"My parents dont let me watch the news": reflections on 11+ interviews I have carried out

The majority of posters seem to have missed this:

Surely watching the news at 6 etc or online or even Newsround is basic preparation for life? (or school interview at least?)

Indeed. But why let the truth get in the way of a satisfyingly indignant response? Whether I let my dc read the news age 10 or not, I'd certainly have chatted with them about a few current issues before sending them off to an interview. I never watch the tv news, but I do talk to my children about current affairs.

I wonder how many of these kids who are being sheltered from the news also have mobile phones? If they are not in social media they soon will be by the time they reach secondary school. IMO this is far more likely to impact young people negatively than watching the 6pm news with parents who can explain and discuss what is happening.

So can I ask which themes are unsuitable for 11yos ?
False allegations of sexual assaults
Using false allegations as a death threat
Many of the representations of women

Teaching OMAM to 11 year olds sounds like the curriculum decision is being made based on what books are in the store cupboard rather than what offers a good quality, age-appropriate study of literature.

I don't think it's making 11 year olds vulnerable to select any one of the brilliant books that are age-appropriate over selecting the one you have loads of copies of from when the GCSE specification changed.

I don't think the news is an appropriate things for children to watch at all. Details of murders, missing people, genocides, children starving to death, bridges collapsing. There are some really awful things discussed in detail on the news that are not suitable for small ears. There is so much bias and very little positive.

I don't watch the news, if I do after a few days my mood gets very low. I flick through a news website daily, that's it.

Newsround is okay - they watch that at school and we discuss it if they come home with questions. Anything more I think will have mental health repercussions.

We are a family of academics and have bright children, they don't need to watch the news. Do you encourage these young people to think critically about the news item they discuss with you?

Also reflecting on this (and I do need to get on with my day shortly) we all were familiar with the Bible from a very young age, where there is plenty of murder (of babies even, Herod anyone ?) some rape and lots about sex. So I that sense we were quite worldly. I do worry about these 11 year olds who are totally protected from such things, I can't help thinking it makes them vulnerable.

If not Austen what about Blake or Forster ?

If don't study it till yr 10 when do you do Shakespeare, Dickens and Austen

Hopefully never, in the case of Austen.

If the aim is to teach OMAM but do it in an age appropriate way, then for an 11 year old that means to ignore a lot of the book's context and to gloss over many of the representations in the text.

So can I ask which themes are unsuitable for 11yos ? Obviously we did it too young so I may not truly understand. The depression of the '30s had great resonance in '88 in Thatcher's Britain, so I don't think we struggled too much with that. We understood the co-dependancy of the 2 men and spoke about other examples both in literature and film but also in our lives of such relationships. We already had an understanding of the apartheid system and slavery (thanks to South Africa and Nelson Mandela, also opening scene of Dumbo and Gone with the Wind). Rape was as it is now constantly in the news and there was a particular case I remember of a 14 yo girl from NI who was refused to come to the UK for an abortion following a rape. Then there is the concept of merciful killing, with echoes of euthanasia, which we also debated regularly.

Can I ask what you do think they should be taught in yr 7 (age 11/12) ?
I think I also did Aldous Huxley brave new world and animal farm (again the cold War connection ?). Possibly Educating Rita ? I see a lot of Micheal Morpugno recommended for this age- those themes are quite complex too.

Of mice and men is recommended for 11+/12+ on most websites.
On most? Really?
Having taught it for years that seemed unlikely and when I looked at popular bookshops they don't age rate it.
Then I looked at what various reading systems rate it and it gets categorised as anywhere between 2nd/3rd grade through to upper high school depending on how the reading systems scores texts (e.g. some systems score more on decodability of the words, not the content of the book).

mathanxiety

I agree with you and would be unimpressed if my DC was taught OMAM in Year 7.

There was a big discussion when OMAM was removed from GCSE about where it should be taught because of the themes. Consensus generally rested around Year 9.

If the aim is to teach OMAM but do it in an age appropriate way, then for an 11 year old that means to ignore a lot of the book's context and to gloss over many of the representations in the text.

Of mice and men is recommended for 11+/12+ on most websites.
If don't study it till yr 10 when do you do Shakespeare, Dickens and Austen ? Remember many British DCs won't do any literature after aged 16.

I had the most wonderful and supportive parents, DM was right there every afternoon, watching the news beside us. She was a teacher herself and quite polictally aware. Actually all my friends parents were, many were journalists, discussion of politics and/ or current affairs was in the air we breathed. We also listened to a news radio show in YR5 and discussed the topics in class. This was the 80's in London so IRA bombings and the cold War were part of our lives. It was thought important that we understood the situation in NI and why the IRA was angry, why the miner's were striking, the background to the cold War. By the time the wall fell in 1990 we could join in the celebrations as we really understood what it had represented. We were desperate to vote from about aged 14 onwards, which was why the Labour landslide following my first time was so special. Vis a vis the Ethiopian famine, we collected for CAFOD the Catholic charity, it inspired some of us to go and do aid work overseas, the abiding emotion was upset yes, but also an overwhelming desire to help. Again somewhat religious but also to " count your blessings" and perhaps make us slightly less materialisticIn the same vein we were sent ( by the school) to help out in a homeless shelter aged 14 so saw destitution and alcoholism first hand. I think our parents felt it was their duty to raise well informed, engaged citizens.

As for mice and men I think both my DCs covered it in year 7 (aged 11 or 12), we also read other upsetting/ unsuitable books- Virginia Andrews anyone ? Tales of the city, Lord of the flies and the whole Agatha Cristie cannon- I don't think our parents had a clue. These were all aged 10-14 ish, so M&M didn't seem so shocking or out place.

For the record there was plenty of mucking about on bikes, trips to the swimming pool, falling into rivers as well as I said it doesn't have to be either or.

I do not advocate throwing DCs in at the deep end at all it is a conscious process of news round at KS1, by the end of KS2 DC should have a clue about what is going on in the world. Of course this should all be supported by discussion with trusted adults. I do worry that some posters find the news so anxiety producing, what this might mean for thier DCs, that the world is a terrifying place.

I have 2 DC now 18 and 16. One has and has always been more polictally aware than the other. He was incensed he wasn't allowed to stay up for the 2015 election (aged 11), he certainly knew what was happening and had an opinion. In 2016 we all discussed Brexit endlessly and he could understand the various arguments, he was heartbroken with the result (aged 12). As family we all watched the ensuing chaos and by 2019, he was giving me updates about parliament being porouged etc. By the time corona virus hit, it absolutely didn't occur to me that the DCs aged 15&12 wouldn't be fully informed. I think it would have been more frightening if there was no run up and your school just suddenly closed?

My philosophy has always been not to hide anything from the DCs but to discuss in an age appropriate way. There is lots of evidence that knowledge and understanding reduces rather than increases anxiety.

@Dyslexicwonder

Of Mice and Men is regarded as 9th and 10th grade reading material in the US. That is to say, teens aged 14-15, and within that cohort, kids whose reading level will mean they'll be ready for university level literature studies at 18.

It's absolutely not digestible by children who are in year 7. And the same goes for The Handmaid's Tale.

Being able to decode words and understand vocabulary doesn't mean being able to process what you're reading. Exposing children to literature they can't emotionally and psychologically process has no educational benefit whatsoever.

This isn't a case of wrapping children in cotton wool. A syllabus has the task of creating appropriate scaffolding, incremental exposure to complex themes and scenarios, and not pushing children through themes they can't deal with, acknowledging that there is zero benefit to taking the express train. The journey is important here.

Your investment in dropping children in at the deep end is obvious here. Did you have someone available to you to talk about the images of famine and nuclear disaster that you were exposed to, back when you were a child?

My kids were asked "what are your favourite subjects and why". ", What hobbies do you have. Tell me about them". " Why do you want to come to the school and what are you looking forward to about it". " Do you have any pets". And things like that. My youngest chatted about their love of the Famous Five.

They were not asked about their views on the events in the News. They were in primary school.

Not all academic kids are well versed in the news at age 10. As the OP should realise
Exactly this. It's quite concerning if someone who apparently assesses children's academic potential is so clueless about assessment that they fail to realise their own assessment questions aren't fit for purpose.

My DD is 6.5 I don’t let her have free reign of the news but I tell her in a more diluted way what’s happening - Ukraine, Nicola Bulley & strikes are the current ones.

She is still traumatised at Adalia Rose story that popped up on YouTube even though I have restrictions on!

Not all academic kids are well versed in the news at age 10. As the OP should realise.

A) Why is it shocking to discuss it on the internet? It’s anonymous.

B) These kids are trying to get into an academic private school. That’s why the OP is surprised. It is normal to make your your kids are prepped for school interviews, otherwise they probably won’t get in.

If this is true, I am more shocked that you think its OK to discuss this on a public Internet forum. Also, most teachers I know are intelligent enough to realise that kids are all very different and wouldn't be shocked by this at age 10. Nice try.

I agree with this. We all complain that our dc grow up too fast, stop playing with toys far too early, get into tech/social media/clothes/make up from a young age, yet we actively encourage them to take on the worries of the world. Childhood is short enough, it should be happy and carefree.

Drfosters
I think it's about knowing your children and knowing your parenting style isn't it.

You've done that and it works for your children, whereas I don't have the adult news on around them and we still talk about different world issues, read books, look at news for children.

It's a problem if children reach their teen years unable to talk about life beyond their street/town, but below that there's so many valid approaches that an interview process assuming families only follow one is a flawed interview process.

I feel really sorry for a child with lots of interests and general knowledge who might panic when put on the spot about a recent news event.

I genuinely find it fascinating how different families can be. We don’t watch a lot of Tv but if I’m in the house we pretty much have the TV tuned to a 24 hour news channel. I have done this my entire adult life so both my kids have always had the news on in the background even from babies. They don’t always actively watch it but it’s on and so will ask questions if they see an interesting story. We’ve talked about the war, interest rates, strikes recently. We have also discussed politics from quite young. But then again they have no anxiety about anything so I’ve never needed to shield them. I suppose I’m quite lucky in that respect.

I wouldn't expect a kS2 child to give a monkey's about either of those 2 topics was just trying to give some examples that really aren't designed to inspire fear.

Is that how you would describe newsround or the 6 or 7 O clock news ?Really? coverage of the budget ? Or the clusterfuck which is the Northern Ireland Protocol ? these things are designed to instill fear ?

Not newsround, but the 6 o clock news regularly has content that I wouldn't choose to expose primary aged children to.

It would be much better if the OP, instead of assuming the right kind of naice families all sit around the news, asked the children they interview what issues they care about, instead of asking a key stage 2 child their views on the Ukraine situation or whatever topic the OP decides to throw at a child.

I know many children who care about the oceans, recycling, saving energy, conservation, donating to the local food bank, the importance of local charities or causes close to their family's heart. Some are interested in science or history and the developments in those areas. One child I know is fascinated by space exploration. Their families talk about topics with them, support the child to develop their interests, they get children's news publications or NatGeo kids or books on the topics they're interested in. They might not sit around watching the goings on in the budget at the age of 9, or had daily updates on Putin's foreign policy, but they are kind, rounded children who enjoy learning.

Is that how you would describe newsround or the 6 or 7 O clock news ? Really? coverage of the budget ? Or the clusterfuck which is the Northern Ireland Protocol ? these things are designed to instill fear ? Not doing a great job then are they ? Now channel 4's it's a sin, breaking bad or the hand maid's- yes. Also do they not still do " viewers may find this disturbing" warning anymore ?