Art Teacher Suspended
tpe...@gmail.com
senior students to join a life drawing class.He has been charged with
making comments of a sexual nature.!!!! It could only happen in
America.To add your name to the petition for his reinstatement go to
www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/Reinstate_Pete_Panse/
Alex Heney
>An Art teacher in Middletown New York,has been suspended for urging his
>senior students to join a life drawing class.He has been charged with
>making comments of a sexual nature.!!!! It could only happen in
>America.
Probably true.
There aren't many countries where a teacher might think he could get
away with that.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Everyone hates me because I'm paranoid
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
mike_...@yahoo.co.uk
not the models. If the former then there is no porblem, if the latter
then I can see the reasoning behind the suspension.
Mike
David Looser
news:1142768076.4...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
suggest that he was trying to get any of his students to pose. If this
account is accurate, and there are no significant factors omitted from it,
then it would appear to be a prima facie case of unfair and inappropriate
suspension of someone who was doing his job well.
It would be interesting to see what the school board have to say in their
defence.
David.
:::Jerry::::
"David Looser" <david....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:4854m6F...@individual.net...
> <mike_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1142768076.4...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >I suspect that he was only trying to get them to go to be the
artist,
> > not the models. If the former then there is no porblem, if the
latter
> > then I can see the reasoning behind the suspension.
> > Mike
> >
> I read through the web pages carefully, and there was nothing there
to
> suggest that he was trying to get any of his students to pose. If
this
> account is accurate, and there are no significant factors omitted
from it,
> then it would appear to be a prima facie case of unfair and
inappropriate
> suspension of someone who was doing his job well.
>
Remember that this all happened in the country that made such a fuss
about a very brief glimpse of Janet Jackson's breast a couple of
years ago, also remember that we are talking about 14 and 15 year old
children here (US ninth grade) - how many British schools would be
advising that the students should enrol on a such a course - and that
the age of majority in the New York State is 18.
David Looser
news:441d62ec$0$76750$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
of that unless you are sugesting that only adults should be allowed to see
nudes.
I don't know how many British schools would advise 14 or 15 year olds to
attend life drawing classes, but life drawing is a traditional (and
important) part of art training and my daughter's schoolfriend did some as
part of her art A level course. OK, that means 16-17 year olds not 14-15
year olds, but AFAIK that was an integral part of the course, not a
suggested addition for the most able students as seems to be the case here.
David.
Alex Heney
<mike_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Even for the former, most places would have issues with teachers
encouraging children to view/paint live nude models.
If this was adult students, then it would be different (although in
the US, I'm not sure he would get away with such encouragement even
with adult students in some states).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
It really bothers me when people cut me o...
Alex Heney
Even for 16-17 year olds in this country, I doubt you would get many
schools permitting this without explicit prior permission from
parents.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Manure Occurs.
David Looser
news:57jr12djtlaoc5lpg...@4ax.com...
>
> Even for 16-17 year olds in this country, I doubt you would get many
> schools permitting this without explicit prior permission from
> parents.
> --
David.
David Looser
> On 19 Mar 2006 03:34:36 -0800, "mike_...@yahoo.co.uk"
> <mike_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I suspect that he was only trying to get them to go to be the artist,
>>not the models. If the former then there is no porblem, if the latter
>>then I can see the reasoning behind the suspension.
>>Mike
>
> Even for the former, most places would have issues with teachers
> encouraging children to view/paint live nude models.
>
learn the particularly difficult art of drawing or painting the human
figure, not just to look at a nude body! I've sat for life classes at an FE
college with students probably no older than 16 or so. I've no idea what
sort of parental permissions were sought, but there didn't seem to be any
shortage of students, nor, come to that, was the "studio" well screened. Any
of the students on the floor, whatever art module they were doing, could see
in with very little trouble.
Nudity and art have always gone together.
> If this was adult students, then it would be different (although in
> the US, I'm not sure he would get away with such encouragement even
> with adult students in some states).
One assumes that even in the US adults are thought to be able to make up
their own minds about such things.
David.
Alex Heney
Expectation.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Does killing time damage eternity?
Alex Heney
<david....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:r1jr121ggo9ti4f18...@4ax.com...
>> On 19 Mar 2006 03:34:36 -0800, "mike_...@yahoo.co.uk"
>> <mike_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>I suspect that he was only trying to get them to go to be the artist,
>>>not the models. If the former then there is no porblem, if the latter
>>>then I can see the reasoning behind the suspension.
>>>Mike
>>
>> Even for the former, most places would have issues with teachers
>> encouraging children to view/paint live nude models.
>>
>Viewing has got nothing to do with it.
Huih?
>Art students go to life classes to
>learn the particularly difficult art of drawing or painting the human
>figure, not just to look at a nude body!
But you think they can do so without viewing it?
> I've sat for life classes at an FE
>college with students probably no older than 16 or so. I've no idea what
>sort of parental permissions were sought,
I would be utterly amazed to discover that any school/college was
allowing 5th formers/lower 6th formers (which is what 16/17 year olds
are usually) to take such classes without explicit parental
permission.
> but there didn't seem to be any
>shortage of students, nor, come to that, was the "studio" well screened. Any
>of the students on the floor, whatever art module they were doing, could see
>in with very little trouble.
>
>Nudity and art have always gone together.
Of course.
>
>> If this was adult students, then it would be different (although in
>> the US, I'm not sure he would get away with such encouragement even
>> with adult students in some states).
>
>One assumes that even in the US adults are thought to be able to make up
>their own minds about such things.
>
In general, yes.
But some places in the US have very "conservative" views on nudity
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I've got to sit down and work out where I stand.
David Looser
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:34:22 -0000, "David Looser"
> <david....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>news:r1jr121ggo9ti4f18...@4ax.com...
>>> On 19 Mar 2006 03:34:36 -0800, "mike_...@yahoo.co.uk"
>>> <mike_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I suspect that he was only trying to get them to go to be the artist,
>>>>not the models. If the former then there is no porblem, if the latter
>>>>then I can see the reasoning behind the suspension.
>>>>Mike
>>>
>>> Even for the former, most places would have issues with teachers
>>> encouraging children to view/paint live nude models.
>>>
>>Viewing has got nothing to do with it.
>
> Huih?
>
>>Art students go to life classes to
>>learn the particularly difficult art of drawing or painting the human
>>figure, not just to look at a nude body!
>
> But you think they can do so without viewing it?
>
rather than painting) a model without looking at them. Hence to use the word
"view" is redundant unless you meant it as an alternative to "paint", which
is how I interpreted your use of it.
>> I've sat for life classes at an FE
>>college with students probably no older than 16 or so. I've no idea what
>>sort of parental permissions were sought,
>
> I would be utterly amazed to discover that any school/college was
> allowing 5th formers/lower 6th formers (which is what 16/17 year olds
> are usually) to take such classes without explicit parental
> permission.
>
Parental permission is sought for almost everything these days. I lost count
of the number of parental permission forms I signed whilst my children were
at school. But that is a million miles from suspending a teacher (to return
to the point) for just recommending attendance life classes to pupils. It
was made very clear on the web page that not only would parental permission
be sought, but so would parental chaperonage. BTW a LOT of 16/17 year olds
are at FE colleges, not sixth formers.
>>
>>One assumes that even in the US adults are thought to be able to make up
>>their own minds about such things.
>>
>
> In general, yes.
>
> But some places in the US have very "conservative" views on nudity
> --
Of course, and I expect those places would regard art courses generally with
great suspicion. But you were suggesting that there would be a similar
reaction to this teacher here in the UK.
David.
:::Jerry::::
>
> > I've sat for life classes at an FE
> >college with students probably no older than 16 or so. I've no
idea what
> >sort of parental permissions were sought,
>
> I would be utterly amazed to discover that any school/college was
> allowing 5th formers/lower 6th formers (which is what 16/17 year
olds
> are usually) to take such classes without explicit parental
> permission.
Also remembering that the kids in the original incident were 14 / 15
year olds.
:::Jerry::::
<snip>
> >
> Parental permission is sought for almost everything these days. I
lost count
> of the number of parental permission forms I signed whilst my
children were
> at school. But that is a million miles from suspending a teacher
(to return
> to the point) for just recommending attendance life classes to
pupils. It
> was made very clear on the web page that not only would parental
permission
> be sought, but so would parental chaperonage. BTW a LOT of 16/17
year olds
> are at FE colleges, not sixth formers.
You keep going on about 16/17 year olds, the children involved were
in fact 14/115 year old, they were not in the UK but in the USA, so
in the context of the OP your experiences here in the UK are
irrelevant.
<snip>
> >
> Of course, and I expect those places would regard art courses
generally with
> great suspicion. But you were suggesting that there would be a
similar
> reaction to this teacher here in the UK.
>
Fish is also 3 quid a Kilo, in some towns, but that also hasn't
really got much to do about the original post!...
David Looser
>
> "David Looser" <david....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:48771dF...@individual.net...
> <snip>
>> >
>> Parental permission is sought for almost everything these days. I
> lost count
>> of the number of parental permission forms I signed whilst my
> children were
>> at school. But that is a million miles from suspending a teacher
> (to return
>> to the point) for just recommending attendance life classes to
> pupils. It
>> was made very clear on the web page that not only would parental
> permission
>> be sought, but so would parental chaperonage. BTW a LOT of 16/17
> year olds
>> are at FE colleges, not sixth formers.
>
> You keep going on about 16/17 year olds, the children involved were
> in fact 14/115 year old, they were not in the UK but in the USA, so
> in the context of the OP your experiences here in the UK are
> irrelevant.
>
It was you who first introduced the comparison with the situation here in
the UK. ("how many British schools would be advising that the students
should enrol on a such a course"). I talked about 16/17 year olds because I
don't know about 14/15 year olds. I don't see that there is any fundamental
difference between what would be appropriate in this context for 14 year
olds or for 17 year olds. At least I have some knowledge and experience in
this area, which, AFAICS, neither you nor Alex do.
Are you arguing that there *is* a vast gulf between 14/15 year olds and
16/17 year olds? In any case this is not critical to the argument. The point
is that this teacher was suspended for just SUGGESTING life classes to his
pupils. This, it was argued, was a "sexual" comment.
So Jerry (and Alex come to that) are either of you trying to say that the
school board were *correct* in interpreting a suggestion to a teenager that
they attend life classes as being "sexual"?. If not why are you arguing
against me?, what point are you trying to make?
David.