1
Luther Abel
Phil of Children
Professor Burdick-Shepherd
2/13/2021
IHRTLUHC
A Student and Her Teacher: A Discussion About What Should and Should Not Be Said
The world is a complicated place, and a teacher is often asked to make prudential
judgments at a moment’s notice. Whether the subject is the efficacy of specific economic
systems, school shootings, or civil unrest, a teacher must not only choose what to say but if to
speak at all. In most cases, there is no one correct answer, but instead a hierarchy of flawed but
well-intentioned choices depending upon several factors such as student age, maturity, parental
involvement, and the event’s impact upon the student body.
For instance, many teachers initially decided not to discuss the events of Jan. 6 with their
students, especially with younger children. The likely reasons for demurring from such a topic
are legion: wanting to protect the youth from the depravities in mankind for as long as possible,
lack of reliable information, not knowing how to broach such a politically divisive subject, or
because the kids did not bring it up themselves and so why provoke controversy needlessly?
There is no one correct way, but there are best practices gleaned from in-class pieces and
personal experience.
A teacher must first consider whether discussion of the event is necessary to broach in
class. After all, there are many heinous happenings in the world. It is neither wise nor in the best
interest of a child’s instruction to continually remind them of the evils perpetrated every few
seconds across the width and breadth of mankind at the expense of their lessons that will best
prepare them for emotional and material success upon graduation. However, a school shooting or
human trafficking in the region would not only be important for students to know of but have
2
immediate demands. After all, a teacher not informing his students of a shooting down the block
would be a fool not to mention this to his class. The teacher acts as a gatekeeper for his or her
respective students and would be wise to defer — barring the immediacy of a threat — to
parents immediately after an event occurs.
While some might balk at the suggestion of parents being the best means of a child’s
external information input, there are excellent reasons for allowing them the first opportunity.
For one, a parent is the most knowledgeable about his or her child’s emotional capacities and can
relay harsh realities with the highest likelihood of maximally informing the child and doing so in
a way that least erodes a child’s “secret place” as described by Martinus Jan Langeveld.
Second, a child’s moral development is not the realm of the state but of the church and
home. When evil events occur, it is the parent’s right and responsibility to inform his or her child
