To think this is wrong for an 8yr old to be asked to say in assembly?

[gingerbiscuitandacuppatea]

DD (age 8 in yr 3) is doing a UNICEF assembly soon about child labour. They are reading out some examples of children's experiences, like carrying rocks up a hill, looking after cows etc.

my DD's lines include

"She used to slap me and shout at me. One day she poured petrol over me and set it alight. I rushed to the sink and splashed water over myself so luckily I wasn't too badly burned. They gave me cream for my burns and locked me in my room."

Would you be happy about your 8 year old being given those lines? I'm not happy that she now knows about people doing something so horrible, surely children this age do not need exposing to this at school?

I think it is really important that children are aware of how their lives are different to others and how we in Western society are lucky to live the lives we do.

As a teacher, I often discussed news articles with my year four pupils, but I generally used First News, which is a newspaper for children. I have no problem with discussing news events with children because it is important for them to have an awareness of the world around them.

I also wouldn't have a problem letting children of mine watch the news, lunchtime news, the six o clock news. There are generally censored images. I think a child hearing that soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan with footage of men in uniform is a lot different than being asked to imagine a child having someone pour petrol on them and then being set on fire.

As a teacher, I would probably have substituted the line. In my classroom I would have no problem teaching children that there are others out there that are being hurt by people they trust and that we can perhaps help them. To me, though, there is a world of difference between saying

"We are very lucky here because there are people that we trust to look after us and they do it well. Other children in other situations aren't so lucky - they are made to work all day in xyz conditions and sometimes they are hurt and not looked after properly."

and

"There are children out there who have petrol poured on them and are set alight. There are children who have their bones broken on purpose. There are children who are so malnourished that they will die a slow, miserable death. There are children who are being raped and horrifically mutilated, can you imagine it? Imagine the blood and gore and pain."

There is a difference between specific images and general facts, and for me the fire line is a specific image that is not necessary.

I think the precise wording of your DDs lines is too strong for an 8yr old but the general subject matter (child labour) is entirely age appropriate. I think our children need to understand that they are very privileged to live ion a safe country and that not all children are so lucky.

I am quite surprised at the amount of censoring of news that has been mentioned. We often have the news on, either TV or radio and my DDs (9 & 7) will pick up the paper if they get a chance. We've discussed many things with them including war, murder, abduction etc and I think it's appropriate that we should - they'll only hear it from someone else if we don't and I'd rather be in control of what they hear. The only thing we haven't discussed with them is rape since they don't yet know about sex so I wouldn't be able to explain the concept to them.

JCW, something you've said just reminded me of something. The words being too strong - thats it exactly. They reminded me of one of those charity adverts where the child is seen but an adult is doing the voice over because perhaps the words are too much for the child - too graphic.

I also wouldn't have a problem letting children of mine watch the news, lunchtime news, the six o clock news.

It's amazing how different people are! There is no way I would want to have to explain to DS what "gang rape" is. Which comes up regularly on any news programme. It's not just about images. Even I explained it in a simple, non-graphic way, why would I even want him to hear this at 7? Aside from understanding how lucky they are and that life isn't great for many people here and around the world, I think they should remain children for as long as possible. There's plenty of time for hearing about all the utter shit in this world when they're older.

child hood is gone so fast, we all have a duty to make our children aware of the plight of others, certainly, my daugter has a sense of the wider world...

however I do not see how ramming her with brutal facts like this is going to make her even more a better future member of society....at 8?

dont get it sorry.

I always turn off EE or corrie or the news...

You can still 'be a child' and know about the unpleasant things that go on in the world. Children will find out far, far more than we think they 'need' to know at school etc and I would rather my DS be told about gang rape by DH and I than hearing it in the school playground by some older children trying to be 'cool'. .

Awareness is everything, unfortunately part of protecting our children from these things is teaching them about it, and that it's wrong.

As a pp said, it's a very visual and visceral image and I'm not sure that is appropriate for 8-year-olds. I was very sensitive as a dc and so are my dc's. We talk about current affairs and about children being mistreated but I wouldn't use such language with them. I don't know what's to be gained by presenting such a strong image to children.

Also, I'd be concerned about the suggestion of putting water on a petrol burn or petrol fire. It's exactly the wrong thing to do and dc's are so suggestible. I remember as a child reading a comic where a girl survived a car crash by crouching down and I always wondered if that would work.I still remember it now!

YANBU on that specific point OP. I think that particular detail is not age-appropriate for 7/8 year olds. I think they can understand UNICEF's core message without that level of distressing detail.

And yes, many children in the world aren't protected from witnessing horrors. But they all should be, and that's no reason to seriously distress a child where they can be protected.

My children "did" the Atlantic Slave Trade a couple of times in primary, starting in Reception, with an age appropriate level of detail in each case but making it clear that the physical and emotional suffering and cruelty involved was very great. I was fine with that. I would not have been fine with them being shown Twelve Years a Slave.

So many people confuse "being a child" and "innocence" with "ignorance"

have not read the whole thread but FWIW I think that's far too strongly worded in the OP - by all means our children need to be educated that they are very lucky and that lots of bad things happen that society and world leaders need to try to obliterate - you can even go as far as telling them about child labour, and that some adults deliberately bully and hurt children, that some children are always hungry, have no parents, have incurable disease, have fled their homes because of war etc etc but there's absolutely no need to make them read horrific graphic, frightening things that may give them nightmares! Even if the child doing the reading can cope with it and be unaffected, what about all those hearing ?

FGS there was a thread the other day saying kids should not be taught the names of their private parts because there was no need for them to know the real names till they were older - talk about going from one extreme to the other.

I don't know what's to be gained by presenting such a strong image to children.

This. Some children won't be distressed by it, some will. The ones who are not distressed by it are not gaining so much that it's worth overlooking the ones who will really struggle to come to terms with it.

Nothing wrong with an 8 year old learning about child labour/child slavery but what the OP has quoted is far too graphic in my opinion. An 8 year old does not need the graphic details and image of a child being burned alive in their head to understand the significance of child labour.

So many people confuse "being a child" and "innocence" with "ignorance"

Perhaps Hakluyt, but I don't think anyone here is.

I am genuinely interested to know how people manage to shield their children from the news. After all, you can refuse to switch on the television/radio at home but what about everywhere else? There are headlines everywhere, in shops/newspaper seller stands/ some dr’s surgeries have sky/bbc news on/many shops have radio on with news headlines, and once a child reaches reception/y1 they are able to read these things for themselves.

I remember my ds once reading a sign on a pharmacy window which said something like “Chlamydia is a symptomless disease, and you might have it.” Even before he could read there were pictures which might point to news stories. When Madeleine Mccann went missing he was 3.5, and there was literally no escape from it because there were find Madeleine posters everywhere and people were talking about it in the park/outside preschool etc.

I think that protecting children from the news is a bit like shielding them from sex by not talking about it. They will find out anyway and in a perhaps more graphic or perhaps even inaccurate way.

I don't think being concerned about these words is about being mimsy or over-protective or trying to hide from reality. I just don't think it's age-appropriate. Very upsetting - as TwllBach said, there are ways of covering these topics that are OK for 8 year olds, and there are ways that are not right. This is not right, IMO.

I was a parent helper a while back and one of the boys (from a naice family) told me all about how he plays GTA5 That worries me. Kids producing a UNICEF assembly doesn't. Things like this spark empathy in children. As a PP said, there will have been lots of preparation for this. Yes, it's horrible to say but it's even more horrible that it happens. I'd like to think that part of the education my and other DCs get will equip them to improve the world just a bit when they grow up. I realise this is rather idealistic, but hey...

I have discussed sex in an age appropriate way with my children. I have discussed violence in an age appropriate way with my children, and war, and theft and natural disasters etc. I am not shielding them from all things negative, just choosing how I give them this understanding.

I don't need to shield as there's not much out there that is as graphic and immediate as a child learning these lines and therefore thinking about this horrific act.

Everything else is watered down background noise in comparison.

And I get the news from radio 4, not the TV.

I wouldn't want my 8 YO reading that. Yes, they need to teach them that people are suffering but they do not need an 8 YO to read out such horror.

yes, me too Marsha. They never see tv news.

Yanbu one of my 10 year olds would have been upset by that.He can't help it and no he isn't sheltered.

Sorry as a former teacher I think there was no need.The petrol was far too much.Not seeing the benefit of such graphic scenes of the need to upset children in order to teach them about child labour.

I would be fine with it.
Even my DS who has ASD which makes him fixate on things.
Because I want my children to be aware of the world around them and how lucky they are in comparison to millions of children.

A few moments sadness is nothing compared to the grinding misery that so many children live in.

Has anyone considered that being upset by upsetting things is absolutely fine?