I noticed an imdb.com news item about a high school english teacher forced to resign because he showed his class an R-rated movie without getting permission from parents or offering an opt-out option. Not sure where I stand on it, but I thought I might post it to see how much outrage fulminates among my fellow 'rackers.
Here's another story courtesy of UPI and another from the local newsrag.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
My mother-in-law lives in Gwinnett. I'll have to ask her about this.
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
Teachers show movies in class to waste time. This guy was probably doing 6 week grades.
Since a student actually likes this guy, he probably does not do much in class anyway.
quote:. "If 'First comes learning' is true, why do you get rid of the guy who holds that motto the best?" one senior in the class told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
It depends on the age of the students. Grade nine, notsomuch, grade twelve (is that what they mean by senior?) should be fine. Especially if this is an advanced class!
quote:Teachers show movies in class to waste time. This guy was probably doing 6 week grades.
First of all, this is not at all true. Some of my favourite and most successful teachers have shown fragments of films, or entire films, in class to illustrate an era, a point, a story, anything related to the class.
quote: Since a student actually likes this guy, he probably does not do much in class anyway.
Many students, especially in Advanced Classes, do like school and learning and the teachers that help them there. If one of my favourite teachers or professors was fired, I'd certainly say a similar thing and be outraged.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
I'm kind of surprised that this would result in a forced resignation. I can see where the school would want some sort of disciplinary action, but a firing appears a little overboard.
I suspect that there is more to this than just the movie. I think that there must have been at least a little preexisting tension between the teacher and administration.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Since a student actually likes this guy, he probably does not do much in class anyway.
It is possible to like a teacher who actually teaches, ya know.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's possible, yes, but thinking back to my own high school experience, the most popular teachers-the ones you could talk to about to other students who weren't in the same class with you-were the ones that were easy on the work-required department.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
My senior year, because of an autistic boy in my mom's 8th grade classes (that's mother was apposed to The Patriot), our school system said that all movies being shown had to have a theme along the State Sandards as printed at the DOE, and they must only show those clips. The way it was set up in my high school, teachers had to take movies to the (not so nice word) librarian, so she could approve them, and put them onto the tv for your classroom, R rated movies were entirely out of question, as were most PG-13. They couldn't use movies to waste time because they had to be stopping and starting to only show certain parts the whole time. To get around this several teachers bought (or brought in their home) VCRs and DVD players, to hook up to the TVs in their classrooms, it wasn't totally forbidden but I dont' think the Admin knew how to do it, so they figured teachers couldn't. That year I had two (supposedly)senior only classes (so yeah 12th graders, Teshi), Government actually had no seniors, and we watched The Hurricane, while discussing court sentences and the like. For speech, we had three underclassmen, and the teacher didn't want to send home a note for those three, and the rest of us were 17 or older, so could go see it on our own. One of those girls (a french exchange student), chose to leave the room, the other girl stayed, and the boy had his 18 year old brother sign a piece of paper saying he could watch the movie. It was Wag the Dog. No neither of these teachers got into trouble for that. But the speech teacher has gotten into much trouble for other things, you'll have to ask JT Stryker about that.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Jeez. My 10th grade history teacher would have been fired like lightening. He showed us "Schindler's List" all the way through and then he showed "Trading Places" to my 12th grad econ class. Heh. To demonstrate the stock market. I love it.
Yeah, he was one of those teachers that didn't do much. But I have had video-showing teachers who really were good. I'm grateful for some of the Shakespeare we watched, it really helped me to appreciate and understand it.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Last year, when my son was in the 8th grade, a teacher showed part of a movie that I felt was inappropriate. I spoke with the teacher, and told him that some parents might have a problem with that, and that in the future, I recommend getting parental permission first. I wouldn't ever try to get anyone fired over such a thing.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
My favorite teacher was the hardest calc teacher I ever had (including 4 college calculuses). He was immensely popular with the guys, not so much with the girls (because he made fun of them).
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
37 years at that school... Popular teacher... Academy award winning historical movie which was also subject appropriate...
Something stinks here.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Xav, I have to agree. This was a well-respected teacher, who was reputedly one of the best. I can see it causing a stink, but to say, "Either resign or you're fired" seems more than extreme.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
All the teachers considered best at my school were not lazy teachers.
The lazy teachers were also discussed, and people took their classes for easy grades, sure, but they were discussed separately.
Friendly teachers were also discussed, and teachers from both of the above categories were so considered in almost all cases.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Fugu is right about my school, since it's the same. My favorite teacher was my orchestra teacher who kept us moving constantly, but in regular classes it was my chem teacher, the hardest class i ever had (I actually also had her for frehsman english), she explained things well, was encouraging, and related chemistry to real life. I did discuss teachers that were easy, but not in the same way.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I've shown films in class, often as a reward for pushing quickly through a lesson (leaving extra time at the end of an elective quarter) or to spark interest. We've also used films as teaching tools - our team showed 13th Warrior during a unit on Beowulf to discuss how the story was modernized and stripped of its fantasy elements. This was in 7th grade.
We always got away with showing PG-13 movies to 11-12 year olds by sending home a reverse permission slip. If you *don't* want your child watching this, please sign and return the following form. You made it very, very clear to the students that if this form wasn't returned, they would be watching the film like everyone else.
Never saw one come back. Whether they didn't make it home, or didn't make it back, I never asked.
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
I don't think any of our teachers ever showed rated R movies. I did see quite a few movies in school, though. In sixth grade we saw a couple of musicals, like Man of La Mancha, and several WWII movies. In high school, my Spanish teacher showed us El Norte and The Mission, both of which are fantastic.
Usually, teachers would just offer extra credit for students that would watch certain movies at home, like Henry V.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Obviously there's more to this than just what the article says.
For one, most counties in Georgia require that teachers put down on the syllabus all movies they'll be showing if they're PG-13 or R, and it's considered permission when the parent signs the syllabus. Very simple.
And this man has to have been pushing the bar for quite a while or have had some serious issues with the administration before. He may have exaggerated on the "resign or be fired", or there may be far more history here than our sensationalist media likes to report.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
We had a teacher be told to "resign or be fired" after an incedent involving bubbles, but the principal said she had been pushing the bar for quite a while. She went to her union rep, and they got her a job at a different school in the school system.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Wait, are you talking about Burke?
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
Technically speaking, it is illegal for anyone under the age of 17 to watch an R-rated movie without a parent or guardian. I don't really think the teacher qualifies as a "guardian" in this case; not if the student's actual legal guardian objects. If they can sign release forms for a student, *that's* a guardian.
So what the teacher did may have technically been illegal. I don't think one incident of this should be grounds for dismissal, but there is usually another side to every issue like this. It could have been the administration being unreasonable, sure; it could also have been the straw that broke the camel's back. No real way to know.
I *do* think that parents absolutely have the right to control what sort of content their children are exposed to by the school. The tendencies of the public schools toward paternalism concerns me greatly, having graduated from high school myself less than five years ago.
On the flip side, I grew up in a very conservative high school where certain vocal parents had made it nearly impossible for teachers to show anything that might even come close to destroying the careful shelter from reality they had constructed around their children, and I found this patently ridiculous. There's got to be a middle ground.
I think that this, like most things, is best discussed and voted on in the best democratic tradition. It would make for a highly contested compromise that doesn't make the extremists on either side happy- and that's what democracy is all about. Compromise within the demos.
Unfortunately, these days it seems like at least two special-interest groups almost immediately get involved in cases like these, and their concerns are magnified so far out of proportion to the number of people they actually represent that the voices of the demos are almost entirely drowned out.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There is no legal force behind the R rating.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Don't many states make it illegal for anyone under 17 to buy tickets to or a tape of an R-rated movie?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I googled "law R-rated" and an OSC essay is the fourth hit.
Interesting coincidence.
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
quote: There is no legal force behind the R rating.
Then why do theaters card people? I would think it would greatly boost their revenue if they let anyone in who wanted to. I was under the impression that the government required them to do so, as there doesn't seem to be any sound business reason for it.
I don't think anyone is going to argue for prosecution of an individual who "violates" the R rating; but it does seem inconsistent to apply the "No persons allowed under 17 years of age unless accompanied by a parent or guardian" so stringently to theaters but not to classrooms run by the government itself.
Whether or not it has "legal force" behind it-and I haven't the legal expertise to discuss that-it appears to be a government rule, and as such should be applied by government-run institutions like the public school system.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
yes daniel
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I just skimmed the articles, but couldn't find a mention of what grade the class was. If he showed it to seniors they'd all be 17 or 18 anyway and could see R rated movies in theaters without a parent.
From the sound of it though, it sounds like the school had a policy for determining if movies could be shown and he didn't follow it. So it may not be so much that he showed an R movie to kids as that he didn't follow the established rules.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
Well, at any job if you don't follow the rules you get in trouble. I don't see why schoolteachers should be any different. Of course, if this was the first incident, firing would seem a massively excessive measure.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, the government pressured the movie industry to adopt some ratings system, but the choices in what ratings system is up to the movie industry and how to implement it is up to various theaters, rental stores, retail outlets, and other people involved in movies.
Some theaters follow the R rating recommendation out of a sense of morality, some follow it to avoid criticism from community advocacy groups, some do it because children likely to sneak into R rated movies are likely to cause more mess, some do it because movie companies prefer they do it, and some don't do it.
There is no "government rule" about it.
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
Thanks for the clarification. I hadn't realized that the film industry itself is behind movie ratings.
Though it does explain a lot...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
(not to mention that the government is not a monolith; its entirely possible for the federal gov't, or part thereof, to hold one position, while state and local governments hold very different positions. In such a case there might be a non-binding "gov't rule" by the federal gov't to do one thing, which states and localities would have no intention of following, something perfectly reasonable.)
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
In my small town we never ever got carded for R rated movies even when we were obviously underage. Only when I went away to school had I even known it was possible to be asked for an ID.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
We always had to get permission for R-rated (and even PG-13) movies. It was district policy, it was in the handbook. If someone hadn't got permission in my school, s/he would have been suspended without pay and sent to teacher training if it was a first offense, or fired for anything after. They took it very seriously.
The guy knew the rules, he should have got the permission slips.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Just in case, I never said "best", I said "popular", which are two entirely different things.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:but thinking back to my own high school experience, the most popular teachers-the ones you could talk to about to other students who weren't in the same class with you-were the ones that were easy on the work-required department.
Not in my experience. But then, I didn't get along with the really "popular" teachers.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
We are absolutely not allowed to show an R-rated movie, regardless of the students' ages.
That said, on at least one occasion I have shown an R-rated movie which I did not realize was R-rated at the time. I'm glad I didn't get caught, but I don't think I would have gotten fired for that alone.
When I taught middle school, we were supposed to get permission slips signed for PG or PG-13 movies. That seems to not be a requirement anymore at the high school level.
(What about copyright? There's a good chance that showing an R-rated movie to high school kids does not qualify as "fair use.")
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I have nothing productive to add to this discussion, except that I grew up in Gwinnett County, and went to school there K-12.
Also, "film flap" is really fun to say. Like flim flam, but not. Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Silly rich Gwinnett folk . . .
"Film flap" . . . teehee . . .
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Since a student actually likes this guy, he probably does not do much in class anyway.
Although being liked by students does not mean you are a good teacher, I've found as a student that being disliked by all students is a sure sign of an ineffective teacher. In all of the classes I can remember in which the teacher was uniformly disliked, the teacher ended up being a serious drain on learning.
It should also be noted that the correlation between learning and work done in high school probably approaches zero, and could even be negative. Good teachers typically assign useful informative assignments. Poor teachers often have assignments that simply waste a large amount of time without teaching anything. Because of this, good teachers often can assign far less work and yet end up teaching far more. The least effective teachers were usually the ones that wasted students time and effort by forcing them to spend a lot of time doing things that taught them very little of value - and it was for this reason that they were disliked.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Tres, you'll have to excuse Krankykat. He worked at the same evil middle school as I did, and it traumatized us both... heh.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: It was given the R rating for violence, nudity and sexuality. Youngblood retired from South Gwinnett last year, but returned to teach three classes part-time.
This is from the local news... I think because he was only part time and the movie had nudity in it is why he was let go. He was already retired, and sometimes returning retirees get paid a fortune to come back and teach a few classes.
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
David:
These Hatrackers just can't take a joke.
BTW Teshi, my fav class in college was History of the Cinema for the reasons you stated:
quote:Some of my favourite and most successful teachers have shown fragments of films, or entire films, in class to illustrate an era, a point, a story, anything related to the class.
Kick back and watch flicks. It was a great class.
Krank
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Darknight - that makes me feel better, probably because he's part time, he doesn't have all the same protections a full time teacher does, he can probably be fired or let go much easier. I couldn't imagine a tenured teacher being fired for one offense like this.
Not that I think it's right - I agree with many here, I think letting him go is an excessive penalty.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Possibly. Still cheaper than having a media conglomerate lay the smackdown on the school district for copyright violation.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Belle, our district has had a few part timers let go over similar things. Ours have come back as 'consultants' and they have no protections at all really.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
The deal here is that several of the wealthier counties in this area are run by very stupid people. Cobb has banned Harry Potter. Gwinnett fired a guy because a movie he showed to seniors had some incidental nudity, of a sort that appears on broadcast television in most other countries. It's like Nipplegate - let's focus on the sensational, superficial things and nobody will notice the real issues we are not dealing with effectively.
It's hardly worth talking about, really.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Olivia, if there's a pre-existing policy to get permission, I think they had grounds to fire him.
I agree it shouldn't be news, though.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I'm sure they had grounds, no question. I'm just as sure that most of the hard and fast rules that they refuse to bend for any reason, are just a way to hide behind the rules so they evade culpability for anything.
I'm also certain of the profound stupidity I mentioned before. This IS the state where the superintendant of schools tried to get the word "evolution" banned (while still teaching the theory, mind you) as a compromise with the Bible-thumpers. Like she thought they wouldn't notice if we just stopped calling it 'evolution.'
And yeah, I had a school conference today. Don't mind me. Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
Heh. If someone tried to ban Harry Potter in a Utah school the whole state would riot.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
I'm not sure I agree with the firing part but if it was part of the district policy to obtain permission or not show it at all he crossed the line.
That said parents should have the opportunity to give or decline permission for any movie PG-13 or R. And I don't agree with the reverse permission form. The kids should be required to return it signed or not watch it at all. I would be very upset if my kids were allowed to watch something I objected to and was not allowed to revoke permission for. There was a statement I read the other day somewhere (which of course I can't remember right now) where an educator was saying that the schools aren't in the business of teaching morality. If that is so then things like movies should be run by the parents of the students since many parents have moral objections to many movies.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:This IS the state where the superintendant of schools tried to get the word "evolution" banned (while still teaching the theory, mind you) as a compromise with the Bible-thumpers. Like she thought they wouldn't notice if we just stopped calling it 'evolution.'
*giggles* That is stupid. What did they suggest calling it, then?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Icarus: among other things, lots of movie studios give special dispensation to high school/middle school/elementary school teachers to show films in class.
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
We once watched (edited, mind) the movie Glory in AP U.S. History, and a couple parents put up a stink, since, edited or no, it was (*gasp*) an R-rated movie! They couldn't show it again. I was mad. That was a great movie, and the edited version had nothing offensive in it beyond the n-word (I really, really loathe that word, but it wasn't used at all gratuitously) used by some of the black soldiers in an argument.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
We watched Sarafina! in 7th grade history. Permission slips had to be returned, and the teacher stood in front of the tv and fast forwarded through the, um, "objectional" parts, then gave us a summary of what had happened so we could follow the rest of the story. Oh, and then we watched both the old and the new Romeo and Juliet in 9th grade English, and had to compare and contrast. Same deal-- permission slips and some fast-forwarding.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
It's not a violation of copyright. Showing a film in class is fair use. Just the same as my Copyright professor was allowed to play copyrighted songs in class.
When I was in high school, we watched a movie version of a Spanish novel we were reading for an advanced Spanish class. I distinctly remember sex. The teacher fast-forwarded through part of it, but not the whole scene. I do believe there was nudity. Also no permission slips. I think I was in tenth grade. As far as I know, no one made a big deal out of it.
How do you guys feel about students reading books with "R-rated" scenes in them for school?
-pH
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
quote:How do you guys feel about students reading books with "R-rated" scenes in them for school?
Same as the movies. Ask the parents. Only they really have the right to control that, at least until their children turn eighteen. Also, warn the kids and let them opt out and read something else if they object. No one should be forced to read something they find offensive. Free speech gives you the right to say something; it doesn't give you the right to force others to hear, or to be paid for it (which, completely off topic, is why I so object to the National Endowment for the Arts). No one should be obligated to listen.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Does that apply only to sex or to violence as well?
I mean, Jude the Obscure has some pretty disturbing imagery. I can think of many books that are regular high school English fodder that have a disturbing section or two.
-pH
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I can't imagine a teacher ever forcing a student to read a book they weren't comfortable reading. I also think if by the time you're in high school you can't be making those decisions for yourself then someone has screwed up your upbringing.
Edit to make slightly less forceful
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
quote:Does that apply only to sex or to violence as well?
When in doubt, I don't think it hurts to ask. Especially not in this hyper-sensitive and litigous era.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I can't imagine a teacher ever forcing a student to read a book they weren't comfortable reading. I also think if by the time you're in high school you can't be making those decisions for yourself then someone has really screwed up your upbringing.
I was forced to read books that made me uncomfortable. Several times.
And just because you want to read or watch something in HS doesn't mean it's necessarily good for you, or that your parents want you reading/watching it, and besides, until they're 18, it's the parents' choice, not the kids'.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
pH: showing an entire film in class is not fair use. As for the songs in class, your university, like nearly every other one in the country, likely has site licenses from the major record labels. Most universities also have site licenses from movie studios.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Did you go up to your teacher and tell them you weren't comfortable reading it and ask them to assign you another book for that assignment?
I think one of a parent's primary responsibilities is training their children to be adults and be responsible. If, by the time your child is 14 or 15 you can't trust them to make reasonable choices about what they read then you've failed in that responsibility.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Did you go up to your teacher and tell them you weren't comfortable reading it and ask them to assign you another book for that assignment?
Yes. I was in fifth grade the first time, I explained that I was upset by the book and why, and she said, "The whole class is reading it, if you don't finish it and do the work you won't make better than a C this semester."
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:If, by the time your child is 14 or 15 you can't trust them to make reasonable choices about what they read then you've failed in that responsibility.
I don't think so; I think 14 and 15 year olds are still sometimes too immature to know what's good for them. Now, by 16 or 17, it may be another matter.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I think 14 and 15 year olds are still sometimes too immature to know what's good for them.
But this is just watching a movie... I would think that little things like that should be among the very first things we should them to make their own decisions on.
On that note, at my church we ask kids to be confirmed (formally accept the church) at age 13. I think if they are being asked to judge things like the existence of God, we should at least also trust them to determine what movies they can and cannot watch.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Did you go up to your teacher and tell them you weren't comfortable reading it and ask them to assign you another book for that assignment?
Yes. I was in fifth grade the first time, I explained that I was upset by the book and why, and she said, "The whole class is reading it, if you don't finish it and do the work you won't make better than a C this semester."
Wow, I've never had a teacher that would do that. For example, when I was in fifth grade we watched "It's a Wonderful Life" in class. I got scared because of the ghosts and asked my teacher if I could sit outside the room instead of watching it. In retrospect, I can't believe how silly that was, but she was totally understanding and just let me leave.
I'm not sure how to phrase this, because to my mind there's a huge difference between a fifth grader and a high schooler. Basically, I would expect a fifth grader's parents to know all of the books they were reading in class, and to take care of any problems like you described before the kid had to take care of the problem themselves. So the parent would remove any objectional material before the child saw it. On the other hand, I would expect the process to work in the opposite direction in high school. I think the teenager would have the responsibility of assessing whether they feel the book is appropriate and talking to the teacher about it, and if the teacher isn't responsive then asking their parents to be more forceful.
I hope that makes sense, I don't feel like it does, but I can't think of a better way of phrasing it.
Tres said everything else I wanted to say far better than I could say it myself.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I would think that little things like that should be among the very first things we should them to make their own decisions on.
Yes, but, well, some teenagers do things they know aren't good for them, sometimes to spite their parents, sometimes for other reasons.
And blacwolve, another incident occured in Jr. High (age 13) and three in HS (two at age 15, one at 16.) In each case I was told to do the work, drop the class, or take a bad grade. (Well, not in Jr. High-- I didn't have the option to drop that class. And it wasn't really an option in 10th grade English, either, because I would just have had to repeat it that summer, it was a required class to graduate.)
My mother eventually did end up talking to all four teachers. Three wouldn't budge, one ended up allowing me to do independent study for the rest of the semester, and go to the library and do my own special project, but only after intervention from my mom and me pointing out my other problems with her class rather tactlessly.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Heh. Are you both so knowledgeable that you're going to tell me my own job now?! Impressive!
No, there is no dispensation to show movies in general in schools. And, as you noted, fair use does not automatically extend to entire movies.
To give a specific example, Disney does not want teachers showing videotapes of their movies in class, and aggressively seeks to prevent it, both through information campaigns and threats. Since they make primarily children's films, people pretty much reach straight for their movies when they want to babysit some kids, and basically trample all over their copyright. (I'm not really agreeing with Disney's policy, just explaining their point of view.) Our media center will pretty much not allow us to use a Disney movie, due to the fact that we're in their own back yard, and they're somewhat likely to find out about it if we do.
Now, fair use in education regards sharing an excerpt for a legitimate educational purpose. It would be quite hard, I think, to argue that a film with nudity in it, when such nudity violates district policies, could possible serve a legitimate educational purpose. (Not because I am a prude, but because it violates a policy in place.) Therefore, I believe quite strongly that the teacher was violating copyright when he showed that movie.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Heh, here's a general clearing house (they specify non-educational purposes, making me think there are separate terms for educational purposes): http://www.movlic.com/k12/license/license.html
Interestingly, there is an exemption set in stone for educational uses, in classrooms, in non-profit schools
quote:Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright: (1) performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, unless, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, the performance, or the display of individual images, is given by means of a copy that was not lawfully made under this title, and that the person responsible for the performance knew or had reason to believe was not lawfully made;
Of course, the phrasing of this exemption means a case (that might be considered strong in the current climate) could be made that it is rarely if ever part of instruction to show an entire mainstream movie, and that the instructional purpose was fulfilled completely by some subset of the movie.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: That said, on at least one occasion I have shown an R-rated movie which I did not realize was R-rated at the time.
See, Icarus, I don't get what you're saying, if you did it yourself then why do you keep mentioning copyright violations?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:It would be quite hard, I think, to argue that a film with nudity in it, when such nudity violates district policies, could possible serve a legitimate educational purpose.
What if he had fast-forwarded through the nudity? Sarafina!, for instance, had some in it, which we did not see, but we saw the rest of the film, when we were learning about apartheid in South Africa.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The copyright issue is basically separate from the ratings issue; it may well be his school had a license which would allow him to show the film.
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
Damn that man for showing his students Elizabeth. Damn him to hell.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:See, Icarus, I don't get what you're saying, if you did it yourself then why do you keep mentioning copyright violations?
If I see somebody driving 80 miles an hour, I can't point out that it's speeding if I've ever sped in my life?
I can only point out that something is against the law if I have never broken the law? I can only point out that something is unprofessional if I have never been unprofessional? I'm not arguing that he should be fired; I'm pointing out that he should have known better.
Also, Theaca, I'm debating a point, not screaming in outrage.
kq, our district's policy is that R movies are absolutely out. No fast-forwarding, no home-editing, out. I could do it and hope to get away with it, but if I get caught breaking the rules, I can't complain (much) when made to pay the price, can I?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Oh, okay. But that wasn't the policy in his district, in his, like in mine, you had to get permission. Which he didn't. Which is why I don't see why everyone is making a fuss over him being fired.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Well, it does seem harsh. I would think a reprimand and an apology are more in order. But, you know, you don't get to pick your punishment when you break the rules.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Exactly. And the fact that he wasn't a full-time, tenured teacher... Then add to that the "we don't know what he's done in the past or whether this is a first offense" factor, and it seems they exercised a legal option that he knew was a possibility when he broke the rules.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: When I taught middle school, we were supposed to get permission slips signed for PG or PG-13 movies. That seems to not be a requirement anymore at the high school level.
(What about copyright? There's a good chance that showing an R-rated movie to high school kids does not qualify as "fair use.")
Sorry, Ic, I didn't quote enough... I really don't understand your post there. If it is R rated or is by Disney, then it might break copyright, but PG and PG-13 are ok. That's what I took away from your posts. Nevermind. *wanders back out*
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote: Exactly. And the fact that he wasn't a full-time, tenured teacher... Then add to that the "we don't know what he's done in the past or whether this is a first offense" factor, and it seems they exercised a legal option that he knew was a possibility when he broke the rules.
He retired from full time teaching, in the same county (possibly the same school, though I don't know that) last year. He was a beloved(by students) and fairly well-liked (by everyone else) teacher, from what i have been able to find out.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:He was a beloved(by students) and fairly well-liked (by everyone else) teacher, from what i have been able to find out.
Doesn't mean he hasn't broken the rules before.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Oh, I thought you were implying that because he wasn't a full time, tenured teacher that THEY didn't know about his past. The quotes confused me. It was late. I think I read that he had been named Teacher of the Year a few years ago, butthat may well have been a different Youngblood. Not a terribly common name around here, but it may not have been him.
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
Great teachers DO break the rules, because the rules in this country are counter-intuitive to teaching...
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
Hey Archie,
Can you explain how "the rules in this country are counter-intuitive to teaching..."
Krank
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I keep on confusing Krankykat with dkw's mother and it's getting very disturbing.
ketchupqueen- What I'm saying is that kids need to be allowed to make those mistakes, you can't keep them protected forever, and if they make those mistakes in something as minor as what book they read or movie they see then the chances are that much less that they'll make mistakes when it comes to something really important.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I agree with blacwolve in that they need to be able to make those decisions, for example, when they're at a friend's house and the friend wants to watch a movie that they don't think is ok.
But, like KQ, I think it's an entirely different matter for them to be forced to make those decisions in a public school setting, where it's an authority figure trying to show them something. Until they're 18 the teachers are still accountable to the parents for what they show and teach.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Thank you, Jenna! That is exactly what I'm trying to say-- that and, no matter what you think they need to do, and I think they need to do, if the parents don't agree, I don't think it's right to allow it in public schools.
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
Krankykat, do you live in the US? If so, I shouldn't have to tell you unless it's been a while since you were in school...
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Thank you, Jenna! That is exactly what I'm trying to say-- that and, no matter what you think they need to do, and I think they need to do, if the parents don't agree, I don't think it's right to allow it in public schools.
*blinks* I just want to make it very clear that I'm only talking about books here, I totally agree with everything Jenna is saying as it relates to movies.
What I'm reading you saying here is that you don't think I should have been allowed to read "Catcher in the Rye" in my senior year high school English class. Despite the fact that I picked it out myself from a list of books that were acceptable for the assignment. We'll completely leave aside the fact that although I'm sure my parents knew I was reading it I didn't consult with them on the decision at all. Am I correct in my understanding?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
No, I'm saying that if your parents told you not to read that book, your teacher shouldn't make you.
Or even ask you to if they were aware of your parents' sentiment on the subject (like if you'd told them.)
[ November 22, 2005, 02:52 AM: Message edited by: ketchupqueen ]
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
Archie:
I am a teacher in the US, so that means I'm in school five days a week. Now that we have that cleared up, can you explain what you mean?
Krank
[ November 22, 2005, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Krankykat ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: No, I'm saying that if your parents told you not to read that book, your teacher shouldn't make you.
Or even ask you to if they were aware of your parents' sentiment on the subject (like if you'd told them.)
We're in total agreement then. I think the idea of teachers forcing a student to read something they or their parents is uncomfortable reading is despicable.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: I think the idea of teachers forcing a student to read something they or their parents is uncomfortable reading is despicable.
Does the same principle apply to sciences? What if parents are uncomfortable with their children learning about evolution? Should there be an opt-out for biology class? Is there something to be said for teaching hard truths that either parents or students may not want to learn, but are important nonetheless? And, if all material has an opt-out option assiciated, should that be noted somehow?
What I mean is, if I tell a college recruiter I got an "A" in English, but I don't say I skipped 2/3 of the reading material (hypothetical hyperbole there, just for the purposes of elucidation) because it was offensive to my sensibilities, and it's not indicated on my transcript, is that somehow unfair to the student who read all the material and got an "A-"?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
We're not saying that a student should just skip work with no consequences. There are other options-- like doing an alternate assignment/reading an alternate book. Kind of like the law we have here in CA-- if a student is uncomfortable dissecting a frog in Biology class (at least in a public school, I don't know if this applies to a private one), he/she may prepare a report on the anatomy and physiology of a frog instead (or another equivalent project assigned by the teacher.) It's a state law to allow those who are offended by dissecting an animal to not do something they have a moral objection to while still learning the material and doing work.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
what ketchupqueen said.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Will there always be equivalencies, though? I mean while writing a report is useful, it doesn't teach you how to disect a frog. If the goal of the lesson is to learn how to do that, I don't think the two are equivalent. While if the goal is to learn a frog's anatomy, the two are more equivalent. Which is to say, are there goals (rather than methods) of education that can't be substituted away (thinking again about evolution)? And what can you do if those goals are what a student finds objectionable?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
The goal of a dissection in Biology class is not to learn dissection, it's to learn anatomy and physiology. If you were taking a dissection class, you of course would not be able to have a real equivalent. But I'm assuming people with that moral objection would not take dissection, while Biology is a required part of the coursework for a college-prep track in many high schools.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I haven't seen Elizabeth, but it seems eminently appropriate, in its subject matter, for an English literature class. It's also a film the students are unlikely to have seen.
He should have gotten a permission form, but forcing him to resign is way over the top -- like expelling a student for not doing his homework, say.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
But, kq, could there be aspects of coursework for a college-prep track that are a) objectionable and b) not conducive to substitution. If so, how can the situation be resolved? Either the student is forced to participate in an offensive activity, or the teacher is forced to give credit for completion to a student who has not, in fact, completed the necessary core.
Posit that Johnny is a religous flat-earther bound for college where he wants to study literature. In his high school Physics class there is a module on how the earth is round. Johnny is asked to do an assignment on proofs of why the earth is round. He says, "I can't do this; it violates my code of morality." Should he be allowed to substitute some other assignment? And is it fair to the college that accepts him not to note that Johnny never learned why the earth is round?
I realize this is all absurd, and maybe it's my love of abstraction over pragmatism, but I find the issue interesting philosophically. Is a teacher's primary obligation to teach truth as they know it to be, or is it to supply desired knowledge at the student/parent's request? This is straying significantly from the particulars of this case, but that's just the way my mind works Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I knew a girl in college who wrote her Sophomore Lit paper on why a Christian college should not require its students to read any Homer. Because even acknowledging that ancient Greeks worshipped different Gods could undermine our faith, or something.
Maybe she had a point, seeing as I'm all heathen-y now. However, if the only way to keep your faith is to pretend no one ever thinks differently (or assign motives to them without ever asking), then I'd really rather not. Hermetically sealing your children is a great way to set them up for simply spectacular young adulthood adjustment traumas, when they do actually encounter the wide world.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Hermetically sealing your children is a great way to set them up for simply spectacular young adulthood adjustment traumas, when they do actually encounter the wide world.
Agreed, but who has the right to decide when to inform children of uncomfortable truths: parents or educators (speaking not only of teachers but school boards, superintendants, etc.). And how do you resolve conflicts? Should teachers always defer to parents? Vice versa? Arm wrestle and the winner gets their way?
[ November 22, 2005, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote: However, if the only way to keep your faith is to pretend no one ever thinks differently (or assign motives to them without ever asking), then I'd really rather not. Hermetically sealing your children is a great way to set them up for simply spectacular young adulthood adjustment traumas, when they do actually encounter the wide world.
Totally agree. I make a point not to exclude my child from things unless they are extremely objectionable.
Natalie attended a sex education class that described birth control and HIV. I absolutely believe in chastity until marriage and that is how I teach my daughter and what I hope she will believe as well. But when I got the slip home informing me about the class and asking me if I wanted to opt out I just discussed it with her and she went.
Had I forbidden it, she would have wondered what was so dangerous and evil about the class and she most likely would have heard everything from her friends anyway. By letting her go, but talking about it before and after with her, I had some teaching opportunity and showed her that I trusted her to learn about things and make her own decisions.
As it turned out it was wonderful, she came home and told me how at lunch the table she was sitting at was discussing the STD's they went over in the class and she said she told them that all she had to do was follow God's design for her life and save herself for marriage and she didn't need to ever worry about getting an STD or getting pregnant out of wedlock. I was so proud of her - by going and learning along with her classmates she was afforded a good opportunity to be a witness for her faith.
quote:Agreed, but who has the right to decide when to inform children of uncomfortable truths: parents or educators (speaking not only of teachers but school boards, superintendants, etc.). And how do you resolve conflicts? Should teachers always defer to parents? Vice versa? Arm wrestle and the winner gets their way?
Well the best way to solve this is to have a textbook committee made up of teachers and parents who look over the material and decide together what might be objectionable to some. Reading lists in literature class should be handed out at the beginning of the school year, so the parents have the opportunity to look it over and determine if anything on the list doesn't meet with their approval. The teacher should understand and be accomodating with providing alternative reading material or alternative assignments for the child.
No child should be forced to read something he or she objects to. If the child doesn't object but the parent does, then what I would like to see is the parent call and talk to the teacher and ask what educational value the book has, why the teacher thinks it's necessary, and what suitable alternatives might be available. Perhaps the teacher and parent can reach an agreement. If they can't, and they still strongly disagree, then no arm-wrestling is necessary, I think the teacher should defer to the child's parent.
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
quote:Originally posted by Krankykat: Archie:
I am a teacher in the US, so that means I'm in school five days a week. Now that we have that cleared up, can you explain what you mean?
Krank
What state?
Go into the archives of OSC reviews everything. One of them is about homework.
I've been in a drama class where the teacher gave us an assignment solely because she needed a grade. No other reason. Just had to have something on that report card outside of participation.
Ever wonder why SAT scores are so high? Probably because they've made the test easier. Why? Because students were scoring poorly. So instead of teacher our students better, we made the test easier. And colleges just make their SAT requirements higher anyway. It's like that for every standarized test. Grading on a curve? What the hell is that?
No child left behind? Why not? Some of them need to be.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The SAT has been consistently made harder with each revision, and scores each year are normalized so a given score indicates a given level of performance in the first year of college, even looked at across years. The SAT has subjects on it nowadays that weren't covered when it first came out, because they were considered too hard.
Similarly to how until relatively recently (past few decades) there were almost no high schools teaching calculus, but now almost any decent sized school can have one or more full first year calc classes and often a second year calc class, with the numbers consistently increasing. Other high level subjects are seeing consistent gains (when funding hasn't been cut) as well.
The scores are going up because those populations introduced to the SATs relatively recently are becoming better at taking them, slowly reversing the huge dip that occurred when large numbers of low income students and students with disabilities became encouraged to take the SAT.
Grading on a curve, a true curve, and one sensitive to the test's goals and score distribution, is an excellent way to properly score a test. And of course, most standardized tests don't pay much attention at all to raw scores, only to percentiles, which can't really be curved, so I have no idea why you seem to associate grading on a curve with standardized tests.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Uh, back to what Belle said: I thought that was very well put. I wish I had known at the time that I could have asked for another assignment instead of reading Catcher in the Rye in HS. (I know, how shocking, it's a classic, etc. etc.) But all I got out of it was a head full of foul language that popped out every time I stubbed my toe.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Yea, Belle, I hope I can be as wonderful a mom as you are someday in the very far future when I have children.
Jenna- In my senior year we read Heart of Darkness in class which I hated but read because it wasn't actually bothering me, I just didn't like it. I drew the line at watching Apocalyse Now! in class, though. I informed my teacher that she could find an alternative assignment for me to do. And wrote a paper or something in the library on the days we watched it in class. I've never had a huge problem standing up for myself. It sucks that too many people don't realize they can.
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
The SAT test was only changed recently, and wasn't changed for 10 years before that.
And the average score on the SATs was a lot lower before that. And it's not because they weren't as smart, either.
Yes, more advanced classes are being offered, but most students don't take them.
My grading on a curve comment wasn't really about standarized tests (which HAVE been getting easier) and I still don't see how being administered in any way is reasonable. I get 20% of the test wrong, I should get an 80.
Also, the whole idea that C is average is wrong. If the average goes down, why should some D students suddenly become C students? They didn't do anything to deserve that upgrade. And then the A students can't really get more Aish than they are. Where's their boost? An extra +?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
So basically you're saying you have no idea what a true curve is.
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
Please enlighten me, then...
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
A true curve is standarized so that the majority of scores are in the middle ("C"s) with a few on either end. It looks like a normal curve, if you know what that is. It's the most accurate way to show scores, by showing how one person did in relation to their peers. It doesn't make sense, if everyone got, say, below a 50% to just fail everyone, since obviously in a case such as that either the test is too hard or the teacher isn't doing a very good job. Instead you standardize the scores so that everyone is scored according to how they did in relation to their peers. I go to Purdue, and it's not uncommon for the average on engineering exams to be around 30%, that doesn't mean that everyone should just flunk the class, it usually means that that's the average the prof was going for for some reason, and then he standardizes it so the scores come out right.
What a lot of high school teachers call a curve isn't a curve at all, they just bump the highest score to a hundred and move everyone else's score up by the same amount. So if the highest score is 90%, then everyone's score gets bumped 10%. That's not a true curve, and it doesn't actually make much sense to use, except to inflate grades. I assume it's what you're used to, though.
I hope this makes sense, I understand it intuitively, but I've never had to explain it before.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Archer, the SAT changes every year, in the sense that the questions are different. The difficulty of the individual questions is closely monitored, and various mixes are used in order to obtain accurate ideas about student capabilities. The SAT has been getting harder pretty much consistently, and students have been doing better.
The SAT underwent a renormalization which increased scores at one point, but what the score is doesn't matter, its what the score is supposed to indicate, and how successfully it does that. What the score is supposed to indicate didn't change, and how successfully it does that increased with the renormalization. Students still did better in real terms across the gap, which can be told because the differences in scoring are known.
And of course, its also possible to curve to other curves than the normal distribution, and to curve to normals that aren't centered on a C. The point on tests isn't to just count you off based on how many you got wrong, its to result in a score that properly indicates your understanding of the subject in a way appropriate to the class, which is an admixture of absolute and relative performance.
If I miss half the questions on a test, but the test was written so that those who get at least the questions I got right have demonstrated a high level of understanding in the subject, I should get a B or an A, not fail.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Good explanation of curving, blacwolve, and of the problems with the incorrect way many teachers curve, but . . .
quote:. . . since obviously in a case such as that either the test is too hard or the teacher isn't doing a very good job.
whoa whoa whoa WHOA. You have provided two very reasonable hypotheses to explain the situation, but it is by no means obvious that either of these is the case. Very often, in fact, neither of these is.
From my experience, I can tell you that sometimes the material has been well-taught, the test was fair, and the students en masse did not perform at the level they needed to.
I can understand why that may seem farfetched. There is one teacher, and likely one test, and there are dozens of students. It seems more reasonable to suppose the blame lies in the one than in the many.
But here's an example of when it may: students learn, from years of improperly done curves by unknowledgeable teachers, that if they all do poorly, the teacher will simply reteach and throw out the quizzes, replacing them with easier quizzes, or will curve the quizzes so that their low grades become respectable. Sometimes you get a situation where kids believe there is no incentive or need for them to make an effort. To break the cycle, they need to have a quiz or test where everyone bombs and the teacher says, "Gee, I'm sorry you all did not try harder. Perhaps for the next test you will." Next time, they know that the teacher is serious, and they do better.
When I have a classful of bad tests or quizzes, which happens on occasion--or more frequently, one question that is missed by a large number of students--I consider very seriously the possibility that the question was unfair or that I did an inadequate job. But sometimes, I know in my heart that this was not the case, but simply a situation where a large number of students did not truly care enough to prepare adequately. And, in those cases, I do not enable the students.
(I have seen "education" books--no such thing, imo--suggest the view you just proposed, and instruct preservice teachers to throw out any item missed by a large fraction of the students. Poppycock. It's garbage like this that weakens our education and inflates our grades.)
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Oh goodness, that wasn't what I meant at all. What I really meant wasn't really obvious in what I actually said though, so I completely understand you being upset.
I think in the lower grades, up through about 10th grade, tests shouldn't be curved at all, teachers should just look at them and determine what the class needs to work on and what level they're at and adjust classwork and future tests accordingly, as far as I'm aware that's generally what happens.
When you get to upperclassmen in high school and college though, there are times when a teacher is teaching material and may not know exactly what level of student he or she is teaching it to and may discover after giving a test that the class in general is at a lower level than he or she assumed and adjust the grades and their teaching in the future accordingly. I'm not sure how my mind parsed that as not being a very good teacher, and I do completely apologize, because it is in fact one of the hallmarks of a good teacher. Most of the bad teachers I've had wouldn't care enough to bother curving a grade.
Sceondly, I go to Purdue and all of my friends are in engineering. A lot of the time they'll be given tests where it's just impossible to obtain a hundred percent. The tests are written in such a way that there is three hours of work with a calculator, administered in one hour without one. In those cases for whatever reason the professors have decided that they are willing to trade an average of around a 30% for whatever benefit they get from making the test too hard. They then curve the test so that they don't fail all of the students. So basically, there are times when the teacher's goal is a very low average percentage, and in those cases not curving the grades is the option that doesn't make sense.
I'm very sorry, I didn't mean to insult you or any other teachers. I would go back and edit, but then this whole exchange wouldn't make much sense.
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
I'm glad I didn't get caught, but I don't think I would have gotten fired for that alone.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)