DS 7 has been asked to pretend he is in the battle fields and about to go into war and write a letter home to his family for homework

[Lemith]

This terms topic is ww1, but this piece of work really takes the

I don't want my ds to be thinking about what it is like to go into war. This topic is not suitable for someone so young, war is a terrible thing and the people that survived it were mentally and physically scarred for life.

Aibu?

Sorry, dropped a few letters: 'over 415,000 hospitalised'

OP, I like the idea about telling him about conscientious objectors, and the fact that many people contributed to the war effort without hurting people, if you feel that it's more appropriate for your DC.

I've changed my mind after reading some of the contributions on this thread. I agree with those who are saying - what's the point of teaching something if it has to be watered down to make it remotely palatable and age appropriate? You wouldn't attempt to teach calculus or dissect a small mammal with a class of 7 year olds (at least I hope not, although british education seems to have gone a bit bonkers in recent years).

I remember learning about war at school at primary school, especially evacuation, and one of my main thoughts was "why did we have war, especially TWO of them?" (Perhaps that idiot Mr Bliar could have done with some of writing lines an essay about the reality of war, before going into one with such reckless abandon.)

On the subject of "would he be traumatised", and things being suitable for children, I remember that when I was 8 years old, my parents were very fond of the opera Candide, and they would frequently have it playing on tape in the car. Early on, it contained the following spoken narrative, delivered in a slightly comic tone (as it's a comic opera), accompanied by sad music:

"When Candide returned to the village, it had already been burned by the Bulgars, in accordance with the laws of war. Old men shattered by bullets watched as women died with their throats slit; babies had bleeding breasts. Young girls with their bellies torn out, having satisfied the needs of several war heroes. Others, so badly burned they begged for their lives to be brought to an end..." (just as the music rises to a dramatic peak).

No detail spared there.

I remember I once cried hearing it, having heard it quite a few times. I'm not sure if it was exactly traumatising, but I remember that scene particularly vividly.

YABU

At 7 they should know about wars and what they are, and why they are bad.

My 7 year old DS knew why we stay silent for two minutes in November. He was made to observe the silence.

He also knew about WWI, WWII, Boer War, War of the Roses and the Falklands. No he didn't know about he shell shock, the true horror of battle yadda yadda yadda but he knew they happened and the very basics of them (dates, who was involved, where they happened etc)

But he knew enough that it happened, we learn from it, and that it would be a sad time. I would not be upset at a 7 y/o being set this, because as many many people have said the letter will go something like this

"Dear Mummy.
I am going to World War I in France. I am sad. I will miss you. I will shoot a gun.
Love Freddie"

That would have been a writing exercise ds might have actually been keen to do for once. He's been interested in WW since he was about 4or 5 yo when he saw a spitfire.

I don't understand the argument that because you have to pitch it at seven year olds and therefore not in too much detail it isn't worth teaching?

Surely all history is taught with the age group in mind? Or is it only the world wars that we need to teach differently because they are more recent?

Ds reads a lot of history and we spend a lot of time discussing what it would have been like as an individual rather than just as 'a peasant' or 'a Roman soldier'

Me either byo. Using that logic then there's no point teaching them anything at 7 because they won't cover it in depth and fully understand it.
Personally I think the younger the better, small children tend to immediately grasp the stupidity of most atrocities, filling in the blanks can come later, but the first impression that war etc is stupid is a good one imo.
I'm also suprised people think ww2 is more appropriate at that age. Unless you completely ignore concentration camps, Hiroshima and the like its far more vile.

I agree byo- perhaps we should save it all up and surprise them when they're 15?!

YANBU . We were told off for letting the ds's play violent computer games and watching violent TV programmes (they never did by the way) whilst the HT conveniently ignored the fact that they were spending two terms teaching them about killing and death (WWII). May be controlled in the classroom but let's just say the playground games were not quite as well managed. We did point out it was probably not the most appropriate topic for an immature child having to cope with bereavement at home. Personally, I don't think there is any need to teach this sort of thing at Primary or at least not two terms worth anyway.

oneineight the difference between violent video games and learning about WWII is the exposure to graphic images and violent themes and the beiong rewarded for killing people

A child will copy the computer game, and what 7 year old should be exposed to 'realistic' gore, killing and shooting? it glorifies battle and 'nomralises' excessive violence.

Learning about history is NOT the same. Do we go "oh no, not MY Precious" when we learn about Egyptian Mummification or when kids learn about Roman Gladiators? No, because it's not graphic and actually it's important that children learn, in a controlled way, that the world isn't perfect, and there are he lessons to be learned.

Sure kids know the WWII happened and people died. But they aren't being exposed to the gory imagery, they aren't learning that killing humans is a game, they aren't being exposed to violence and then being rewarded for that. (you are rewarded in a game for killing, bu getting to the next level/area/etc)

Computer Games do that, there's a reason why CoD is an 18.

a 7 year old learning that WWII happened, some people died, and a lot of people were very sad is not the same thing.

Can you be 100% certain that any playground games that you deem inappropriate, were as a direct result of the WWII lessons, and were no way influenced by children being exposed to games such as CoD?

I remember having to write about what it was like being a soldier in the trenches in primary school, although I think I was 8. The teacher had talked about their being rats in the trenches. I was horrified by this idea and I think mainly wrote about that, and having lice. These were things I could imagine.

I think it is good for children to learn about horrific things gradually and in an age appropriate way. Otherwise it would be a terrible shock when older.

My dc did WW1 when they were 6/7 for poppy day. My DD got a bit upset but my mum talked to her about being a child living through the war and she knows her other Nan was an evacuee and it helped her a lot.

My son did a similar letter, they also made gas masks, dressed up and got evacuated to a living history evacuee centre for the day. He is a sensitive lad but wasn't traumatized by it. He has since been on a y6 trip to Normandy.

Of course I don't know what games other children played. I do know what mine played and it was definitely not COD or the like. I do know that one of the tasks of the two term project was to draw pictures of people in concentration camps. If that's not graphic I don't know what is.

Michael morpurgo does quite a good job here I think, for younger readers. You could buy him a copy of his little picture book, about the story of the Christmas Truce. That's definitely age appropriate.

Oolon I was deeply traumatised by having to follow the complicated instructions to build two gas masks before our ww1 reconstruction trip.

I well remember them emerging forgotten from the school bag in kit form the night before and having to get my scissors and string out late into the night!

We did the "interviewing grandma" project too - with photos etc - and funnily enough, my mum ended up in a dementia care home and for a long time, until her condition deteriorated completely, turning the pages of that little project with her was one of her main sources of pleasure and connection.

YABU - whether any of us like it or not, war is a fact of life, look at the news programmes and newspapers - or do you shield your PFB from 'real life'. I am sure, as everyone else says, he plays 'war type games' at breaks with other children, computer games are full of war stuff.

At least doing it this way the teacher is encouraging him to actually think and write about war, rather than playing with toy guns. Get a grip.

Well thanks all for your replies, no one has changed my mind. However I won't complain, we will however follow the suggestion of contributing to the war effort by not killing people.

There are many atrocious things that are part of life, I don't want someone at primary age to try to get into their mindset. Imagine asking someone of that age to write a letter about just having a serious assult and recovering from it.

Why is everyone so sure this particular activity is planned as part of the school's delivery of the history element of the national curriculum? It's more likely, imo, to have been set with the aim of meeting the Y2 composition objectives:

Develop positive attitudes towards and stamina for writing by:

writing narratives about personal experiences and those of others (real and fictional)
writing about real events
writing poetry
writing for different purposes

I wouldn't have a problem with it at all.

Both of my kids have had exactly this assignment. It never occurred to me to be upset - it's a great creative writing piece.

I think YANBU. Far too young.

Lemith, DS1 who is 8, has just read the children's version of Anzac Boys. He was in tears at bedtime after he had read the war scene, with so many of the characters dying. I questioned myself about the wisdom of buying this book for him to read. But, by the next day he was ok. Most children move on fairly quickly. If he were to think about it again, I'm sure he would be upset about it, but children don't tend to dwell on these things.

He refers to it as his favourite book now.

There are many aspects to WW1 and WW2 that can be taught to Y2/3s without being watered down to the point of being utterly trivialised that don't ask you to imagine being in the trenches; shortages and rationing, propaganda, morale, anything Home Fronty.

You are emphatically not teaching anyone about empathy or indeed war by letting them think cold feet is the biggest deal.

I told DS1 (4yo) about Hitler and how he was a nasty man who wanted to hurt people - we came across Hitler when reading about Captain America. We also visited the Atlantikwall in Belgium this summer and I told both DC about how there were soldiers here and they were fighting and it was very sad. DS1 was also keen to let refugees come and stay with us when he heard that they have nowhere to live.

I don't think 7 is too young at all. I have a fond memory of walking up the road with my neighbour and her 7 yo 4 years ago, in the week before Armistice Day. He said he'd been to the war memorial with his school to lay a wreath because 'there were soldiers and they saved the world for us and they died'. I still well up a bit thinking about it. He had an age-appropriate respect for the topic and it was good to see.