This is a really interesting documentary from 1985 about an exercise done in 1968. Is this a famous thing in the US? I just found it and it seemed really interesting. I'm not sure what I think about it especially, but it's fascinating in context.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6189991712636113875#

It follows Jane Elliott teaching a class of 8 year-olds, and segregating them based on eye colour and telling them that blue-eyed children are better than brown-eyed children. The next day she reverses this, and tells them brown-eyed children are better than blue-eyed. The way the children react is really interesting.

In this documentary, she also repeats this experiment with a group of adults and they seem to respond in pretty much the same way the children did.

I don't think this sort of thing could be done today, and maybe that's the point, maybe it isn't necessary. Or maybe it is? I'm not sure.

I wouldnt say it's famous, but it's fairly well known.

Concerning similar behaviors between groups of children and adults, I have had some experience facilitating team building exercises and challenge course activities, primarily for children in grade school (mostly aged 10 or older, up through High School), but with some adult groups as well. I can attest from my experience in observing adults problem solve difficult and frustrating tasks that in groups, adults do act exactly like children, with one huge difference: kids don't flirt the way adults do.

Adults are babbies.

I actually watched part of this in a lecture on Friday morning, pretty much just the bit where she tells the kids that blue-eyed children are better and their reactions after it, but it did seem really interesting. I haven't had a chance to watch the whole thing yet because of work but I'm definitely going to look into it. It really was quite amazing how their behaviour changed so immediately and drastically.

I've watched this in my psychology and education classes. I find it very interesting.

Oh yeah, and after working with at-risk youth, I can attest that teenage girls are way tougher than teenage boys.

Yeah, but my Guardian-reading anxiety-ridden liberal core is being torn in two directions here (which is something I'm pretty used to being a Guardian-reading anxiety-ridden liberal).

On the one hand, she's being really cruel and mean and horrible to those children and that's bound to have some negative long-term effect. At the end of the video, it interviews the adults that were in the 1968 experiment and they all say it was a good thing for them, but that can't necessarily be the case for everyone. On the other hand, teaching children about racism at an early age is really important and the more vivid the experience the more it will benefit them to oppose racism in later life. But is it worth it? Does it prevent racism in the long-term to the extent that it's worth being cruel and degrading in the short-term?

If this study were conducted nowadays it would not meet IRB/IEC approval. This wasn't a formal study, so there would be a bit more leeway, but it still would not be considered ethical. If someone were to conduct this study nowadays and try to publish the results they could have all professional licenses revoked and be blacklisted from conducting or working on future studies. There could also be possible jail time.

Children are a vulnerable population and special care must be taken to determine that they have informed consent from a legal representative as well as assent from the child. In this study, no informed consent was sought. The study did not attempt to minimize harm and does not clearly preserve human dignity. The potential benefits do not outweigh the potential risks.

An interesting study, but far from ethical.

Oh sick, it was good for them. They learned that when they treat other kids poorly because of arbitrary traits it feels bad for the receiver. She's teaching them basic empathy through harmless social experiences that they'll have with or without her.

Children naturally divide themselves by what they can see.

Of course this is just about race. So we might as well say so. The worst thing you can do for your child is not talk about race at all. They will wonder why some people are black and some people are white whether you talk to them about it or not.

I don't see anything cruel. Please elaborate on what's cruel about this.

Forcing children to turn on eachother to illustrate an ideological point without their or their parents' consent that may go entirely over their heads and just indulge a general inclination towards intimidation and violence?

a) the children have to suffer authority-approved discrimination, which is never fun, even if its just for a short time

b) if you've ever taught, you've realized very quickly how depressingly little of your students actually get the point. for every 1 student who gets the message, there are probably 10 who just get "physical appearance is something that we judge people based on".


[ninjad: exactly what mort said]

If your student doesn't learn, it's because you failed.

lawl

Lawling doesn't make you right.

How's that PhD in neuroscience going?

Translation: Ok, I recognize that we're not going to have a productive conversation because you're only interested in finding something in my latest post to contradict. Moreover, if you sincerely think that the burden of education rests solely on the teacher's shoulders, we have some pretty fundamental differences in outlook that I don't feel like hashing out in this thread. ("Poor people are poor because they choose to be" isn't the argument I want to have here.) I'm amused, tho.


But you're welcome to think that I meant it as a well-reasoned argument if you'd like.

If a teacher chops up his entire class with a cleaver and then they go on to all fail their math the next week is he a bad teacher because he has poor teaching skills or is he a bad teacher because he kills students?

Either way he's a bad teacher.



Your argument is basically 'dumb kids are dumb because they choose to be'. Do you see the irony, or have I failed as a teacher?

Might I also add how silly it is of you to object to an absolute on the basis of an exception? Of course there are children who are harder to teach. But it's the teacher's job to teach them anyway : Even if they don't WANT TO BE TAUGHT. That's what a teacher DOES. And there are children who a teacher won't be able to teach at all - and a good teacher is going to recognize their failure and help the kid get to an environment where they can learn.

Why are you so eager to excuse the teacher and blame the student?

I'd like to hear our resident teacher's opinion on it, too.

Actually my argument is 'uneducated kids are probably uneducated due to a variety of factors, which include the teacher's quality, their socio-economic circumstances, and the work they themselves put into learning, so their failure to learn is unlikely to be attributable to a single factor.' But I admit that it was a carelessly chosen analogy, nonetheless.

[edit in response to your edit: I'm not sure I know what you're getting at now...? Because it seems like we agree?]

saberopus likes this.

I'm saying exactly what I said before. If a student doesn't learn, it's because the teacher failed. All those other excuses you came up with are just excuses. It's the teacher's job to teach DESPITE everything that gets in the way. And if the student doesn't learn, the teacher failed.

If the teacher didn't fail... the student must have learned. Clear now?

That's utter crap. You're taking all of the blame and lumping it on the teacher, as if the student doesn't have any responsibility concerning their own education. I can't help but look at this quote:


...and ask the reverse of you.

I'm not blaming anyone. I'm just pointing out that it's a teacher's job to make a child learn. If they child doesn't learn, they failed at their job. There's nothing more to that.

Lets compare it to another job.

You are a construction worker. You are supposed to be paving a road. It rains, thus stopping you from paving it.

Was it your job to pave the road? Yes, it was.
Did you have any control over the rain? No.
Did you do your best to pave the road despite the obstacles? Yes.
Does anybody blame you for failing to pave the road? No.
Would you be a better construction worker if you could have paved the road despite the obstacles? Yes.
Did you fail to pave the road? Yes. You failed.


(An aside : Expecting an eight year old to take responsibility for their education is pretty damn silly.)

As this construction worker, you have other roads to build that lead to better, more prosperous places. Do you waste your time staring out at the rain wishing it'd stop so you could make some progress or do you divert your attention to roads that are more easily and readily developed?

All I would really argue is that you seem to expect far too much of teachers who are limited by both time and funding and I think that's an unfair stance to take.

And let's be honest, here; you're pointing out who failed in a scenario. You're blaming someone. That's what that word means, however rational you're being about it.


That's probably my fault, I was applying your argument to all teachers since yours was a very general statement.

I was going to go through a point by point breakdown of your analogy, but it ended up with me repeating that you're expecting too much of teachers over and over again. So to save space, if I ask you to fly unaided by tomorrow and you don't, what have you done? If you reply to this saying that you've failed, then you're applying the same unrealistic parameters of success. It's an exaggerated example to be sure, but there are factors outside of your control that severely restrict your chances of success in cases like this.

You have strange definitions of "blame," "fail," and "teacher".

I'll reformulate my original point according to your lexicon: a teacher who uses this method of teaching their students about racism is bound to fail most of their students, because the students are far more likely to get caught up in the unpleasantness of the moment (or the joy of authority-sponsored nastiness) to appreciate the deeper point.

So it's cruel to engage in a pedagogically useless exercise that is otherwise highly unpleasant (and potentially socially counterproductive).

I can attest to this as well. My sister, could beat the **** out of me if she got fire in her eyes. She's a tough one.


It's quite hard to pave a road when the tar solidifies instantaneously due to the rain cooling the hot tar, yet you expect the very difficult if not impossible. The concrete will never solidify, yet if the road is not paved, the contractor fails (and must be executed forthwith).

Whether or not it was my fault would not change the fact that I failed.



You are agreeing with me. Most of the students do not learn from this lesson because the teacher failed to present the lesson to them properly. It is the teacher's failure, not the students.

Let's recap this conversation. You asked what was cruel about the teacher's "experiment". Mort and I answered your question by pointing out that the teacher was subjecting students to an unpleasant and confusing experience that was unlikely to succeed educationally. You ignored our response, and instead attacked a random part of what I said by making a silly generalization about the dynamics of education. I tried to indicate disinterest in continuing the conversation because I thought you were being unreasonable. You attacked that as well, so I tried to elucidate my disinterest. It then turned out that we agree about the dynamics of education, only you want to phrase them in a way that sounds like it condemns teachers. When that became apparent, I tried to return us to the original topic. You responded by condescendingly reasserting your position on how education works as if you were claiming victory in some debate.

At each stage in our discussion, you've responded contrarily to the last thing I've said instead of keeping the larger point in mind.

What happens to the poor kids who had green eyes? Did they just get sent home?

You think I attacked you?

In 1968 the Irish had different classrooms.

Are those of us with Hazel eyes the equivalent of mixed race then?

You can look at the eye scheme as the racegroups in apartheid South Africa.

Blues - Whites
Browns - Blacks
Hazel - Coloureds
Greens - Indian/Malay

The "one fleck" rule is considered in effect. So if you had blue eyes, but with brown flecks, you'd be considered full brown under the system.

It is unnecessary to include albinos with reds under this system, since they are killed at birth to have their limbs harvested for traditional witchcraft cures.