I am beginning to get a rather bizarre view of teaching techniques in England. If you recall, we recently saw how teachers terrorized students with the fake murder of a colleague. Now, teachers including Headteacher Mike Richards at St. Mary’s RC told children that World War III had broken out and, using fireworks, had them cringing in a cellar as a learning experience.
The children were shown footage of the Blitz in World War II and were told that London was in the process of being bombed.
The teachers wanted students to know what it was like to live through a war — and they succeeded all too well according to parents.
Richards abandoned the dim idea in the afternoon after complaints that the children were terrified. Teachers also complained about the impact on the children — some of whom had nightmares.
Richards explained “[t]he bulk of the boys thought it was great but a few of the girls were upset and had a sleepless night. . . . The school apologises for any distress that was caused but we don’t come to school with the idea of upsetting our pupils.”
Well I guess that was a learning experience.
In the United States, it might have also introduced the headmaster to the scourge of litigation and the concept of negligent infliction of emotional distress and torts litigation.
Source: DailyMail
Jonathan Turley
After reading all of the comments in this very interesting discussion I am left with one unresolved question. Did anyone consider what these children were thinking during this exercise that they thought was the real deal about their parents, siblings, aunts and uncles, grandparents, neighbors, family pets?
I remember the school drills I was part of as a child during the 50’s… the ones where we got under our desks and put our heads down and our arms over the back of our necks to prepare for a nuclear attack. After such a drill I would always hurry home to make sure my mother and father were okay. I would sit under that desk and worry about what would happen to me and my brothers if our parents didn’t have anywhere to hide when the bombs dropped. I worried that my dog wouldn’t get into the house in time. I worried about my neighbors and my other relatives. I knew the drill was only a drill and that no bombs were actually falling but I worried none-the-less.
I can’t imagine the horrors those children envisioned happening to their loved ones while they remained “safe” in the cellar.
Elaine M. and anon nurse
Your mention of Ted Kaczynski reminded me of one of the strangest humans I ever heard of, William Sidis, whose IQ was so high it was unable to be determined. Like T K, he was a child prodigy and later a recluse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis
Sidis died in 1944 of a cerebral hemorrhage in Boston at the age of 46. His father had died of the same malady in 1923 at age 56.
Kacznski sounds like he may have had autism. His mother said he was fine until a hospital stay at 6 months of age; that the same baby did not come home to her.
It seems to me that the academic respect I am used to in my field cannot be found in yours. It also seems like you like to draw conclusions based on extremely limited knowledge, something that I thought people of science were taught never to do. It’s quite remarkable that you end up writing that this “certainly brings into question your judgment as a supposedly mature adult.”
I’ll try to discuss the subject and not person here:
1) I argue previously that this should have been discussed with the children’s parents in advance. I think parents should’ve been able to withdraw children from it. I also think the children should’ve been TOLD it was fake in advance. This is the more common way to do things like this – in other countries.
2) I don’t BELIEVE you’re right about the harmfulness of this. After seeing how you don’t seem to be able to read statements right, how you twist statements and how you seem to be willing to draw conclusions without knowing all the facts, I become even less impressed.
3) The motivation here is NOT to harm the children, but to teach them something. It may be illegal to do it this way, but given the above, I think it COULD have positive effects. THIS is what I discuss, not whether any laws should be violated. You seem to assume I would like them to break more laws. Again: Pay attention to details, they matter.
4) What I actually argue about here is the hypocrisy in not wanting something done to our children that we wish upon others. Say what you want but “one should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated” is clearly being violated here.
“You can do as many cognitive gymnastics as you want. Because war crimes are being committed in the world, does not give permission for teachers to engage in psychological/emotional child abuse with my child that I send to school for an education. For you to appear to not only condone it, but to endorse it, certainly brings into question your judgment as a supposedly mature adult.” -Otteray Scribe
Well said, OS.
Elaine M.,
Wasn’t it David Kaczynski who turned his brother Ted in? I’ll read what he has to say. Besides, that post was written for a newspaper blog, I believe.
========
Elaine,
I believe that it was David Kaczynski who contacted the FBI, but I’m uncertain of the details.
And, yes, you’re right about it being a posting to a newspaper blog… It was mostly that I had just posted some information from Wikipedia and then saw OS’s commment to Thomas J… A case not being clear, on my part… 🙂
Thomas J. I am familiar with the work of Kinzie, et al. That particular study was about problems for therapists treating survivors of torture in Cambodia, thus the reference in the title to “massive violence.” I am puzzled as to any possible connection between Cambodians being tortured by the Khmer Rouge and school children being deliberately terrorized by their teachers.
The researchers in that study were concerned about the phenomenon of countertransference during therapy with torture survivors. That has zero to do with the aftermath of scaring kids. There is something called “psychological child abuse.” That is a felony in some jurisdictions and a misdemeanor in others. But it is a crime. Let me repeat that: It is a CRIME!
You can do as many cognitive gymnastics as you want. Because war crimes are being committed in the world, does not give permission for teachers to engage in psychological/emotional child abuse with my child that I send to school for an education. For you to appear to not only condone it, but to endorse it, certainly brings into question your judgment as a supposedly mature adult.
Otteray Scribe:
You said “You are walking on my turf now. You are certainly entitled to think whatever you want, but you also have the right to be dead wrong.”
I may be walking on your turf and you’re right, I could certainly be wrong, but so could you. None of us sat there to see what ACTUALLY happened, and as far as I understand, those responsible did tell the children that they were in fact safe. I
My understanding here is that yes, people do get harmed from experiencing traumatic things. But I know that scientists also AGREE that people move on after things like 9/11 or World War II.
Elaine M. asks “Which specialists would those be?”
It’s a little difficult to answer exactly which specialists this would be. My impression is that most specialists and most literature on this deals with what symptoms we may experience if we suffer from this or that. The literature does not seem to conclude that if we go through “this”, we’ll end up suffering “that” way. Humans differ.
It would thus amaze me if there were specialists who concluded that we’d all react in some way if we experienced something, be it losing a parent, a leg, living through being bombed or not being allowed to go to Disneyland.
I can’t find much specific about just how much we can actually handle, but I did find research showing that discussing traumas may be counterproductive for some people (see the end of the post).
——–
Otteray Scribe says: “Exactly, Thomas J. We do not wish that kind of thing on our worst enemy. Why then, should we deliberately visit it on our vulnerable kids when it is totally uncalled for. You make my point for me.”
But you’re as wrong as you can be when you claim that we do not “wish that kind of thing on our worst enemy”. The UK is involved in two wars now and in both, kids suffered from the same (just much worse). The UK keeps wanting to inflict this sort of thing upon their enemies all the time – even when they didn’t do anything to them. The mere fact that Slobodan Milosevic invaded Kosovo where about 5,000 Albanians and 2-3,000 Serbs had died, was interpreted as a “go ahead” to bomb Serbians in Belgrade and give them this experience – only much, much worse. Iraqis got the same treatment – although for years.
My question: Why does a country do this to other children if they feel this way if something remotely similar happens to their children? Are we supposed to be surprised that Iraqis, Serbs and others may be a little angry with NATO/the US/the UK?
I still think the reaction is hypocritical.
Kinzie, D. J., & Boehnlein, J. K. (1993). Psychoterapy of the victims of massive violence: Countertransference and ethical issues. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 47, 90-102.
anon nurse: Of course, the article by David Kaczynski falls into a different bracket. Assuming that David Kaczynski did indeed write it, it provides a unique personal dimension anecdotally. That is useful, but my reference was to peer reviewed articles in professional journals. Of course folks can find useful tidbits and anecdotes on blogs and in Wikipedia, but they are not rigorous studies or research.
I have seen Dr. Kaczynski’s psychological report that was prepared for his trial. He refused to allow an insanity defense and preferred pleading guilty than to present himself as schizophrenic and legally insane. Had he done so, he would be admitting that his “Manifesto” was nothing more than the hypergraphic ramblings of a madman. He was willing to go to prison for the rest of his life than to let his lawyers make that argument.
Wasn’t it David Kaczynski who turned his brother Ted in? I’ll read what he has to say. Besides, that post was written for a newspaper blog, I believe.
Otteray Scribe:
“And sorry, blog posts and Wiki articles do not count.”
Guilty… 🙂 with regard to my previous comment, though the blog posting is written by Ted Kaczynski’s brother. As to the truth of it? I don’t know.., but it piqued my interest and I appreciate your insights.
anon nurse,
Thanks for the link!
In light of this story, it might be interesting to revisit the case of the Unabomber. Might things have turned out differently for him (and those who subsequently lost their lives and/or were injured)? We’ll, of course, never know, but his history is interesting and the story, tragic.
“The Unabomber was the target of one of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) most costly investigations “, spanning roughly 20 years, according to wikipedia. Twenty three people were injured and three died.
Some may not be aware of Ted Kaczynski’s story. He was only 16 when he entered Harvard. Recently, his brother wrote a couple of rather “provokative” articles:
http://blog.timesunion.com/kaczynski/ted-and-the-cia-part-1/271/
David Kaczynski
Executive Director, New Yorkers for Alternatives to the Death Penalty
Ted and the CIA, Part 1
December 19, 2010 at 9:07 pm
by David Kaczynski
Was my brother, Ted Kaczynski (AKA “the Unabomber”), a sort of “Manchurian candidate” – programmed to kill by our government in a CIA-funded thought-control experiment gone awry? I hope you will excuse the provocative question – especially since I don’t know the answer to it.
What I do know is that my brother was a guinea pig in an unethical and psychologically damaging research project conducted at Harvard University where he attended college in the early 1960′s. While it is true that my brother suffers from paranoia, it is also true that he fell victim to a conspiracy of psychological researchers who used deceptive tactics to study the effects of emotional and psychological trauma on unwitting human subjects. My brother was harmed by psychologists who recognized – at least tangentially – that they were hurting him yet who made no attempt to undo or ameliorate the harm they’d caused to their young and vulnerable subject. Thus, it would be fair to say that my brother’s paranoia had a reference point in reality.
Fifteen years after his experience at Harvard, Ted Kaczynski embarked on a mail bomb campaign that targeted leading researchers in technology, behavioral psychologists among them. Is there a connection between my brother’s violent behavior and his earlier experience as a guinea pig at Harvard? It seems there must be some connection. But how much connection? And what role might the US government have played in unleashing the Unabomber’s anti-social behavior? partial excerpt
(There’s a Part 2, for anyone who is interested…)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski
One more thought. Thomas J. sez: “Generally, specialists seem to think that people recover well from most shocks they ever go through.”
**********************************************
Since I am a specialist in this area and thought I was familiar with the scholarly literature, I am most interested in finding out who these ‘specialists’ might be. I want to know specifically, which specialists would opine that this exercise in stupidity was a good idea. Could you please post a bibliography of research articles that support your claim. I simply must see this literature. And sorry, blog posts and Wiki articles do not count.
Elaine,
I agree that this “headteacher” should be looking for new employment. He endangered the health of those kids and he can’t even understand how stupid it was.
He [Mike Richards]added: “The bulk of the boys thought it was great but a few of the girls were upset and had a sleepless night.”
As if most boys are going to admit that they were afraid in front of their peers or to their teachers. I’m with anon nurse. Mr. Richards is either an idiot or a sadist—or maybe he is both.
**********
Thomas J.
“Generally, specialists seem to think that people recover well from most shocks they ever go through.”
Which specialists would those be?
Should those children have had to endure such a shock? Schools serve “in loco parentis.” As a former teacher, I can tell you that my students’ safety and welfare were two of my major responsibilities. The teachers at this school should have spoken out and tried to stop this idiotic prank. Mr. Richards should be fired and never be given a job as a headteacher of a school again.
Thomas J. sez: “I’ve known people who got to taste these British bombs for months when they were children and they don’t wish it upon their worst enemy.”
*********************************************
Exactly, Thomas J. We do not wish that kind of thing on our worst enemy. Why then, should we deliberately visit it on our vulnerable kids when it is totally uncalled for. You make my point for me.
Thomas J.: You are walking on my turf now. You are certainly entitled to think whatever you want, but you also have the right to be dead wrong. From my perspective this was so egregious an act that it rises to the level of intentional infliction of emotional harm. Just because people are injured in wars does not mean we have the right to terrorize our own children. There are other ways to teach empathy and about the issues they wanted to address.
Otteray Scribe,
You say “I am comfortable saying that the fallout from this ill-considered adventure will last for a long time. For some of the children perhaps a lifetime. Jumpy at noises, paranoid about bad people coming to hurt or kill them, and the likelihood of impairment in their academic experience and later in the workforce.”
Generally, specialists seem to think that people recover well from most shocks they ever go through. Britain and its children got through five years of being bombed. Children came out of the German concentration camps. People experience bad things and move on. In this case, children will almost certainly UNDERSTAND perfectly well the reason why they went through what they did IF the adults will actually communicate with them after the fact. Grown ups tried teaching them something – and doing this is not at all unusual.
I don’t think this was such a huge shock to them. They got to experience a few hours of “war”, and many of them accordingly even thought it was “cool”, according to reports.
You also say “For those who say that wars happen, I reply that of course wars happen and people are traumatized. But why should a child (or adult) be traumatized when there is no threat. This is a lot different from a fire or terrorist attack drill that is announced ahead of time. This was something straight out of The Twilight Zone.”
In the Western world today, we end up answering a poll about whether we’re positive or negative to war based on almost no knowledge. We don’t try to get information about it and research shows that much of the time, we simply accept whatever our news sources tells us. People in reality support wars without knowing anything about it. That’s how much we value the lives of other people.
Teaching children exactly what it means to live through a war can thus be incredibly meaningful for them later on. It could help make them better able to judge whether their country should do it to others. I’ve known people who got to taste these British bombs for months when they were children and they don’t wish it upon their worst enemy.
Otteray Scribe,
Thank you for your wisdom and insights on this event. That it was something “out of the Twilight Zone”, I would agree.
To clarify — I agree that this exercise should not have been conducted at all…