A substitute biology teacher in Gunnison, Utah facilitates a class in the dissecting of a live dog. The dog was sedated. And the dog was scheduled to be euthanized.
Questions anyone?
"The teacher is standing by his decision and calls it the ultimate educational experience. Principal Anderson said he supports the lesson and it will be allowed to continue because the students are learning."
What's next, live dissection of sedated death row inmates? Gitmo prisoners? The terminally ill? I could go on, and it'd probably include something sarcastic about "ultimate educational experiences" regarding the substitute teacher and his principal, but I'll refrain.
I can, unfortunately perhaps, imagine what was going through this teacher's mind. And he's probably going to take a public flogging, however justified or not, regarding it. What's most distressing is that this kind of "educational experience" has much more to do with desensitizing impressionable students than teaching them anything about the digestive tract of the unwanted dog or how to be a compassionate human being.
When I was in high school, I wrote a paper regarding my distaste for dissecting anything. I didn't mind the biology class so much. The teacher I rather liked, although he always smelled a little too much like booze. Though the booze probably contributed to his fairly lax teaching style and somewhat humorous and sarcastic nature which most of us--except those who most wanted to learn biology--enjoyed. But when it came to being told I had to dissect frogs whether I liked it or not, I tried to stage a mini revolt. It wasn't that the teacher made me feel violated. More like the system was making me feel violated.
I wrote an article intended for the school newspaper merely suggesting that if one didn't feel destined for a field in biology or medicine, why should they be forced to dissect frogs? For one, I liked frogs. And, just a few years earlier, they had been the subject of many of my favorite childhood stories and personal imaginings. And now I'm being coerced into dissecting them?
I worked for the school paper and submitted the article for final approval. Soon thereafter, along comes the well meaning head of the newspaper department and, taking me by the arm, tells me that it's an inappropriate piece. Incredibly, as I consider it now, I was even directed to speak to the principal about it, who chastised me about my subversive attitude, and told me firmly, "you mustn't question."
Well...this is why our family homeschools. For one, to create our own ultimate educational experiences. Like focusing on community service, sustainable living, human and animal rights, global politics, clean water and air,...the list of potential ultimate educational experiences is endless. But, to be honest, we homeschool mainly to preserve the natural, and necessary, questioning ability of young people. We aren't perfect at it. There are plenty of times we don't do the best job of encouraging or answering the questions. But question we must. All of us. Everything. And I sure question the thinking that says it's okay to dissect live, however sedated, dogs.
"The teacher is standing by his decision and calls it the ultimate educational experience. Principal Anderson said he supports the lesson and it will be allowed to continue because the students are learning."
What's next, live dissection of sedated death row inmates? Gitmo prisoners? The terminally ill? I could go on, and it'd probably include something sarcastic about "ultimate educational experiences" regarding the substitute teacher and his principal, but I'll refrain.
I can, unfortunately perhaps, imagine what was going through this teacher's mind. And he's probably going to take a public flogging, however justified or not, regarding it. What's most distressing is that this kind of "educational experience" has much more to do with desensitizing impressionable students than teaching them anything about the digestive tract of the unwanted dog or how to be a compassionate human being.
When I was in high school, I wrote a paper regarding my distaste for dissecting anything. I didn't mind the biology class so much. The teacher I rather liked, although he always smelled a little too much like booze. Though the booze probably contributed to his fairly lax teaching style and somewhat humorous and sarcastic nature which most of us--except those who most wanted to learn biology--enjoyed. But when it came to being told I had to dissect frogs whether I liked it or not, I tried to stage a mini revolt. It wasn't that the teacher made me feel violated. More like the system was making me feel violated.
I wrote an article intended for the school newspaper merely suggesting that if one didn't feel destined for a field in biology or medicine, why should they be forced to dissect frogs? For one, I liked frogs. And, just a few years earlier, they had been the subject of many of my favorite childhood stories and personal imaginings. And now I'm being coerced into dissecting them?
I worked for the school paper and submitted the article for final approval. Soon thereafter, along comes the well meaning head of the newspaper department and, taking me by the arm, tells me that it's an inappropriate piece. Incredibly, as I consider it now, I was even directed to speak to the principal about it, who chastised me about my subversive attitude, and told me firmly, "you mustn't question."
Well...this is why our family homeschools. For one, to create our own ultimate educational experiences. Like focusing on community service, sustainable living, human and animal rights, global politics, clean water and air,...the list of potential ultimate educational experiences is endless. But, to be honest, we homeschool mainly to preserve the natural, and necessary, questioning ability of young people. We aren't perfect at it. There are plenty of times we don't do the best job of encouraging or answering the questions. But question we must. All of us. Everything. And I sure question the thinking that says it's okay to dissect live, however sedated, dogs.
No comments:
Post a Comment