Mom decries violent poem:

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Slevin57 Perhaps if our children are taught that poems like this are not literal, we would not end up with so many schizophrenic psychopaths shooting up schools...

You know, I do believe that poetry can inspire people, but I really doubt it can inspire them to kill.

I would say this poem was inappropriate, but that doesn't mean teaching it was insane or absurd; as has been pointed out above, the context is everything: if the class was discussing parody (Didn't it say in the article that the poem is written as some kind of satire?) and perhaps depictions of violence in movies and television, the poem might have come up and the teacher decided to bring it in because it had been mentioned; I have done things like that before. I've used the Tool song "Die Eier von Satan," as an example of tone and mood, and several other heavy metal songs with dubious lyrics in various ways. I've also used Stephen Crane's poem, "Do Not Weep, Maiden, For War is Kind," and that one is hardly less violent -- it makes mention of a field where a thousand corpses lie, and has fairly graphic descriptions of soldiers dying in battle.

But the context means everything: I teach high school, not 6th grade, and I teach those poems in specific ways with specific purposes, and I make sure to emphasize that the poems I teach should be read metaphorically and not literally. I also think that since these poems are coming from me, and I am open with my pacifist leanings, that the violence in the literature in my class can't be seen as encouraging.

[Slevin57]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint You know, I do believe that poetry can inspire people, but I really doubt it can inspire them to kill. I would say this poem was inappropriate, but that doesn't mean teaching it was insane or absurd; as has been pointed out above, the context is everything: if the class was discussing parody (Didn't it say in the article that the poem is written as some kind of satire?) and perhaps depictions of violence in movies and television, the poem might have come up and the teacher decided to bring it in because it had been mentioned; I have done things like that before. I've used the Tool song "Die Eier von Satan," as an example of tone and mood, and several other heavy metal songs with dubious lyrics in various ways. I've also used Stephen Crane's poem, "Do Not Weep, Maiden, For War is Kind," and that one is hardly less violent -- it makes mention of a field where a thousand corpses lie, and has fairly graphic descriptions of soldiers dying in battle. But the context means everything: I teach high school, not 6th grade, and I teach those poems in specific ways with specific purposes, and I make sure to emphasize that the poems I teach should be read metaphorically and not literally. I also think that since these poems are coming from me, and I am open with my pacifist leanings, that the violence in the literature in my class can't be seen as encouraging.

You know I'm not really a bible basher, but this seems like one of those times where I can't find a better example..

Alot of religious books, including the bible...are in verse, poetic verse.

Now the bible and it's religious companions have inspired good, but they have also inspired bad.

I'm not speaking about normal people. Normal people would not be inspired by something they read to go out and kill. But people that are open to psychological suggestibility (schizophrenics) and already have a mind set that is searching for a rationalization, wrong as it may be, can use poems and definitely the bible to justify their actions.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Slevin57 You know I'm not really a bible basher, but this seems like one of those times where I can't find a better example.. Alot of religious books, including the bible...are in verse, poetic verse. Now the bible and it's religious companions have inspired good, but they have also inspired bad. I'm not speaking about normal people. Normal people would not be inspired by something they read to go out and kill. But people that are open to psychological suggestibility (schizophrenics) and already have a mind set that is searching for a rationalization, wrong as it may be, can use poems and definitely the bible to justify their actions.

I agree. But don't you think that those people will find something to be inspired by, whether or not we read poems that have violent images? Whether or not we read the Bible? That being the case, why not use those poems, and that scripture, for the benefit of those who will not use it as an excuse for their madness? Why give the depraved that much power over us?

[ZNFYRH]

Osborn,

I'm curious where you got this gigantic chip on your shoulder to always place the blame on some macrocosmic Big Brother system.

Quote by: Osborn All of the studies on this negate exceptional individuals, who aren't within the norm. Those individuals have the right to learn at a rate which is commensurate with their ability to learn and become mature.

I've never heard of any special "rights" for exceptional students. They have no special "rights" that I'm aware of. If they did, you wouldn't see the problems with educational programs like "No Child Left Behind."

Quote by: Osborn There is no reason as a parent, I couldn't decide if my child was mature enough to deal with this type of material, or should be subjected to it, better than the state or fed, based on "collective studies".

Funny thing... I never wrote anything about "collective studies" on this page. I recommend you verify the exact words said or stand down on putting words in my mouth.

Regardless... as a parent, if you think you know better than "the state or fed" what your child can handle, then why did you put them in public school?

You also, as a parent, have the option to actively educate your child outside of school. You don't have to settle for what the school is teaching them, and can supplement it as you see fit with other information.

What you seem to be suggesting here is entrusting your child to a system and then immediately complaining about that system. You have other choices.

Quote by: Osborn Once again, they want to dumb everything down to the lowest level, so the slowest kids don't feel "left behind" in the terrible public school system we have devised. The system is more at fault than any individual in this case, I think.

Problems with the poem have nothing to do with "dumbing down." It has to do with a poem that gives specific imagery of violent deaths that, if in a movie, would be rated older than children that age are allowed to see.

This is what I mean about your rage against "the system." You're going off on an irrelevant tangent.

It has nothing to do with slower kids, or dumber kids, or intellectual capability. It has to do with the fact that a scene of graphic violence is described to a young child... the child puts themselves in the place of the victims in the poem not because of empathy but because they automatically associate with the children... and they listen to this violence being committed by a person that the children have spent the last 6 years being told is one of the few people you can trust as much as you trust your Mom and Dad.

That is one of the highest responsibilities of a teacher... knowing that a child spends more time with you than their parents. A teacher who plants the seed of a teacher violently and mercilessly murdering their students has violated the trust that a family puts in the teacher. It's irresponsible.

Get off your Disestablishmentarianism Soap Box and see this for what it is.

[Slevin57]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint I agree. But don't you think that those people will find something to be inspired by, whether or not we read poems that have violent images? Whether or not we read the Bible? That being the case, why not use those poems, and that scripture, for the benefit of those who will not use it as an excuse for their madness? Why give the depraved that much power over us?

I think it's safe to say that in some form or the other, writing be it poetry or prose has inspired us all and will continue to do so.

I am not saying that in times of these tragedies we should censor our children. We have a history of censoring ourselves during these tragedies.

When the events were happening, no one was talking about past school shooting and similarities, we weren't trying to look back. We were commenting at our horror that these events could take place.

You know, these events that happened before? And why are we shocked again?

We are very much doomed to repeat history. But, It is my hope that with enough education we can slowly break out of our repetitive nature.

[Heather]

Quote by: ZNFYRH It has nothing to do with slower kids, or dumber kids, or intellectual capability. It has to do with the fact that a scene of graphic violence is described to a young child... the child puts themselves in the place of the victims in the poem not because of empathy but because they automatically associate with the children... and they listen to this violence being committed by a person that the children have spent the last 6 years being told is one of the few people you can trust as much as you trust your Mom and Dad. That is one of the highest responsibilities of a teacher... knowing that a child spends more time with you than their parents. A teacher who plants the seed of a teacher violently and mercilessly murdering their students has violated the trust that a family puts in the teacher. It's irresponsible.

I think it does have to do with a child's intellectual level and maturity level. Several people have expressed that they question whether or not this material was age appropriate. Os has pointed out, and I agree, that while these children may have been within the same age group, they undoubtedly cannot be of the same maturity level or intellectual level. This is why, I feel, it falls onto the parents shoulders to monitor what they are being taught in school. A teacher is simply an "aide" in the process of teachings ones children. It is not the responsibility of the teacher to parent. It is not the responsibility of the teacher to babysit. It is not the responsibility of the teacher to to ensure a child is being taught the morals that a child's family upholds. It is the parents responsibility to be part of that child's daily education, it is the parents responsibility to ensure that their child is walking away with the proper "morale" or "lesson". This is the commitment one takes upon themselves (or should) when they choose to have children. If a parent feels that their child is not mature enough to handle what the teacher presents in school, then by all means, either hold them back or home school. This too is the responsibility of the parent, not the teacher.

[Fangrim]

Everyone saying that this is a sick thing to read needs to rethink something.

It's SATIRICAL. Can't you guys even tell? It's making fun of the kind of lessons they would try to teach in schools, replacing violence with w/e the hell it would be.

SATIRE. Jesus christ. Satire makes fun of anything, including the Bible, evolution, property ownership, democracy, what have you. Don't get worked up.

Maybe the timing was a bit wrong, but at any other time, this would be fine. It's just the timing that makes it seem incorrect.

This is a perfectly fine poem to teach in the classroom.

[FIFI]

I have read the above piece, and if explained correctly, this poem is, without a doubt a SATIRE piece. Yes, maybe reading that was bad timing / taste after such a tragidy, but everything cannot be so damned correct all the time. That was in her lesson planner, all of which (my mothers a teacher here in Oregon) must be approved before the school year even starts... and how could she forsee the future at VA tech?

[ZNFYRH]

Heather,

Intellectual and maturity level is not relevant.

The content of that material was graphic, involving both violence and child abuse (yes, legally the poem depicts child abuse).

Regardless of whether the poem was satirical, the parents did not consent to that being read to them in school.

You mention that parents have to monitor what their children are being taught. How are they supposed to do that if they are not in school with their children?

Some schools require that teachers provide a copy of everything they will teach to the parents. Some schools have teachers post online what the kids will be doing that week.

But there is a trend... it has to go both ways. If the parents want to know and the teachers don't provide, the teacher has failed. If the teacher provides and the parents don't take an interest, the parents have failed.

When I was in 7th grade I had to have my parents sign a permission slip so my teacher could show Glory in class.

That poem graphically described the murder of children by an authority figure.

The teacher has to accept full responsibility for introducing something into the room of that nature.

Personally, I've been there next to the bed when bad dreams about something woke up a child only to find out that the bad dream stemmed from something the child read, or heard, or saw.

The intellectual maturity of the child is not relevant here.

It's about the content of the poem and it's introduction to a group of 11 year olds without the consent of parents.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Fangrim Everyone saying that this is a sick thing to read needs to rethink something. It's SATIRICAL. Can't you guys even tell? It's making fun of the kind of lessons they would try to teach in schools, replacing violence with w/e the hell it would be.

I barely did myself.... and at first glance, yeah I could take offense to this poem..... now think of it with the mentality of those in Grade 6? Do they have all the education and teachings at that grade to understand "Satire?" Most will take the poem as literal, which is how I am viewing this......

If I was in Grade 6, and I had a teacher read off a poem such as this, not only would I have a mild fear that they are expressing a bit of truth that they hold to this poem, but I'd also loose a lot of trust in my teacher.

All art is derived from life experience, forms of imagination and truth..... to me, I would feel the teacher has a bit of fondness of the message in this poem, and believes in it to a certain degree to want to express this poem in paticular to his students.

I've read some poems at that age relating to war, and other non-positive issues... but the detail and the message in this poem, at the time the teacher decided to go over it, was way out of line.

SATIRE. Jesus christ. Satire makes fun of anything, including the Bible, evolution, property ownership, democracy, what have you. Don't get worked up. Maybe the timing was a bit wrong, but at any other time, this would be fine. It's just the timing that makes it seem incorrect. This is a perfectly fine poem to teach in the classroom.

Depending on the message the teacher was trying to get across...... was he trying to show the negatives of violence in schools, or was he just trying to scare the crap out of the kids in his class because he was becoming fed up with them not listening to him?

All in all... I could have thought of a better poem to use then that one..... frig I think I made something like that poem when I was in high school.... I don't see any practical message being portrayed in that poem except for violence and lack of tolerance.

[ZNFYRH]

Praxius,

If I might add onto your sentiment in your last paragraph...

I think the humor of the satire was overshadowed by the violence of the content.

The whole point of satire is that it isn't usually so extreme. The humor is in the little differences and nuances.

[Praxius]

I suppose.... I just remember when I made a poem like this when I was in high school I got shat on for it being inapropreate..... I'm just dishing it back out, lol....

it's not that I was going to act out what I wrote about.... I'm a creative person in many aspects, and I like to push people's morality buttons... but some things are inapropreate, and at that grade, I don't think most of them would have understood or caught the satire.

I think the bad timeing has made the poem inapropreate and yes, it has made it into a bigger thing then it probably would have been.... but I have seen teachers get fired for less.

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: Osborn, I'm curious where you got this gigantic chip on your shoulder to always place the blame on some macrocosmic Big Brother system. Quote: Quote by: Osborn All of the studies on this negate exceptional individuals, who aren't within the norm. Those individuals have the right to learn at a rate which is commensurate with their ability to learn and become mature. I've never heard of any special "rights" for exceptional students. They have no special "rights" that I'm aware of. If they did, you wouldn't see the problems with educational programs like "No Child Left Behind." Quote: Quote by: Osborn There is no reason as a parent, I couldn't decide if my child was mature enough to deal with this type of material, or should be subjected to it, better than the state or fed, based on "collective studies". Funny thing... I never wrote anything about "collective studies" on this page. I recommend you verify the exact words said or stand down on putting words in my mouth. Regardless... as a parent, if you think you know better than "the state or fed" what your child can handle, then why did you put them in public school? You also, as a parent, have the option to actively educate your child outside of school. You don't have to settle for what the school is teaching them, and can supplement it as you see fit with other information. What you seem to be suggesting here is entrusting your child to a system and then immediately complaining about that system. You have other choices. Quote: Quote by: Osborn Once again, they want to dumb everything down to the lowest level, so the slowest kids don't feel "left behind" in the terrible public school system we have devised. The system is more at fault than any individual in this case, I think. Problems with the poem have nothing to do with "dumbing down." It has to do with a poem that gives specific imagery of violent deaths that, if in a movie, would be rated older than children that age are allowed to see. This is what I mean about your rage against "the system." You're going off on an irrelevant tangent. It has nothing to do with slower kids, or dumber kids, or intellectual capability. It has to do with the fact that a scene of graphic violence is described to a young child... the child puts themselves in the place of the victims in the poem not because of empathy but because they automatically associate with the children... and they listen to this violence being committed by a person that the children have spent the last 6 years being told is one of the few people you can trust as much as you trust your Mom and Dad. That is one of the highest responsibilities of a teacher... knowing that a child spends more time with you than their parents. A teacher who plants the seed of a teacher violently and mercilessly murdering their students has violated the trust that a family puts in the teacher. It's irresponsible. Get off your Disestablishmentarianism Soap Box and see this for what it is.

You want answers to this, create a thread for you and me only, in special debates. I wont derail this thread anymore than this post has.

[ZNFYRH]

If you don't like it, then back out of the thread.

I'm not creating a special debate about something that is perfectly relevant to this topic.

I stated the following:

1. Exceptional students have no special rights.
2. I questioned your logic of faulting the gov't for educating your child when you intentionally handed your child over to them for education.
3. A parent is perfectly capable of supplementing their child's education.
4. That you quote my exact words on "collective studies"... you don't like people putting words in your mouth, so you damn well better correct yourself or support your statement.
5. You are going off on a red-herring tangent. The issue is that a person in a position of trust and responsibility, without consulting parents, exposed children to graphically violent content.

Scroll on up to post 29 if you need to, put don't accuse me of derailing the thread when at least two other people have found some of my points worthy of response.

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: 1. Exceptional students have no special rights.

I am not implying special rights for any special students. All people have equal rights, except minors who only have partial rights. I am saying that the public school system doesn't allow kids to advance at the rate their potential allows in most cases, and that parents shouldn't have to pay for public schools in taxation if they fork out the cash for private schooling.

2. I questioned your logic of faulting the gov't for educating your child when you intentionally handed your child over to them for education.

People are charged for education via tax dollars without reasonable options to opt out if they homeschool, or private school in many places.
All incomes comes from labor or services, and it only stretches so far.

3. A parent is perfectly capable of supplementing their child's education.

What if supplementation isn't acceptable to the parent, who prefers full control over the childs education?

4. That you quote my exact words on "collective studies"... you don't like people putting words in your mouth, so you damn well better correct yourself or support your statement.

I site this as my reference:
ZNYFRH said to Heather in post #14

There is a certain documented difference in roles and awareness between 11 year olds and 16 year olds. An 11 year old still possesses that fear of authority as they learn to rely less on their family social circle and expand to that of their friends.

You did not speak of "collective studies" in specific, and if I am wrong about that, excuse me for my assumption. May I ask what you were referring to, that makes my assumption wrong?

5. You are going off on a red-herring tangent. The issue is that a person in a position of trust and responsibility, without consulting parents, exposed children to graphically violent content.

A practice that happens (from the perspective of many people) in public schools everyday, for example, sex education.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Osborn Those individuals have the right to learn at a rate which is commensurate with their ability to learn and become mature.

Quote by: Osborn I am not implying special rights for any special students.

Maybe I'm confused... but I'll disregard it and play nice.

Quote by: Osborn I am saying that the public school system doesn't allow kids to advance at the rate their potential allows in most cases, and that parents shouldn't have to pay for public schools in taxation if they fork out the cash for private schooling.

A couple things you might not be aware of:

In some states, you can get a voucher to send your child to private school and the money for the voucher comes from school taxes. Many people complained, but in the end, with the other regulations involved, it just results in parents being able to pay taxes and still choose the "magnet" school for their child's education.

Or... I know many people without children or who pay to send their children to private school who found a way to exempt themselves from having to pay school tax. I also believe this is fair... why should someone pay taxes for something they don't use?

Quote by: Osborn People are charged for education via tax dollars without reasonable options to opt out if they homeschool, or private school in many places.

As stated above, this isn't true. I don't mean that aggressively, I'm just letting you know that there are states that consider exactly what you are talking about.

Quote by: Osborn What if supplementation isn't acceptable to the parent, who prefers full control over the childs education?

Then they can choose the school their child goes to (by paying themselves or using tax-funded vouchers) or choose to home school. Again, this is based on the above.

Quote by: Osborn You did not speak of "collective studies" in specific, and if I am wrong about that, excuse me for my assumption. May I ask what you were referring to, that makes my assumption wrong?

I was thumbing through my child psychology reference materials, books, and studies... yup... "collective studies." I just didn't like the direct reference... ::grins::

I'll admit that the best document I found was through my wife's account at UMass Amherst at Adolescent exposure to violence: Antecedents and consequences

The basic idea is that exposure to violence increases anger, depression, and mental stress and how those levels rise based on age and race. It then abstracts to other forms of violence (through various media) and their relation.

ZN: The issue is that a person in a position of trust and responsibility, without consulting parents, exposed children to graphically violent content. Osborn: A practice that happens (from the perspective of many people) in public schools everyday, for example, sex education.

Also untrue. A parent needs to sign a form giving consent for their child to participate in sex education. If the school has not gotten that consent, they are breaking the law.

Therefore, just as with sex ed, exposing children to this poem in a classroom setting to demonstrate satire, something which could be demonstrated without the "ultra violence", was a big no-no.

[Osborn F Enready]

After reading that post, I can only take point or disagreement here:

ZNYFRH said: I was thumbing through my child psychology reference materials, books, and studies... yup... "collective studies." I just didn't like the direct reference... ::grins:: I'll admit that the best document I found was through my wife's account at UMass Amherst at Adolescent exposure to violence: Antecedents and consequences The basic idea is that exposure to violence increases anger, depression, and mental stress and how those levels rise based on age and race. It then abstracts to other forms of violence (through various media) and their relation.

Thats one of the main issues I have with collective studies. People often use them as a form of gospel, (not saying you do) especially when making the case for or against new legislation. Collective studies are great, or CAN be great for showing overall status, but potential, maturity and ability are individual issues that are not well represented in those types of studies, and is largely the biggest issues with education and exposure to controversial material.

People put too much faith in collective, and majorities are often as likely to be wrong as minorities.

That bothers me, because in this nation our laws and foundation goes to great lengths to protect and legally recognize as equal, the minority.

I am a total nitpicker about data and stats, as far as knowing the people who paid for the study, the depth of the study and the logic used to present the study, as in what purpose the study was paid for and is being used to present.

ZNYFRH said: Also untrue. A parent needs to sign a form giving consent for their child to participate in sex education. If the school has not gotten that consent, they are breaking the law. Therefore, just as with sex ed, exposing children to this poem in a classroom setting to demonstrate satire, something which could be demonstrated without the "ultra violence", was a big no-no.

Wasn't that way before I graduated in 1990, and I don't think it is that way now in Ohio, or at least Toledo. I would have to go and look at current laws.

[brien]

Regardless of whether the poem was satirical, the parents did not consent to that being read to them in school

The issue is that a person in a position of trust and responsibility, without consulting parents, exposed children to graphically violent content.

When was the last time government educators asked parents for permission to teach anything? I doubt that is the standard operating proceedure in the government schools.

[brien]

Quote by: Slevin57 Perhaps if our children are taught that poems like this are not literal, we would not end up with so many schizophrenic psychopaths shooting up schools...

Do you realize you are blaming poems and schools for "schizophrenic psychopaths shooting up schools."

[ZNFYRH]

Osborn,

Glad we could come to some kind of consensus, and I realize that it's derived mostly from different state practices regarding taxation and education.

Quote by: Osborn I am a total nitpicker about data and stats, as far as knowing the people who paid for the study, the depth of the study and the logic used to present the study, as in what purpose the study was paid for and is being used to present.

I can respect that. In this case, as far as I can tell the research was not angled towards one side or the other, but seeing if violence exposure had effects.

Quote by: Osborn Wasn't that way before I graduated in 1990, and I don't think it is that way now in Ohio, or at least Toledo. I would have to go and look at current laws.

No parental consent required to take sex ed? Wow.

I'm curious what the new state laws are, then.

Quote by: brien When was the last time government educators asked parents for permission to teach anything? I doubt that is the standard operating proceedure in the government schools.

Again, in my experience the schools need to send home a permission slip to teach sex ed., read certain books, or show certain movies, and the school needs to include a brief blurb about the educational merits of such.

Maybe I went to a more accommodating school district, but I'm surprised there are schools out there that don't do this sort of thing.