AIBU to be mortified school informed my 5 year old about the terrorist incidents?

[Mumofone1970]

My son is in Year 1 but one of the youngest so is still 5.
Yesterday at school the teacher explained what had happened over the weekend to the class and they did a one minute silence.
I had not spoken to my son about it.
He is 5 years old, I work in London daily and I didn't think him having the weight of that worry was necessary.
I am appalled the school took it on themselves, without asking persmission to tell him.
I only have the one child so this is new to be but so far I am less than impressed with the school system in general but this is above and beyond all my other small issues.

Once they are out in the world mixing with peers and bigger kids they are going to hear about things you might have hidden from them at home. Or their teachers might discuss something age appropriately that's happened in the world. From terrorist attacks, tooth fairy/santa, to sex. You cant control it anymore, all you can do is explain to them age appropriately

YABU to be angry about the school discussing recent events (in an age appropriate manner) that DC will hear about anyway.

But mostly YABU for using 'mortified' wrongly. This seems to be disturbingly common, an acquaintance of mine does it on Facebook. Mortified means feeling extreme embarrassment, as in you want to die (mort) of embarrassment. I think you mean horrified or similar from the context.

I work in an infant school and we have not spoken about the recent incidents, nor past ones, officially with the children. We took advise from the LEA and other agencies and agreed it was not in the children's best interests.

Instead we have agreed, and have some documentation/resources to support, that if children ask specific questions regarding these matters we will answer them accurately and honestly, but in a child appropriate manner.

I personally don't think it is appropriate to have a formal assembly or class time, with infant aged children, based on the events unless the school community itself is directly involved in some way.

My 4 year old was told today in a very simplistic way, its probally best as we live in London, led to a conversation at the dinner table with the 10
Year old, I told him chances are it will never happen but if caught in an attack he should run and hide and I will find him.
Sad but necessary.

Was talking about this very subject with my parents the other day. They saw no need to 'shelter' us from the IRA bombs when we were children. We always watched newsround and radio 4 was always on. Tell children in an age appropriate way, but they still need to know. I would have no problem with a minutes silence even with very young children.

I only knew there were such rude replies due to a few private PMs!
Anyhoo of course I meant horrified, mortified as many have pointed out, means embarrassed or ashamed which makes no sense in this context.
I'm not sure I have much to add, I think it's a very sad state of affairs children are not able to be children and are watching the news at age 5.

Not actually sitting watching it OP, I just never bothered to turn it off specifically to shield them from particular stories.

If they did ask questions they got age appropriate answers. They didn't ask very often.

Nobody has said 5YOs should be watching the news. What we have said is that it's important that 5YOs hear important stuff that's happening in their communities from a responsible adult who can explain it in an age-appropriate way, rather than from other 5YOs who may not understand if themselves and who will present it in a scary way.

It is impossible to shield your child completely from the world. Nor should you seek to imo

And everyone correcting the op's vocabulary. I think she's got the idea by now. Give it a rest s stop being so fucking tiresomely rude.

Shesabrick she quite obviously means horrified. I bet you're not quite so high and mighty rude correcting vocabulary with your friend on fb when you don't have a screen name to hide behind

I have sympathy with you OP

I hadn't told my children of a similar age. They don't watch the news. I decided they had their whole lives to worry and understand about horrible things like terrorism.

And then the same thing happened . School had a 1 minute silence and conversation.

I did wonder whether I was annoyed but in hindsight I think it's fine - good - they did this.

(Not aimed at OP but reply to another poster)

I often see people using [mortified] when they seem to mean 'furiously angry' and wonder why? Not a snide comment, I am genuinely curious because it seems to be widespread. I am wondering if it's a regional variation of some sort?

I think it's just a misconception based on the fact that a common source of the kind of extreme embarrassment which might cause someone to feel mortified could be the actions of another person, for example a spouse or friend or child, which would make you both embarrassed and angry.

So they say "I couldn't believe he said that in front of everyone. I was mortified" or "My children were behaving atrociously and I was mortified" - and the listener incorrectly deduces anger rather than embarrassment as being the synonym for "mortified", or possibly deduces that "mortified" means "so embarrassed that it made me very angry". They proceed to use it in this manner, because it's a good strong sounding word, and other people hearing them use it in this way who haven't come across the actual meaning also take on the incorrect meaning, which causes it to spread. Then this is strengthened by the fact that (again) several things which make people angry are also very embarrassing, so they might use mortified, to them meaning angry, but in a context where embarrassed would also fit and hence nobody corrects them, meaning by the time that someone does notice it's wrong, it's so entrenched in the false meaning that they don't immediately accept this.

See also "could of" (runs away)

YANBU, I am extremely politically engaged, my children are years 5 and 4, I felt no compunction to tell them about this. Why would you?

Why would you tell them the world is not full of surety if you didn't have to?

There's enough time to learn but very little time to feel secure and safe in your world, and I do think a secure grounding makes for an adult who can look at the World from a very unbiased POV. And we need those.

I tried to shield my DD, now age 7, from the Westminster attacks, purely because the policeman who died was the one we had met and she had her photo with when we were in London not long ago. It's increasingly difficult to shelter kids from the news, especially in times of news websites and rolling news channels on TV.

It would have been very easy Dixie for your DD to have not know about that surely?

I agree with you OP. I don't see why a 5 tear old needs to know about it. I know mine would be mulling it over for days and I'd rather wait another year or so. I'd be annoyed if his school had done that without letting parents know in advance.

I don't think anyone actually wants to tell their children.

It's a weighing up of several bad choices, and those that have talked with their children have weighed up the possibilities and decided that they'd rather take control of what and how their children are told to minimise the impact. And those that haven't have weighed the probabilities and have decided that they can minimise the chances of others telling their dc.

Everyone is having to make those kind of decisions, and it's the evil fuckers who have committed these awful crimes that are responsible for the tough choices we have to make.

DD is 6 and she knew what had happened. We explain age appropriate. We explain the risks of it happening. How some people are bad. But that many many people are good.

We talk about the amazing emergency services that help and all the good people who are saving lives.

We watched the concert raising money for those that died and were injured. It's important to balance the bad news with the positive too. She is very aware of strangers and the world around her, but not so much so that she is scared or worried.

With my teen, we discuss everything in more detail. He usually reads the news himself anyway. Important to keep up with what's going on in the world.

I'm sure the school gave basic age appropriate info.

Sad we live in a world where we have to talk about this. But I grew up completely shielded from any news or radio. What a shock when I went into the real world...and that's why I'm different with my kids.

My daughter is 7 year 2 and she likes to watch the news whilst eating her breakfast and myself and her father have no problem with this.
We live in East London and unfortunately we cannot avoid or keep what has happened from our daughter as her school have discussed the terror attacks in detail in assembly and they have held one minutes silence on 3 separate occasions.
We also watched the concert in Manchester together on the tv and she asked me to call and donate money for the children that died there and never went home to their families.
So in my opinion it is very important for our children to know what is happening in their City ( London,Manchester) and the World around them.

avamiah. I assume you mean the normal news, not newsround. I've read several articles online by psychologists, some advising to tell a young child and a couple saying not to. However, the message was very clear that we should not repeatedly expose primary school children to the graphic images constantly on the news at the moment. I totally understand in your situation and why you would tell your dd. I just wanted to share the information about repeated exposure to these graphic images. This morning I've watched footage on sky of the moment the terrorists were shot dead. The advice seems clear not to expose a young child to such footage.

YABU.
I could read fluently before I went to school, I started aged 5. Reading has been a passion and a huge comfort in my life.

I read the Daily Mirror every day and another paper at my grandparents. (I have a terrifying feeling it was the Express, but the media hadn't invented celebrity culture so I think it might have some news in it)
I was born in the 1950s, there were stories of the atrocities committed in the war, of Japanese prisoners of war, of the concentration camps. Terrible things were happening across the world. The effects of dropping nuclear bombs still resonated and the Cold War was in full swing.
If I didn't understand I could ask my mother and she would reassure me, while teaching me to have empathy for those caught up in these situations. Teachers at school were the same.
Would I let my young grandchildren read these stories in the newspapers today? No, because there is such a desire for intimate details, for invading privacy, for sensationalism

Would I discuss the latest incidents with them? Of course, they are exposed to what's happening in the world, through social media and through their peers. I would far rather they hear a simple truth when adults can reassure them than pick up scraps of information in the playground.

(I wonder if I was as much of a precocious brat as I sound? I suspect I was 😉)

My DS is in reception- he will be 5 next week. He's quite sensitive,you think he's fine then later he says something that shows he's been worrying.
We really didn't want to tell him. We grew up not being told about the IRA and all the horrible things going on in the world then )early 80s).
The world is different now though, the media is everywhere and the last thing I wanted was for him to hear about it elsewhere, not from us.
When Manchester happened we were on holiday outvof the country so we chose not to mention it. London was the day before school started though. We decided to tell him in 4 year old terms. We said we were a bit sad because some naughty baddies hurt some people in London but the police got them very quickly and everyone is safe now. We didn't use terms like kill. He didn't seem phased, but he watches rescue based tv like Rescue Bots!
I spoke to school on the Monday to find out what they would be saying. They were brilliant imo. They deal with these things class by class. The head said the year 6s they can have a good discussion about democracy etc but reception would just mention if the children asked, in an age appropriate manner. He agreed we don't want children to be worried and scared by this.
My opinion is that if school are going to bring it up they should let you know, maybe by email, so you can chat to your child first. If schools feel the need to mention, have a silence etc that's fine but parents should know in advance, even just by email the day before, that it's going to happen.

Bertiebotts great explanation.
I've often wondered this. I have a friend who misuses this word. She's a university educated professional. I've never corrected her, even though it is infuriating, because I don't want to be a patronising twat embarrass her. Hopefully she sees this thread!

As I've already said. I meant horrified - I was typing quickly at the time
Just to reiterate, school did not only not tell us in advance but also did not tell us they had done so after the event either. It was only because the children told us that we had any clue.

So you are horrified tje school had to do the job for you? So you should be. HTH!