. But you cannot censor a whole ideology because you as a teacher disagree with it. Similarly, whilst political correctness does perhaps make us shy away from the direct question 'Was it right to gas the Jews?', most teachers will have taught the reasons why the Nazis embarked on the Final Solution - and to do that properly does involve teaching an element of empathy. You need to understand even the enemy, and as history teachers we have to teach this skill.
c. Too combative. We need to be aware that pupils are sometimes less robust than we might imagine, and they are easily damaged. So too can be teachers! Whilst this forum is a place where we can explore diferences, a department must be a place where the members seek concensus.
Thirdly.
Having said all that, one post from John really made me think, when he said:
My agenda is to see our society becoming racially harmonious, tolerant of other other nations, keen to promote human rights around the world, keen to end poverty in third world countries, keen look after the environment, and keen to respect international laws as the cornerstone of socially democratic principles.
and Richard replied:
I would like to say that I'm sure everyone on this forum shares John's hopes for the world.
Now, here's the rub. Surely THAT is a political idea too. And are we not indoctrinating if we try to get all our pupils coming out believing this? But what would we make of it if one of our pupils came out saying that they had considered the options and were going to choose a racist, or a homophobic standpoint, or that they were going to become a terrorist, or a paedophile? Would we give them that leeway?
Perhaps we ALL indoctrinate our pupils - its just that some of us are more subtle about it, and that our politics are more middle-of-the-road?
'Ah no', you say, 'we would be justified in stopping such beliefs because they are illegal - outside the bounds of what our society accepts'.
But who says so - Tony and his Third Way? The Citizenship National Curriculum? Who sets the agenda of what political standpoint we collectively espouse - those who have a vested interest in maintaining the
status quo, of course!
Surely what History teaching is all about is introducing the pupils to ways of thinking BEYOND their accepted society (eg the Native American attitude towards Nature)?
But I think, as we do that, we have to be a referee, rather than a guru.
Edited by JohnDClare, 09 July 2003 - 11:50 PM.
This topic is locked
The loss of diversity in the Department would be an issue. I do not agree with members of the Department I am in. My mission I see it to push what I want.
and <a href="
