Who are "young people"?

[JustPassingThyme]

When you hear someone say "young people" who do you think they are referring to? Personally, when I hear the phrase "young people" I think of 18 to 25 year olds.

I have heard the phrase "young people" quite a few times now. It's always used by ether teachers, or government and media types.

They often use it in conjunction with children, so they say, "children and young people are ...". Teachers at secondary schools will refer to their pupils as young people.

So, is young people the new PC code word for teenagers? Why the change? Why is an 11 year old at the end of year 6 a child, but 3 months later at the start of year 7 a young person? Something about that just doesn't feel right.

In my book anyone under 18 is a child and should really be referred to as such. If a differentiation must be made, use teenager, because everyone still understands that teenagers are children.

It’s in the children and families act 2014
child = under 18
young person = over compulsory school age but under 25

Actually thinking about it the (1980s) Sweet Dreams books or Sweet Valley High used to say "YA" on the covers.
It's not really new in the book world.

What does a 13 year old have in common with a two year old?

It's silly to pretend that there is a watershed between child and adult, there is a long transition period in between which is neither adult- nor childhood but a transition, hence terms like teenager, young people, young adults.

A 13 year old and a 2 year old are both children with brains and bodies that aren't fully developed, whom require the care of a parent or guardian.

Terms like young people and young adults are incredibly ambiguous as proved on this thread. Where as everyone understands the age range teenagers refers to.

For me in my 40s I guess people of about 35 or below.
For someone of about 80 I'd imagine it could mean fifty-odd or below.
If I was 30 it would probably mean people still in school/college/under 21.

So "Young People" is better than "Young Adult" because if under 18s aren't adults we shouldn't really be calling them "adults".

In terms of publishing, there are distinct categories for different age ranges - except for teenage children who are lumped in with adults and referred to as adults 🚩.

And legally there is absolutely a watershed. An under 18 is not an adult, young or otherwise.

You’re blurring those lines 🚩.

Did they? I never read them but a quick google doesn’t show that they did.

Not that the 1980s were stellar in preserving the distinction between teenage children and adults…🙄🚩.

I read so many SVH books and watched the TV show but I have absolutely no memory of what happened in any of it. All I recall is the very pretty blonde twins, lots of California sunshine and everyone having a lovely tan and teeth.

Think I foresee a Google deep dive coming on.

I get the red flag concern, I do. But as others have pointed out Young Adult (YA) has been a reading category for a long time now because it gave a sense of increased independence, able to deal with more complex social issues etc in fiction. As a pp mentioned there is a legal definition too particularly for care leavers. If you decided "no, all these services / things aimed at 16-21 must use the term children" there will inevitably be those who decide not to engage with something that could be really helpful for them, because they don't see themselves as children.

I was a kid at 14, but at the time I thought I was practically grown. I can only appreciate how young and vulnerable I was in retrospect. Also consider the optics of naming things like a "children's sexual health service" or "children's drug addiction service" people could argue you're normalising teenage (or...young people) stuff to much younger children.

I don't think there is a neat answer that addresses both the perspective of adults and the perspective of those 16-21 year olds.

@Ddakji i found a picture of the covers.
These are the American editions but I remember the UK versions having the same "YA" on them.
(picture incoming)

Teacher here! It’s the latest buzzword and it grates on me when they refer to a student as a “young person “

Children - primary age and below
Young people - secondary school and students
Young adult - early 20s - working.

There are some crossovers but they’re just vague descriptions… I think they work well.

@Ddakji
"Not that the 1980s were stellar in preserving the distinction between teenage children and adults…🙄🚩."

Books like Sweet Valley High and all those teen romances were mostly very very wholesome compared to modern YA Books.
I don't think Sweet Valley High was corrupting childhood somehow.

No, I don’t mean the books, just generally speaking, so referring to teens as adults may not have run alarm bells in the way it should now.

A lot of YA books now are certainly as far from wholesome as you can get, which is fine when the reader is 23 and rather less fine when they’re 13.

And yes, I know we read Jackie Collins and Jilly Cooper, but the difference was they weren’t marketed and packaged to appeal to children.

Ah right, I didn’t look at the spines. I don’t know if they were repackaged for the UK, probably not.

Another fantastic thing we’ve imported from the US. 🙄

Why cant it be:

Children - primary age and below (11 and under)
Teens/Pre-teens - Secondary age to GCSE's (12 to 16)
Older teens - A-levels, Vocational Qualifications, Apprentice etc (16-18/19)
Young adults - University students, traveling, just entering the workforce (18/19-25)

I hate the blurring of lines and unclear language. I think it is dangerous and harmful to children. I agree with @Ddakji its a massive red flag. It's particularly concerning when the adult using said language is in a position of authority over a child.

What's wrong with Sweet Valley High as an American import?
Or do you mean the "Young Adult" phrase.
That's the thing in my youth (80s/90s) YA in books was just another way of saying "Teen" books.
Usually aimed at the 12-16 age group and published (like someone said upthread) the "Puffin Plus" books or "Lions Teen Tracks".
But it's more in the last decade or so that some YA fiction seems to be aimed at an older age group (up to early 20s) so while some YA books are fine for a 12 year old - some really aren't.
So "Young People" is definitely a much better phrase.
It's no longer calling under 18s "adults".
Although "teen" is perfectly fine to use. I don't know why we (society) don't.

When did people start using the phrase "young people"?

Our LA had a Division called 'Children and Young People' many, many years ago.
Under one of many changes, it became 'Children, Young People, and Families', and again, that is not a recent thing, but many years ago.

In regards to when I would use it, it depends on the context, but (no logic to it when you write it down, but) I would say 'Children and Young People' when referring to children and teens, but I would probably say 'Young Adults' when referring to people18 - 30ish .

I'm not referring to a 15 yr old who is taller than me, and who has gone through puberty as a child. The word 'child' conjured up a Primary School aged child, to me.

I work in residential social care and our children aged 12+ are referred to as young people.

In terms of education, section 83 of the Children and Families Act 2014 defines a young person as “a person over compulsory school age but under 25.”

And, for education, the definition of child is set out in section 579 of the Education Act 1996 as a person who is not over compulsory school age.

Exactly! So why are teachers using terms legally defined as for adults to refer to children? Why is there a culture at schools of treating children, actual 11 year olds, as if they are adults? At schools why is there the expectation that children act like adults?

I can never understand how an adult can view a child as anything other than a child (even if they have just gone thought puberty and are 6ft tall). It is beyond obvious when you look at or talk to a teenager that they are still a child in many ways.

If we follow the logic that 11-19 year olds are young people, then services for those aged 20 and older should start referring to their services users as old people. What about not so young but not yet old people? Middle aged people for 25-35 year olds? Decrepit people for services for anyone age 50 or above? Ancient ones for anyone over pension age?

It’s ridiculous and dangerous to refer to children as anything but children. Particularly in the context of adults providing services for children.

Considering that a 17 year old can legally get a job, have sex, drive a car and join the armed forces I feel to call them a child is disrespectful.
Young person is a nice way to refer to that in between stage of life.

to answer the original question. I class young person as being age 16-21

I understand it to be a category of the whole.
So if we class people as a whole as 0-80years, then young people to me would be the first part, say under 30 , whatever.
It would be the opposite end to “older people” which would be say 65+.
However, because the age range 0-30 has the largest differences in terms of physical and intellectual range compared to any other age group, then it’s obvious that sub groups are required, hence primary aged child, preteen , teenager , young adult.

If we say young adult, then I’d be taking the section 18-80years, and referring to those who had been an adult for a relatively short so say 18-30 age range. it refers to the experience of adulthood.