Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LoneLictor wrote:
Vague article from Fox News about "political correctness gone mad!!!"?

Is such a thing even possible?

Orlanth...I think I have to be misreading this.

Are you saying that blackface performances are not inherently racist? Or that blackface performances, when they were publicly acceptable, weren't (even then) inherently racist?

Interestingly, the teacher in question is a union official... Warrants further digging.


Edit: Ah...not union; he's a township supervisor...I guess it's like an Alderman or something.

There are 1,123 townships and 117 charter townships which are all actively functioning governmental units. Townships are the original units of government formed in the state. Typically, though not always, townships are 36 square miles in size. Each township is governed by a board of trustees consisting of the township supervisor, township clerk, township treasurer, and two or four elected trustees. The entire state is covered by township governments except for areas within cities

Someone in authority that's opposite of the union did a "gotcha? WTH?!?

I rather for the younger generation to go over periods of our history so we do not forget how and why it happen and the ramification of actions of that given course

I would like the Holocaust to be a bit in depth due to show what the Human race is capable of
I would like how slavery came about and Civil War to show what the Human race can achieve
Intervention in Bosnia
Intervention in Kosovo
Humanitarian effort in Somalia
Depression in the USA
Civil Rights history
Civil Right Laws
Contribution of prominent black individuals in the development of the US (Washington Carver was one my reports I had to do in HS)
Black influence into entertainment

No influence by Republicans
No influence by Democrats
No influence from CARE
No influence from church
..

and I'm ranting

 d-usa wrote:


Nazis being Nazis is a historical fact, and nobody is arguing that they were racist. It's a silly example for you to use considering you are comparing a known racist thing with something that you argue isn't racist.

It makes perfect sense for me to compare. Why would blackface videos cause a teacher to be suspended, the answer can only be because showing thrm caused offense to someone.
Might the same someone also get offended by images of Nazis?

 d-usa wrote:

I'm arguing that looking back today at blackface, it is pretty much agreed that blackface is racist.

But its not agreed because the genre as a whole was not racist, some performers may be individually racist, but that doesn't taint the entire culture. The purpose of blackface was entertainment using African American cultural idioms by non-black performers, not to cause racial division, to assume otherwise is dishonest and unhistorical.
Any enlightened and intelligent look at history has to look at the motives of the time, not the motives of today.
What is acceptable media changes over time, however this is no excuse for revisionism, especially in history teaching.

 d-usa wrote:

We don't know what the video was about or how it was presented. So it could have been racist or it could have not been racist.

If it is presented as history then it wasn't racist. Check the context.
A Nurenburg rally video is always going to have racist content, because of Hitlers speeches, but for historical teaching its ok to show one.
As blackface as a genre isn't even intended to be racist, unlike a speech by Hitler, so why should it be airbrished out of history?

As for the Jim Crow laws, not teaching about them is like not teaching about the Holocaust, its an assinine response to airbrush over history this way. Sometimes people need to know the uncomfortable truth, and those who take offense need to be told to buckle up and grow a thicker skin.

I guess we're going to have to hate Downey Jr. now:



Granted it was a crap movie so maybe not enough people watched it to get bent out of shape over it.

 Orlanth wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


Nazis being Nazis is a historical fact, and nobody is arguing that they were racist. It's a silly example for you to use considering you are comparing a known racist thing with something that you argue isn't racist.

It makes perfect sense for me to compare. Why would blackface videos cause a teacher to be suspended, the answer can only be because showing thrm caused offense to someone.
Might the same someone also get offended by images of Nazis?

Because the video had a bunch of people in blackface carrying around watermelons and eating fried chicken while calling each other n*****. The video defended that and said that black people should be happy that we don't do it anymore even though they deserve it.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Orlanth...I think I have to be misreading this.

Are you saying that blackface performances are not inherently racist? Or that blackface performances, when they were publicly acceptable, weren't (even then) inherently racist?

Correct. From a historical perspective.

If someone performed blackface now they may cause offense, when someone performed blackface in the c1930's when it was mainstream, then it would not be considered to be making a racist statement.

Is this really too hard to grasp that peoples change over time and that it is unjustified to look at previous generations through a moral judgement system that was outside of context to their time, which is what revisionism is.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Orlanth...I think I have to be misreading this.

Are you saying that blackface performances are not inherently racist? Or that blackface performances, when they were publicly acceptable, weren't (even then) inherently racist?

Correct. From a historical perspective.

If someone performed blackface now they may cause offense, when someone performed blackface in the c1930's when it was mainstream, then it would not be considered to be making a racist statement.

Is this really too hard to grasp that peoples change over time and that it is unjustified to look at previous generations through a moral judgement system that was outside of context to their time, which is what revisionism is.

It also talked about blackface in the 1880s.

Which means that it most likely talked about Minstrel Shows. Which is a whole other level of blackface. And it is pretty hard to argue that Minstrel Shows were not racist, even back in 1880.

And like I said multiple times in this thread already: The question of "was this racist" depends on a giant factor that we simply don't know: the exact content and presentation of the video.

Yep. 1800's blackface and 1900's blackface were two different animals.

As for the content; considering there were black students in the class and their parents are up in arms over the potential glossing over of racist history by the administration, I think it's safe to assume that the teacher wasn't showing white power videos.

 d-usa wrote:


Because the video had a bunch of people in blackface carrying around watermelons and eating fried chicken while calling each other n*****. The video defended that and said that black people should be happy that we don't do it anymore even though they deserve it.

Your are overegging this. Where is your source?

The OP says this:

after an eighth-grade history class at Monroe Middle School was shown a video of how white entertainers once used black face paint to imitate blacks

Not that same thing isnt it.

If you wont provide a source I will:

http://www.ibtimes.com/michigan-teacher-alan-barron-suspended-lesson-blackface-1592831

Eye Witness wrote:Adrienne Aaron said her daughter, who is in Barron's class, did not find the lesson offensive.
“She was more offended that they stopped the video,” Aaron told the newspaper. “It had nothing to do with racism. History is history. We need to educate our kids to see how far we’ve come in America. How is that racism?”

Now if it contained the content that you claimed it had then it would have been plainly racist. It also wouldn't be proper blackface. Blackface was there for non-blacks to perform African American culture in public.
Links say it was an eighth grade class, and that eighth grade student above seems to have a much clearer grasp of the distinction between a historical context and a modern context than some here on this thread.

 agnosto wrote:
Yep. 1800's blackface and 1900's blackface were two different animals.

As for the content; considering there were black students in the class and their parents are up in arms over the potential glossing over of racist history by the administration, I think it's safe to assume that the teacher wasn't showing white power videos.

Yeah, Minstrel Shows is a subject that would be well worth covering in a class room setting. And I think many of our stereotypes that continue to exist today were already featured in those shows 130 years ago. Knowing what video was shown or exactly how it was presented would really clear things up.

Like I said, I don't think that showing the video or talking about this subject is anything racist in and off itself. But you have to be careful about how you adress it and what you show, and without knowing those details we are all pretty much just speculating at this point IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


Because the video had a bunch of people in blackface carrying around watermelons and eating fried chicken while calling each other n*****. The video defended that and said that black people should be happy that we don't do it anymore even though they deserve it.

Your are overegging this. Where is your source?

The OP says this:

after an eighth-grade history class at Monroe Middle School was shown a video of how white entertainers once used black face paint to imitate blacks

Not that same thing isnt it.

That quote doesn't disprove anything I typed. It also doesn't prove anything you typed.

Which has been my point from my very first post in this thread: without knowing what the video was we don't know if the administration's actions were over the top.

If you wont provide a source I will:

http://www.ibtimes.com/michigan-teacher-alan-barron-suspended-lesson-blackface-1592831

Eye Witness wrote:Adrienne Aaron said her daughter, who is in Barron's class, did not find the lesson offensive.
“She was more offended that they stopped the video,” Aaron told the newspaper. “It had nothing to do with racism. History is history. We need to educate our kids to see how far we’ve come in America. How is that racism?”

Now if it contained the content that you claimed it had then it would have been plainly racist. It also wouldn't be proper blackface. Blackface was there for non-blacks to perform African American culture in public.

Google Minstrel Show. Get familiar with a very distinctive aspect of southern racism in the 1880s. Learn what 1880s Minstrel Shows represented. Once you do that, feel free to tell me that Misntrel Shows was just a way for non-blacks to perform African-American culture in public. I will laugh at you, but at least I will know that you are serious.

I understand that the UKs history of blackface is vastly different than that of the US, so there may be a culture clash there.

But without knowing what the video was it could have been a completely innocent portrayal that you think it was or it could have been a very racist and offensive portrayal of that particular aspect of history.

You are defending an unknown way that the teacher talked about 1880s blackface by defending 1930s blackface as not racist. You are all over the map there.

From the local area paper:

http://t.monroenews.com/news/2014/may/30/monroe-teacher-alan-barron-suspended/?templates=tablet


There's a Facebook link in the article with comments from people in the atea supporting the teacher.

Which is where I got my quote from the original post I made.

Just like the follow up from FoxNews it doesn't talk about what was actually in the video or what the administrators found offensive.

That's why it's speculation on our part.

Surely some student actually paid attention for 5 seconds so that we can see this infamous video on YouTube...

 d-usa wrote:
Which is where I got my quote from the original post I made.

Just like the follow up from FoxNews it doesn't talk about what was actually in the video or what the administrators found offensive.

That's why it's speculation on our part.

Surely some student actually paid attention for 5 seconds so that we can see this infamous video on YouTube...

I would like to see that, also, but from the Facebook link in the article, a fair sized multiracial group of parents and students are coming down fully on his side.

Another thing that I question is the presence of the administrators in the room during the presentation in the first place.

Assistant Principals don't just sit in random rooms for fun. So if the principal was there to observe this particular lesson it makes me wonder if the teacher has been questioned about the lesson plan before that particular day or if there have been previous complaints about it.

It just strikes me as an odd thing for the principal to do.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Orlanth...I think I have to be misreading this.

Are you saying that blackface performances are not inherently racist? Or that blackface performances, when they were publicly acceptable, weren't (even then) inherently racist?

Correct. From a historical perspective.

If someone performed blackface now they may cause offense, when someone performed blackface in the c1930's when it was mainstream, then it would not be considered to be making a racist statement.

Is this really too hard to grasp that peoples change over time and that it is unjustified to look at previous generations through a moral judgement system that was outside of context to their time, which is what revisionism is.

Just because people didn't think they were being racist doesn't mean they weren't being racist. Blackface performances in the 1930's would have been unbelievably racist. I'm almost unable to believe that any human being in this day and age could seriously make the statements you're making.

If you're saying that it isn't inherently racist for a teacher to give a presentation on the historical practice of blackface performances, then yes, I agree. If you're saying that blackface performances aren't (and weren't) inherently racist then there's just no arguing with that level of ignorance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Another thing that I question is the presence of the administrators in the room during the presentation in the first place.

Assistant Principals don't just sit in random rooms for fun. So if the principal was there to observe this particular lesson it makes me wonder if the teacher has been questioned about the lesson plan before that particular day or if there have been previous complaints about it.

It just strikes me as an odd thing for the principal to do.

I hadn't realized the principal was IN the room while this was going on. That's pretty indicative of something deeper going on.

 d-usa wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


Because the video had a bunch of people in blackface carrying around watermelons and eating fried chicken while calling each other n*****. The video defended that and said that black people should be happy that we don't do it anymore even though they deserve it.

Your are overegging this. Where is your source?

The OP says this:

after an eighth-grade history class at Monroe Middle School was shown a video of how white entertainers once used black face paint to imitate blacks

Not that same thing isnt it.

That quote doesn't disprove anything I typed. It also doesn't prove anything you typed.

Which has been my point from my very first post in this thread: without knowing what the video was we don't know if the administration's actions were over the top.

Sorry, that's BS. If the video was as you described kids watching it wouldn't say it wasn't racist.
What we do know is that nobody has condemned the teacher except one administrator, the kids from the class did not and their parents did not. I find it incredulous to believe the parents did not ask the kids what was on the video, and if it was as you described, it most certainly would have been flagged as racist.

 d-usa wrote:

Google Minstrel Show. Get familiar with a very distinctive aspect of southern racism in the 1880s. Learn what 1880s Minstrel Shows represented. Once you do that, feel free to tell me that Misntrel Shows was just a way for non-blacks to perform African-American culture in public. I will laugh at you, but at least I will know that you are serious.

I can accept this point in part, however from the context of the article the video cant have been anything bad.

 d-usa wrote:

I understand that the UKs history of blackface is vastly different than that of the US, so there may be a culture clash there.

I can accept this also, UK Minstrels Shows were very tame and even continued on TV until the late seventies. People today might still choose to find therm 'racist', but if so that's because of the dogmatisation rife in UK society. This was mainstream entertainment that ended because it times moved on rather than any social pressure to stop it.

 Jimsolo wrote:


Just because people didn't think they were being racist doesn't mean they weren't being racist. Blackface performances in the 1930's would have been unbelievably racist. I'm almost unable to believe that any human being in this day and age could seriously make the statements you're making.

That is because you sadly dont understand the concept of revisionist history.

 Jimsolo wrote:

If you're saying that it isn't inherently racist for a teacher to give a presentation on the historical practice of blackface performances, then yes, I agree.

Yes I am saying that.

 Jimsolo wrote:

If you're saying that blackface performances aren't (and weren't) inherently racist then there's just no arguing with that level of ignorance.

I am saying that also.
Ignorance in this context is when you apply 21st century ethics to early 20th or 19th century people. We are not the same as we were.
There is a reason why revisionist history is considered bad, its becasue it clouds the mind to what happened in the past.

Up until very recently gay marriage was inconceivable, this doesn't make earlier societies 'homophobic'.
in the mid 19th century it would be inconceivable for women to vote, but that doesn't make the society 'sexist'.
Etc etc. The reasons for this is because the very concepts were not in the public conscience of the time.



A child in the 1940's wouldnt think twice about having a golliwog, now even images of golliwogs are considered racist, and so is the word golliwog. However there was no racism in the mind of the child of the time, there was no discrimination or hate associated with the toy, it simply didn't have that dynamic.

If you cant grasp this simply concept then history will remain unfathomable, which is a poor place to be to teach history. You see just take a look at how the world works, in the 19th century people would just march into Africa and take over a chunk, and those doing were taught that were there to educate the heathen and so were there for the common good, many believed this because they knew no better. What would happen if you tried this today? How would these people be labeled.
Would the mid 19th century US policy on Native Americans be repeatable in the 21st century? If not, why not.

Another example Thomas Jefferson wrote his treatises on democracy and freedom in Montecello house, ten yards away from the quarters where he kept his own black slaves. Did Jefferson still stand for freedom and democracy? Or does the more modern concept of the unacceptablility of black slavery override the fact that he was a product of the 18th century. So is Thomas Jefferson a founding father of democratic republicanism or a screaming racist bigot? Should the latter override the former, should the Jefferson monument be renamed because of his 'racist taint'? How far do you want to go with revisionism.
Frankly its best not to start, it would be easy to consider Jefferson an enlightened man and a product of his time, but in doing so you will have to ask if he was an enlightened racist, and if such a thing exists. That is unless you abandon the dogma of reviionist history and accept him purely as a man of his time and omit any concept of racism towards him as a concept not awakened in public conscience of his contemporaries.

Now apply this logic to a music hall with a blacked up jazz singer. that's not racist at all, to those in the audience, society simply didn't think of it as racist, so in a very real way it wasn't. Its not really relevant what people might think of the act today.

@Orlanth,

Any comments I have seen on the facebook link associated with this story have the parents and students upset with the treatment of this teacher.

 Orlanth wrote:

Now apply this logic to a music hall with a blacked up jazz singer. that's not racist at all, to those in the audience, society simply didn't think of it as racist, so in a very real way it wasn't. Its not really relevant what people might think of the act today.

When the blacked up jazz singer turned himself into a caricature of a stereotypical black person he was racist. He most likely knew that he was racist. Society probably even knew it was racist. Nobody pretended that they weren't racist back then. They just didn't think that there was anything wrong with being a racist.

That's not revitionist history (is that the word of the day) redefining racism. That's just acknowledging that our perception of what is acceptable has changed. It's not "it's not racist vs it's racist", it's "it's okay to be racist vs it's not okay to be racist".

 Orlanth wrote:

A child in the 1940's wouldnt think twice about having a golliwog, now even images of golliwogs are considered racist, and so is the word golliwog. However there was no racism in the mind of the child of the time, there was no discrimination or hate associated with the toy, it simply didn't have that dynamic.

Disagree. While the child may not have been full of hate, the child, even at a super young age would have told you that blacks were not as good as whites. That golliwog was 'funny' to the child because it was dehumanizing and turning a human into a plaything. Just because there was no overt hate doesn't mean it wasn't discriminatory or micro-aggression even at the time. To say it had zero racial connotation and was not at all insulting or racist at the time is flat out wrong. It was instrumental in dehumanizing blacks to the next generation.

And just because the people doing it don't see it as racist doesn't make it ok or not racist. Google 'Black Pete'. It is incredibly racist. You can claim history, but those people live in a culture where it is ok to dehumanize blacks and the practice which is done today is racist even if they don't see it as so.

 d-usa wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Now apply this logic to a music hall with a blacked up jazz singer. that's not racist at all, to those in the audience, society simply didn't think of it as racist, so in a very real way it wasn't. Its not really relevant what people might think of the act today.

When the blacked up jazz singer turned himself into a caricature of a stereotypical black person he was racist. He most likely knew that he was racist. Society probably even knew it was racist. Nobody pretended that they weren't racist back then. They just didn't think that there was anything wrong with being a racist.

You got it half right.
It may be racist to us, but wasnt to them because they saw nothing wrong. Racism implies a level of hate of distain, its a negative act. Blacking up to play jazz simply doesnt have that dynamic.
The audience dont think of it as racist, the performer doesnt, therefore it is not.
If they did there would be rhetoric against it, yet blackface proliferated as mainstream well into the 20tyh century. I think it expired by evolving into new cultural forms before it gained a racist label. Jazz evolved into Swing which had white origins, Swing did not last long but opened up Jazz as for anyone.
Please note that Jazz was truly multi racial in a time when very little else was. I dont see the room to consider the genre racist in light of that.

 Orlanth wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Now apply this logic to a music hall with a blacked up jazz singer. that's not racist at all, to those in the audience, society simply didn't think of it as racist, so in a very real way it wasn't. Its not really relevant what people might think of the act today.

When the blacked up jazz singer turned himself into a caricature of a stereotypical black person he was racist. He most likely knew that he was racist. Society probably even knew it was racist. Nobody pretended that they weren't racist back then. They just didn't think that there was anything wrong with being a racist.

You got it half right.
It may be racist to us, but wasnt to them because they saw nothing wrong. Racism implies a level of hate of distain, its a negative act. Blacking up to play jazz simply doesnt have that dynamic.
The audience dont think of it as racist, the performer doesnt, therefore it is not.
If they did there would be rhetoric against it, yet blackface proliferated as mainstream well into the 20tyh century. I think it expired by evolving into new cultural forms before it gained a racist label. Jazz evolved into Swing which had white origins, Swing did not last long but opened up Jazz as for anyone.
Please note that Jazz was truly multi racial in a time when very little else was. I dont see the room to consider the genre racist in light of that.

Nope. Lots of racist people who do racist things 'see nothing wrong' and don't see it as a negative act. If that is the 'goalpost' then a white supremacist can lynch and murder a black person and as long as he sees himself as doing nothing wrong, it obviously wasn't racist.

Even ignorant acts which people don't see as 'wrong' can perpetuate stereotypes which are negative acts despite intent. And you say the audience doesn't think of it as racist... what about the ones who did? Lots of people enjoyed blackface because they enjoyed seeing 'the dancing blackman' because that was all they were good for in their eyes.

Blackface has always been about degrading blacks for entertainment. Even if you claim there was no bad intent by the actors, many the audience like the performance because of the message it perpetuated. It was racist then and everyone new it, it was just more acceptable.. because people back then people honestly thought there was god given evidence that blacks were genetically inferior beings to whites which made all of their 'racism' not only justified, but a scientific necessity.

 Orlanth wrote:
Jazz evolved into Swing which had white origins, Swing did not last long but opened up Jazz as for anyone.
Please note that Jazz was truly multi racial in a time when very little else was. I dont see the room to consider the genre racist in light of that.

Jazz has nothing to do with blackface in the 1800s...

The audience dont think of it as racist, the performer doesnt, therefore it is not.

The audience thought Minstrel Shows were racist. The Performers thought it was racist. They just didn't think there was anything wrong with being racist.

The Nazis knew they were racists. They just didn't think anything was wrong with it.

 Orlanth wrote:

If they did there would be rhetoric against it, yet blackface proliferated as mainstream well into the 20tyh century. I think it expired by evolving into new cultural forms before it gained a racist label.

Blackface was dying at the beginning of the 20th century. It was racist then, and just because people didn't think that racism wasn't wrong doesn't make it any less racist. It expired because people got tired of that crap.

You keep on focusing on "Jazz players liked African American culture" to defend all blackface anywhere and I think your UK experience with blackface is tainting your opinion on US blackface.

 d-usa wrote:

You keep on focusing on "Jazz players liked African American culture" to defend all blackface anywhere and I think your UK experience with blackface is tainting your opinion on US blackface.

Europeans often think they can't be racist and that racism is a US only problem. Example: The Dutch and Black Pete https://www.facebook.com/pietitie

They try to claim pete is not a black person, and he is a magical elf with chimney soot on his face. But since it is based off real people, and the real 'pete' was black... any attempt to hide or remove his true origins is insulting. Why can't he be black? Why must we explain away his blackness as if a white elf with soot is ok but 'being African origin' is bad. Also... Santa claus has evolved over the years and the adition of his 'black servant' is much more recent... And started around the time of abolishing slavery. It warps, distorts and exaggerates black bodies and points to a cultural/social period in history where blacks were openly ridiculed and seen as buffoons. And Black Pete’s image was made PRECISELY in that old, racist tradition.

And the outrage of the Dutch in defending black pete is full of racism.

”All problems started when we brought you in. So if you want it to stop, get back to the dark of Africa.”
“We have to rid our country from things that don’t belong here: make a fist!!”
”You have white PEOPLE and black ANIMALS – you have to have some difference.”
”Get out of the country, give back everything you stole.”
”Those lazy [see forum posting rules] should be glad to see blacks working”
”All those [see forum posting rules] should go back to cooncountry. Netherlands is the Netherlands not a swarma country black pete isn’t black from gak like the [see forum posting rules] but from the chimney.”
“if only you’d been born white”

So even if you are naive to believe the origins are not racially motivated, today it is a rally point for bigots in the netherlands and is currently harming africans in that country who are bullied, attacked and harmed by the still current practice. You have dark skinned children being told to 'scrub away the black' because it is soot.

Blackface was racist when it started, it is racist now. There was never a point where it wasn't racist.

 d-usa wrote:
Another thing that I question is the presence of the administrators in the room during the presentation in the first place.

Assistant Principals don't just sit in random rooms for fun. So if the principal was there to observe this particular lesson it makes me wonder if the teacher has been questioned about the lesson plan before that particular day or if there have been previous complaints about it.

It just strikes me as an odd thing for the principal to do.

Actually with the new model of Teacher and Leader effectiveness systems around the country, this isn't strange by any stretch. It's now quite common, and often required, for administrators to complete both formal and informal walkthroughs of classrooms without any disciplinary focus. It being near the end of the school year, there's often a mad dash by administrators to complete the required number of walkthroughs for each teacher in order to meet deadlines for summative assessments.

Source: I'm a public school administrator.

 d-usa wrote:
I think your UK experience with blackface is tainting your opinion on US blackface.

Is there any significant difference?

 agnosto wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Another thing that I question is the presence of the administrators in the room during the presentation in the first place.

Assistant Principals don't just sit in random rooms for fun. So if the principal was there to observe this particular lesson it makes me wonder if the teacher has been questioned about the lesson plan before that particular day or if there have been previous complaints about it.

It just strikes me as an odd thing for the principal to do.

Actually with the new model of Teacher and Leader effectiveness systems around the country, this isn't strange by any stretch. It's now quite common, and often required, for administrators to complete both formal and informal walkthroughs of classrooms without any disciplinary focus. It being near the end of the school year, there's often a mad dash by administrators to complete the required number of walkthroughs for each teacher in order to meet deadlines for summative assessments.

Source: I'm a public school administrator.

Thanks for the insight.

 agnosto wrote:
Source: I'm a public school administrator.

What horror must you have done in a previous life to deserve such punishment in this one?

 agnosto wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Another thing that I question is the presence of the administrators in the room during the presentation in the first place.

Assistant Principals don't just sit in random rooms for fun. So if the principal was there to observe this particular lesson it makes me wonder if the teacher has been questioned about the lesson plan before that particular day or if there have been previous complaints about it.

It just strikes me as an odd thing for the principal to do.

Actually with the new model of Teacher and Leader effectiveness systems around the country, this isn't strange by any stretch. It's now quite common, and often required, for administrators to complete both formal and informal walkthroughs of classrooms without any disciplinary focus. It being near the end of the school year, there's often a mad dash by administrators to complete the required number of walkthroughs for each teacher in order to meet deadlines for summative assessments.

Source: I'm a public school administrator.

I can confirm that, too. My wife is a teacher, and her administrators have to sit in on some classes throughout the year, too. Usually, the times are at random, too.