this will lighten your day

[Maverick]

I think there needs to be some clarification here. There is insufficient information in the article to determine if the teacher actually exposed the children to any of the music from this "rap" person.

Here is what was posted on the bbs at the top of the thread.

Quote-
TIPTON, Iowa (AP) - An elementary school teacher resigned after her
superiors threatened to reprimand her for letting a group of students continue a research project on rap musician Eminem.

Administrators told music teacher Cassie Johnson, 24, to cancel the sixth graders' project after parents complained their child had found inappropriate material on the Internet. Principal Brian Krob declined to discuss details of the incident. Johnson said she assigned different topics to the students after the parents' complaint but then allowed them to continue it after learning that students in another class were allowed to give a presentation on the same subject. She said the presentation didn't have any references to Eminem's lyrics, which contain obscenities and references to violence. Johnson turned in her resignation to the Tipton school board on Feb. 16. The board accepted it last week after a 20-minute closed discussion.

End Quote

From where I sit I find nothing in the quote to indicate the teacher exposed any child to the lyrics or the music.

A report by a 6th grader could be made just from national publications with articles about this individual. Example: Time, Newsweek and the local newspaper. The report could simply be a compilation of the objections of adults and or kids to the "message" that this person dumps on a CD.

The teacher did state that the report did not contain any lyrics or offensive material.


Continuing on this thread.

Eagler you need to define exactly what is an objectionable and or offensive topic that your kids cannot, without your approval, be exposed to. There are many topics that can be categorized as offensive and yet are perfectly reasonable to discuss in a classroom environment. History is full of offensive items. Social studies of current society is a veritable mine field. Lets not forget that if you are to study the origins of democracy you will have to look at the Greek culture. The art that survives from that culture consists mostly of nudes. That in and of itself can be offensive. Mythology contains stories of sexual misconduct on the part of the gods as well as much violence.

While I was a student teacher I read a 3 page letter (hand written) by a parent explaining in detail what her daughter was not to be exposed to. This parent was an obviously fundamentalist believer and wanted to insure her daughter was not exposed to information that did not exactly agree with her religious beliefs. After examining the letter it was very clear that the student could not be exposed to science, biology, history, mythology, fables, fiction or literature not of a very narrow focus. All of these subjects contained references to things, concepts language or beliefs that were not to be shared with her daughter. In short this young lady was to be very protected. It made it impossible to have this child in the classroom if we (the teachers) were to follow the parents explicit guidelines. At least she had the courtesy to write the letter at the beginning of the semester instead of holding the teacher responsible for not knowing what the parent would object to by use of ESP or something.

The only "proper" education for this young lady (who swore like a sailor BTW) was to be home schooled. Fortunately her mother moved them to another state after only 3 weeks into the semester.


Unless you decide to home school your kids there will always be the possibility that your children will be exposed to something you won't like. It won't necessarily come from the faculty either.

Mav

[Kieran]

You guys are getting to see a little of how complicated a teacher's life can be.

This is a classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. The teacher feels this is a worthwhile, relevant topic that attracts the attention of her students. She feels confident she can direct it where it remains appropriate. She is wrong. She now is confronted with conflicting choices; stand by your principles or observe the wishes of the community you serve. She chose principle, and was forced to pay the price.

She isn't innocent, though. She IMO was a new teacher, full of idealism they spout at the university. Drop someone like this into a rural town and you have immediate cultural conflict. She probably thought she could bring these rural folks around to understand her project and intent. This flies completely in the face of reality.

Communities don't care to hear the teacher's intent in many cases, they just want to protect their children from what they perceive as a danger. There won't be a meaningful discussion- there will be finger leveled in someone's face and a threat hissed.

What I read suggests that she was indeed warned, then saw that someone else was doing what she perceived to be a similar project. "If they can do that, why can't I do this?" she must have thought. I can guess: She had been warned specifically to drop the project, and; the other teacher was tenured. This means that not only did the teacher do something that was against parental approval, she disobeyed a direct order, and on top of that had no protection from the union. She was doomed.

Did she voluntarily resign? I doubt it. Most likely her choice was "Quit or we fire you".

I cannot pass a value judgement on the teacher really, other than to say she miscalculated her position within the school. Whether she had a worthwile lesson or not makes no difference when you deal with communities; what matters is whether or not you are listening to the people whom you serve.