Is this age appropriate for year 1?

[Mavey9]

My child is in year 1 and is 5. They have recently been learning about Black History as party of Black History month. The teacher has chosen Nelson Mandela as the focus of this topic and has been teaching the children about Apartheid and what that entailed, and about Nelson Mandela's many years in prison separated from his family. I know this is an important topic but I feel this isn't age appropriate subject matter and is not the right age to teach concepts such as this. My child has grown up with no concept whatsoever of racial tension or discrimination and is understandably confused about this and worried too, especially about the prison bit. It's such a nuanced subject with a lot of adult concepts that it seems wrong to teach this to 5 year olds, or is it me that is being over sensitive? As an aside, they have also been previously learning about princess Diana and that she died in a car crash. It all seems a bit much for first half term in year 1 to me. Just keen to know what others think really. Thanks for reading.

My Y1 ds did Mary Seattle for Black History month, including enacting soldiers in the Crimea War.

Any subject can be taught in an age appropriate way, I would think?

I'm not sure that Apartheid can be. That's just confusing for 5 year olds. It's an adult construct and I think only serves to create problems where previously there was none by teaching it at an inappropriate age.

Apartheid can be taught in a very simple and easily understandable way - my 5 year old is a little obsessed by Nelson Mandela since she learnt about him and his struggle. We bought her a children's version of The Long Walk to Freedom when they did it earlier this term at school. School covered it incredibly well and as a South African I found it amazing just how well it was taught to 5 year olds.

I am confused as to how it can create problems? A simple story of how a man stood up to the government of a country because he didn't believe that because they were white they were any better than him. They sent him to prison and still he believed in his cause and in the end they realised he was right and they released him from prison and formed a new government were everyone was equal regardless of what colour their skin was. how will this create issues, it teaches children equality and how regardless of what their skin colour they are equal.

They won't go into details of riots, murders, bombings, police brutality.

I think it is actually complicated and not at all simple. If you look at it from a child's view point with no concept of race or white or black or even what the word government means, i can't see how it could be simple. Guess it's just me then!

I think it is actually complicated and not at all simple. If you look at it from a child's view point with no concept of race or white or black or even what the word government means, i can't see how it could be simple. Guess it's just me then!

Of course apartheid is an incredibly complex and nuanced subject. But it can be taught to 5 year olds in language and concepts that that are appropriate to them, just as pumpkin explains.

In the same way that 'growing beans' is taught at a level suitable for young children, not involving PhD standard microbiology.

Of course apartheid is an incredibly complex and nuanced subject. But it can be taught to 5 year olds in language and concepts that that are appropriate to them, just as pumpkin explains.

In the same way that 'growing beans' is taught at a level suitable for young children, not involving PhD standard microbiology.

I think that five year olds are cleverer than you think. I feel it's important to discuss racism. Young children can only challenge racism if they know what it is. I think I would prefer children to learn about Martin Luther-king and the history of slavery before moving on to South African appartite.

My Y1 child struggles with the concept that somebody could be sent to prison who isn't a 'baddie'.

So to teach as pumpkin suggests would create confusion and would necessitate discussions about how the authorities, although they make the rules, can be wrong and make wrong rules, and that sometimes the 'good' thing to do is to break the rules or even fight against them. (Hence being 'good' can get you into prison)

That you have to know for yourself what is good and right (rather than being told by, say, the law) and if the rules are wrong, you need to weigh up if it is bad enough to make you need to do something about it, or if it is a 'pick your battles' situation and you go along with it for the sake of peace.

And all this would of course be very relevant to a school child who is constantly dealing with rules, which are often arbitrary and may at times cause unnecessary suffering to themselves or to their friends.

So I would effectively be asking my child to not follow school rules when they feel wrong, except maybe sometimes it's better to follow them nonetheless.

Although I strongly want to encourage my child to have their own mind, I think this is a bit much to ask from a 5yo, so I agree with you OP. Purely from the perspective of teaching about civil resistance.

Children are often aware that there are countries with bad governments who do bad things. Realising how lucky we are to live in a democracy where everyone has equal rights is important. It feeds into topic of British values discussing the unfairness of apartheid. I would like school to talk about countries that have sexist laws like Saudi Arabia. Or countries where you can be hanged for your choice of religion.

Or you could empathise that what Mandela stood up against ie apartheid was wrong, and he was right to do this.

It's a bit different to a school rule about lining up quietly.

My son in reception has also been doing some stuff for Black History Month and he is totally confused. We live in London and friends, neighbours, school families are a real ethnic mix. I guess my son must notice different skin colour and he understands it's because people originate from different parts of the world but he had never questions it beyond that. Until Black History Month. He asked me the other day why only people with brown skin were good at things.

I agree with op and think it's a bit young. If anything it is creating an awareness of people's skin colour which wasn't there before. This can't be good can it?

I think ReallyTired's approach would have to be done extremely carefully and skilfully, because it risks conveying the message that '(some) other governments do bad things and make bad laws and it is good to resist them, but our government does only good things (and is thus superior -> we are superior)'. Which is dubious at best... And also would risk telling children that whereas others are doing the right thing by resisting wrong laws, we here must not as our laws (or school rules) are always 'right'.

It is not so simple as being a democracy making things right. SA considered itself a democracy. Switzerland considered itself a democracy (and was considered as such by the world) long before even half the adult population had the right to vote (women's right to vote introduced 1972 - incidentally, by a democratic vote (of the men only)). School rules are NOT democratically arrived at and yet we tell children to abide by them.

Christina, school rules may very well include something that is actually detrimental to some children's well-being. Usually not intentionally, but even benevolent dictators get it wrong sometimes. If a child notices e.g. that another child is being excluded by an arbitrary rule, I would hope that the child empathises that what is happening is wrong, and would think to act (e.g. tell a parent, question the rule with the teacher).

I still don't see how you can get around the issue of explaining that sometimes the rules are wrong and resisting the rules is the right thing to do.
Though maybe 5yos are more capable to handle this than I think?

What chapca said. I'm always wary of teaching children that racism is wrong before they have any idea it exists. And before everyone shrieks in horror, of course I think they need to understand that racism is wrong - but to me introducing it as a concept when there is no evidence of inappropriate dealings with other races/ethnicities is a bit like putting the idea in their head...

Children do have a concept of skin colour and differences, and ignoring racism and assuming (incorrectly) that children are "colour blind" has been shown to lead to more racist ideas not less. Explicitly creating an awareness of differences and equality issues leads to better outcomes.

Children who grew up under apartheid would have had a very clear idea about it at the age of five. Are our children less capable of learning and understanding than the children who had to see the injustices of the pass laws for themselves, or live in one of the 'homelands'?

Teaching apartheid historically and talking about racism now are two different things (obviously linked, but also able to be discussed separately).

Don't you discuss the merits/demerits/reasons for certain rules and laws with your chilren? Some are 'we might not agree but thems the rules' and others are 'I think we should say/do something about this' surely?

Maybe the topic of the suffergettes should be talked about. I feel its vital that children reaslise that historially racism was a huge problem in the UK. (ie. signs that said "no blacks, no irish" in the 1950s) Children need to know about people who fought for freedoms we take for granted.

I don't think that five year olds are ready for the full details, but a simple introduction to historial unfairness of racsim, sexism is not inappriopiate. Its easier to tackle racist attitudes picked up from their parents at five than fifteen.

I was 4 when NM was released from prison. I remember there being a newsflash saying he had been released that interrupted the mornings children's programmes, so obviously I had some questions. My mum explained it to me in an age appropriate way and I wasn't troubled by it at all.

Pretty much every bit of history is too complex to do in full and entire depth with primary children, that doesn't mean we should just leave all history till age 15 when they can cope with the gruesome details and complexity.

Fwiw dd was about 5 when she learnt racism existed, after a passing comment on tv led her to ask what the kkk was. Of course I didn't explain in graphic detail, but the rough outline was possible. And fwiw even now in y7, when she's aware of other aspects of racism, historical and current, in more detail, her basic take is the same as at age 5. ''but mummy why would a grown up think it matters what colour you are? Why didn't they just be friends?'. i.e she didn't understand why people would think race important age 5, and at 11 still doesn't see why people are stupid enough to think it does. Thinking racism is stupid and racists are bad people at an early age isn't a bad thing to learn imo.

This is an interesting study in racism and segregation. Though obviously it is a little dodgy in terms of ethics.

Mandela used violence at times.

"Mandela used violence at times."

So did the surragettes.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. However a young child's thinking is very black and white. I don't think a year 1 child is ready for such a discussion.