Does this teacher have a degree in dumbth?

[DMB]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australian-teacher-set-terrorism-plan-homework-2061388.html

A high school teacher in Australia who assigned her class to plan a terrorist attack that would kill as many innocent people as possible had no intent to promote terrorism, the school principal said.

The Year 10 students at Kalgoorlie-Boulder Community High School in the state of Western Australia were given the assignment last week in a class on contemporary conflict and terrorism.

They were asked to pretend they were terrorists making a political statement by releasing a chemical or biological agent on "an unsuspecting Australian community", according to a copy of the assignment received by the West Australian newspaper.

The task included choosing the best time to attack and explaining their choice of victims and what effects the attack would have on a human body.

"Your goal is to kill the MOST innocent civilians in order to get your message across," the assignment read.

Read the whole thing!

[Eudaimonist]

It sounds like the assignment was well-intentioned, and might even have been educational, but I agree that it was inappropriate.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Ray Moscow]

Next assignment: how to do the Holocaust!

I think some people are violent enough without encouraging them to think this way.

[Notta]

From the article:
"The teacher, who is relatively inexperienced, made a well-intentioned but misguided attempt to engage the students in an assignment on contemporary conflict and how beliefs and values influence the behaviours and motives of individuals," Mr Martino said in comments provided by the state Education Department.

She made a ridiculous assignment. Students don't have to plan how to kill large numbers of innocent people in order to learn about beliefs and values influence people.

Why not have an assignment in which all your students of color can't use the bathroom, the water fountain, or the same books that all the other students do? "Let's see how well we understand discrimination, shall we, children?"

I'm a teacher, and I have almost NO respect for the critical thinking ability of the large majority of teachers -- at least in America.

[neilstone40]

Why not have an assignment in which all your students of color can't use the bathroom, the water fountain, or the same books that all the other students do? "Let's see how well we understand discrimination, shall we, children?"


The above scenario was in fact quite an interesting experiment carried out by Jane Elliot an American 3rd Grade Teacher in 1968.

The discrimination was based on eye colour, with blue eyed children being encouraged to discriminate against brown eyed children, with the positions of power being changed the following day. The teacher also joined in on the discrimination (Time for play children, not you brown eyes though!").

There was an outcry at the time but it has been an interesting sociological experiment. I watched a documentary a couple of years ago about the experiment and none of the children (all now grown up) reported any ill-effects and if anything admitted it helped challenge and shape their opinions on discrimination and prejudice.

Some of these experiments work and some don't. The recent incident in England where the school staff arranged for one of the teachers to be "shot" but didn't tell the children. This was an attempt to demonstrate the work of crime scene investigators and forensic scientists. A bold but misguided and poorly executed experiment (intentional pun).

As with any experiment, sometimes they work some times not. Sometimes even misguided experiments, failed experiments or those with unexpected results can produce important lessons. Experiments are often judged purely on their outcome rather than their intent.

Take the Stanford Prison Experiment back in 1971 which was stopped after 6 days due to the sadistic practices adopted by those playing the roles of guards as well as the psychological damage to some of those playing inmates, several of whom had to be removed from the experiment early.

The idea of encouraging pupils to go through the logistics of planning a terrorist attack, consider their targets and the methodology for inflicting maximum damage is a contentious one. It can be seen as distasteful and inappropriate. It could also be viewed as a bold attempt to encourage pupils to view their world from a different perspective. Not to sympathise or promote, simply to try and understand the unimaginable.

We send children to see Auchwitz and don't fear they will emulate the actions of the Nazis, rather that they may understand the horrors and, hopefully, to inspire them to promote tolerance and understanding.

Nobody will ever truly understand the mind of a terrorist, sometimes not even the terrorist themselves although it is important to try. How can we prevent what we don't understand?

When I taught self defence many years ago, I would often encourage students to suggest their own attack scenarios, partly to allow them to address the situations they feared most. If someone was afraid of being grabbed and choked from behind, their first role would be to play the aggressor. This allowed them to explore their fear but also to develop awareness of the aggressor's potential weaknesses, get a greater understanding of timing/proximity and have a more holistic view of their defensive technique.

Sometimes playing the role of the "bad guy" can give us a better understanding of the world around us.

[MattShizzle]

I remember seeing that experiment the 3rd grade tacher did a few years back on one of those news shows. IIRC she did it more than once. I learned of the Stanford Prison experiment and Milgrams "shock learning" experiment in college.

[Matty]

i pretty much agree with all of Neilstones post above. I dont see how planning a hypothetical terrorist attack is any more insidious or dangerous than acting out such things in video games, plus there are benefits to the planning. **

Most kids are capable of delineating the real and fictional pretty well by high school age.

The controversial project when i was in sr school was a nuclear war one. we got to first of all watch Threads and TWhene the Cold WInd Blows, and then map out the effects of a single warhead drop on Plymouth.

More than one kid had sleepless nights and moaning parents after we all worked out (correctly) that even with one bomb we were toast, and that really the Russians were more likely to drop a half dozen because of the town's strategic importance. Not counting the fallout from the local nuclear dockyard etc etc etc. Basically we were all fucked, it was just a matter of waiting for the commies to hit the red button.

i view this "controversial" project as kinda similar. Just because the word terrorist can create hysterics in so many Americans doesnt mean there was zero value to the exercise.



** PLus. Think of it from the perspective of the muslim students, it probably counts as accredited work experience.

[Notta]

From the article:
"The teacher, who is relatively inexperienced, made a well-intentioned but misguided attempt to engage the students in an assignment on contemporary conflict and how beliefs and values influence the behaviours and motives of individuals," Mr Martino said in comments provided by the state Education Department.

She made a ridiculous assignment. Students don't have to plan how to kill large numbers of innocent people in order to learn about beliefs and values influence people. Bolding because I think this is the key point. It's not about what is or is not violent or promoting violence. It's about the best method for teaching the topics listed, and having students pretend they're terrorists who want to kill the largest possible number of people is not the best way to do it.

We don't teach students about fascism by having them play at being fascists themselves -- we don't role-play about slavery, polygamous marriage, infanticide, etc. to learn about these things. Students can learn about contemporary conflicts and the reasons behind them without pretending that THEY are the ones promoting violence.

It's not 'oh, that's so scary, let's wrap our precious little darlin's in padding and keep them away from all that's nasty about the big, bad world' -- it's about instructional methods that FOSTER learning and ones that do nothing but engage student's emotions while skipping completely over the rational critiquing of beliefs and values.

I used to have my 13 & 14 year old students engage in discussions about stem cell research. Once they realized I wasn't going to allow them to get away with "It's wrong! My preacher said so!" and they had to defend their position, we had some pretty interesting discussions. They behaved more like adults than many adults did. I'm sure they could have talked about terrorists and blowing people up without resorting to trying to plan out an attack themselves.

[neilstone40]

Encouraging independent thought needs involvement and engaging kids imagination. I've seen so many kids having the opportunity not to participate or not listen because they've been able to sit on the periphery of what's being taught.

Role play can also be a very useful tool - that's why it's used extensively in many forms of training from counselling to the military. Role playing can also be used to explore extremely sensitive subjects

Unless kid are central to the topic, involved and engaged it can be easy to lose their attention. I've seen kids involved in roleplays involving truly intense subjects such as domestic violence and racism. When planned and applied well it is an amazing way to help young people explore and understand complex topics.

[Matty]

Bolding because I think this is the key point. It's not about what is or is not violent or promoting violence. It's about the best method for teaching the topics listed, and having students pretend they're terrorists who want to kill the largest possible number of people is not the best way to do it.
I guess it depends what you are teaching. Planning such a hypothetical attack would involve the collation of lots of disparate information from lots opf differnt sources, and assessing it from a different than the norm perspective. How is that NOT a valid learning experience. Even purely from a purely empathetic stance, its a valid one.

I mean its not like, they had them making up anthrax cultures, it was purely a hypothetical exercise. Plus even from a US "OMG did someone say terrorist. Oh nooooooeeess " kind of way, presumably such an exercise could be used to heighten peoples awareness of potential security flaws(or paranoia depending on how you view it)


We don't teach students about fascism by having them play at being fascists themselves -- we don't role-play about slavery, polygamous marriage, infanticide, etc. to learn about these things. Students can learn about contemporary conflicts and the reasons behind them without pretending that THEY are the ones promoting violence.
important word. Its pretending. Not a biggie.

and sure you could teach all of those things via role lay and do it effectively.

[Notta]

It takes an incredibly experienced teacher to be able to control kids involved in role-playing. And the teacher from the article was NOT experienced.

In many cities in this country, if you role-play about a topic that includes personally experienced violence, you will most likely encounter a student who has either been a victim or is directly related to a victim of violence. They hardly need MORE experience with it.

Would it be appropriate, Matty and Neil, for these same kids to plot a school attack to kill the most people to help them understand why some kids in the US shoot their classmates?

[neilstone40]

In many cities in this country, if you role-play about a topic that includes personally experienced violence, you will most likely encounter a student who has either been a victim or is directly related to a victim of violence. They hardly need MORE experience with it.


As much as it may be difficult, any viable form of intervention will involve working through potentially disturbing events.

We can't stick our head in the sand either and not explore difficult social issues in case someone has personal experience of particular areas. If anything, appropriate intervention becomes all the more relevant.

I've worked with a lot of kids who have lived in households where domestic violence is a regular feature.

Although difficult, roleplaying can be very useful as it's often easier to re-enact incidents than try to describe them. It's also vital where kids have come to accept social problems such as domestic violence as the norm and have either become quite blasé about it or are unable to communicate events without some degree of "dramatic reconstruction". It's not easy but it's about good judgement, appropriateness and communicating with the child to help them select their preferred method of disclosure.


Would it be appropriate, Matty and Neil, for these same kids to plot a school attack to kill the most people to help them understand why some kids in the US shoot their classmates?


Quite possibly!

As with other subject areas, it's often the ones closest to home that are are the most difficult to deal with but often the most necessary. I'd rather kids roleplayed a school attack to better understand the consequences and alternatives than decided to emulate the tragic events of Columbine. If they learn that there are other ways of addressing feelings of alienation and marginalisation without using guns then all the better.

Any form of intervention or roleplaying needs good planning, sensitivity, monitoring, evaluation and additional resources should anyone involved need extra support or feel unable/unwilling to engage.

[Notta]

I just don't see how encouraging kids to plan terrorist attacks or school shootings is (1) an educationally sound instructional technique, and (2) necessary for any sort of understanding.

[Politesse]

If more people did this exercise, the country would be a safer place. The things we do to "protect" ourselves are often quite ridiculous, sacrificing considerable personal liberty in exchange for a small or non-existent amount of increased security. Can you imagine the impact of doing this assignment and then saying "Now, how many fewer people would have died if everyone in the scenario had a evacuation route planned in adavance? What about access to emergency sources of water? Gas masks? How much your plan is contingent on holes or problems with police or civil services that could be fixed easily or cheaply?" You'd have a much more secure nation in a heartbeat. And intelligence community would be helped in two ways; one, by identifying those students whose plans coincided with each other or seemed a trifle too specific, and two, simply the combined creative ability of all of these high schoolers in generating potential scenarios and threats they might have overlooked.

[neilstone40]

I just don't see how encouraging kids to plan terrorist attacks or school shootings is (1) an educationally sound instructional technique, and (2) necessary for any sort of understanding.

It's not about encouraging them to plan attacks or shootings - it's pretend! It is pretend with a purpose though. Role play is a valid, proven and useful method of learning and developing comprehension.

To some extent it is a form of self-directed learning as you'e doing your own research and playing the part. This is more likely to impart comprehension than simply listening to instructions or information.

Imagine fire evacuation drills simply involved sitting round looking at plans of the building, trying to memorise the nearest exits and assembly points. It is the tried and tested method of getting people to "walk the route" and practice their escape in controlled conditions. I've been witness to a few drills where people put themselves at risk by failing to follow instructions or because drills were not practised properly. I'd rather the shortcomings were identified in the drill than the real emergency.

I agree completely with Politesse that we don't prepare enough for contingencies. I also wonder who we are trying to protect by not addressing sensitive subjects, ourselves or those we are trusted to educate?

If roleplaying a difficult issue makes anyone more aware of the matter or empowers them to express their concerns (e.g. Tells someone "Tommy says he's going to bring a gun to school") then it can only be a force for good.

Shying away from the difficult areas just makes dealing with them more difficult. Most people (especially young people) appreciate honesty, directness and social relevance.

[Rie]

As a once upon a time young new teacher, I would say this was well intentioned but not advisable.

Those paper airplane throwers , little angels that they are, have fertile imaginations. And it would take a very experienced teacher to control this sort of assignment.

And believe me there would be repercussions of the parental sort for this teacher to deal with!

[DanB]

Do children who are taught about sexual reproduction become more likely to engage in sexual activity?

[Monad]

Anyone remember that Simpsons episode where some clever toy developers set up a fake teacher to get kids to design the ultimate toy in their class?

What if this teacher is really working for the CIA (or the terrorists) and they are using the fundamental amorality of kids and their ability to think creatively without worrying about consequences or limits to come up with the ultimate terrorist scenario?

[neilstone40]

Do children who are taught about sexual reproduction become more likely to engage in sexual activity?

Not sure whether they are more likely to have sex although I'd imagine they'd be more likely to do it properly...and more safely.

A lot of those opposed to sex education have used the belief that it promotes and encourages promiscuity. I think any increase in promiscuity or earlier sexual activity is more likely to be caused by other social factors rather than sex education (e.g. easier access to pornography, readily available contraception, peer pressure to have sex earlier, media imagery, celebrity influences, etc.)

I had a very religious upbringing so no real sex education for me. I have got three kids so must have got there eventually, albeit with a lot of trial and error...an awful lot of trial and even more error...

[neilstone40]

Anyone remember that Simpsons episode where some clever toy developers set up a fake teacher to get kids to design the ultimate toy in their class?

What if this teacher is really working for the CIA (or the terrorists) and they are using the fundamental amorality of kids and their ability to think creatively without worrying about consequences or limits to come up with the ultimate terrorist scenario?

If there's a knock at your door in the next few minutes and two dark suited men ask you to get into their car with the blacked out windows, go quietly and with dignity...

Don't be giving the real game away - careless talk costs lives remember!

[Matty]

In many cities in this country, if you role-play about a topic that includes personally experienced violence, you will most likely encounter a student who has either been a victim or is directly related to a victim of violence. They hardly need MORE experience with it.Just as well this wasnt a New York school then eh?

[Roo St. Gallus]

I'm with Monad.

We've gotten an inadvertant insight into tactical response policy development at the CIA.

[DMB]

Sex education is not usually combined with role play. I think there would be big objections if it were. No it is presented in the normal way.

mTMlZSKEu-Y

Seriously, this particular terrorist situation is so complex that I would want a lot more real evidence and less handwaving to be convinced that in this context role-playing would be appropriate. I'm not surprised that the kid who lost a family member in the Bali bombing refused to participate. Since the teacher in question was inexperienced, I would have expected her to consult senior colleagues before launching something so fraught with traps and difficulties.

I once had a lot of experience being in charge of wet-behind-the-ears young teachers. Most of them were capable of ghastly bloopers -- and that was just teaching maths!