Last Updated on: 2nd April 2014, 09:06 am
When I first saw a reference to this story, I freaked out. The reference was worded like this: “Cops: Puppy was dissected for high school biology assignment”. Then there were mentions of Animal Control. So, I thought some kids went and somehow obtained a live puppy from Animal Control, killed it, and cut it open. But that isn’t the story, not at all, and I’m left shaking my head.
The teacher wanted them to dissect an animal. It’s not clear where they were supposed to find the dead animal, but they were supposed to find and dissect it at home. It said at one point that they were to find a dead wild animal, but that was in the statement that said if they couldn’t find a dead wild animal, they could go get one from Animal Control, and the whole Animal Control part is being denied. Now people are freaking out because they dissected a dead puppy.
So…let me get this straight. Everybody would have been fine if they brought home some dead raccoon and sliced him open on the kitchen table? I don’t have a problem with the type of animal. I have a problem with the biology teacher telling kids to home-dissect animals. I see so many flaws. First, even if mom and pop sign a permission slip, they may not supervise as much as they should. Even if they do, they may not know how to make sure their kid doesn’t contaminate themselves in some way. Plus, I know the kid took pictures, but how is there any opportunity to explain things if they’re at home and the people around don’t know much about animal anatomy either? How is this educational?
Then there’s the matter of how the animal died. If it died and the type of death left it kind of, well, odd, then kids are learning on a flawed model of anatomy. Again, how is this educational? It’s kind of like teaching kids spelling and grammar based on recent issues of the Guelph Mercury.
Seriously. Is the school so broke that it can’t obtain proper specimens? This is a bad sign.
