Con: Movies help explain an R-rated world
 |
|
||||||||||
When the Federal Way School Board voted 3-1 to ban the showing of R-rated films on district property, it sent the message that if material is objectionable to some, then it will be restricted from all.
Furthermore, some board members and parents suggested that teachers have been "entertaining" their students with movies, rather than teaching them to read books.
One parent argued that students should not be exposed to the horrors of war and slavery shown in movies, lest they be doomed to repeat history. After all, another parent said, quoting Plato, "The most effective kind of education is that a child should play amongst lovely things."
Who could argue with Plato, right? Well, I guess I could. While I don't doubt that these parents and board members are well-intentioned, their comments suggest that they haven't spent much time inside high-school classrooms recently — and that goes for Plato, too.
I have taught English at Federal Way High School for 10 years, and feel obliged to share a perspective from someone who is actually in the classroom. I also have five children under the age of eight who "play amongst lovely things" as often as we can manage it.
As for Plato, I doubt he was referring to high-school students when he wrote those sentiments, and was certainly unaware of the Civil War and the Holocaust. The reality of history is that the world is not always a "lovely" place; some historical figures have not been so "lovely" either.
As high-school educators, it is not our job to sugarcoat history and literature. Rather, we are called upon to prepare our students for success as citizens of this country. That means giving them skills and knowledge, which is where movies can help.
Since many students are visual learners who have been raised in a video age, films can be excellent tools when teachers use them to supplement their curriculum. History teachers know their students will have a better understanding of the Holocaust if they watch "Schindler's List." Furthermore, showing the movie "Glory" is a terrific way to tell the otherwise untold story of a group of ex-slaves who sacrifice their lives during the Civil War.
These films are R-rated because these parts of history are R-rated. With all due respect to the parent who feels otherwise, if our kids do not learn the lessons of history, then they are doomed to repeat it.
As for the argument that teachers use films as "entertainment" instead of teaching reading, I would offer that films can help students become better readers.
For example, to supplement my senior advanced placement literature curriculum, I show films that bring to light the literary concepts I teach my students. One such film is "Elizabeth," an R-rated, Oscar-nominated film from 1998.
The film chronicles the murky, dangerous years at the beginning of the Elizabethan Age in England. I have used this film for several reasons. It is a remarkable story worthy of literary analysis. The film gives my students a vivid historical understanding of the early Elizabethan years, which is helpful when we study Shakespeare. Since my students also read "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man," "Native Son," "As I Lay Dying" and "Catch 22," the film's portrayal of Elizabeth as an existentialist hero is a nice tie-in to those books.
The film also leads to great discussions about modernism, the early Protestant Reformation, the emergence of England as a world power, the use of symbolism in film, the conflict between love and duty, the merits of self-sacrifice, the possibility of redemption, and so on.
Not many G-rated films allow me to cover so much intellectual territory in two hours. Yes, a few teachers have exercised poor judgment, but the vast majority of my colleagues are highly trained, conscientious professionals with specific educational reasons for what occurs in their classrooms. For the board to micromanage how we teach particular skills and content to students is insulting to teachers.
Members of the board are now trying to appease their critics with the notion that teachers may apply for waivers to show particular films. Sounds fine, but I attended the meeting last week when Board President VanDorien said, on district tape, "I would prefer that there absolutely be no movies shown in our schools." He later asked, "If we put a provision in here that no policy waivers would be considered by the board, can that be reconsidered by somebody?" This mentality concerns me as a teacher requesting a film waiver.
The district's former practice allowed parents to opt their children in or out of watching R-rated films. This current board's first official resolution even recognized "parents in their primary role in the upbringing and education of their children."
So why now restrict parental choice with this "unlovely" policy? We can do better for students.
Keith Swanson teaches English and journalism at Federal Way High School.