Stupid school rule?

[upsideup]

DC's school recently introuduced an hour of silent reading per week, dd absolutely loved this (DS doesn't but it has encouraged him to read more). Untill now they have been taking in a book from home, DD10 who spends hours reading for pleasure anyway takes in the book shes reading at home. I dont choose her books and I am also not strict about what she reads, was already aware that some of the books she enjoys were targeted at an age range slightly above hers.
We have had a letter home saying that dd's book this week was rated as 14+ so is not suitable to be read at school and I should send her in with a book suitable for her age so under 10's as teachers are not going to be closely monitoring what books the children are reading. That is ridiculous right?
She had not told us this all week as shes worried shes in trouble with the teacher but her book was taken off her and she was given a random book from the libary by the teacher which is not the sort of thing she likes and was too 'babyish' for her so she spent the whole lesson doing nothing.
To be clear the books she is reading are young teen fiction books, not gory or sexual true crime books, theres maybe mentions of kissing or mild swearing but nothing harmful or frightening for a 10 year old to hear, mine atleast and as its silent reading and not being read aloud surely its nobodies business what shes reading and it should be mine and her dads decision if its suitable or not for her, not the teachers?
We are going stuggle to find a book aimed at under 10s that she enjoys and I also have know idea how to find out what age rating a book has and surely its just a reccomendation to what age group may enjoy the book not a strict rule?
I can see the benefit of quietly reading at school and definately not one of the many parents who complained when the silent reading was introduced but what benefit is forcing her to read a book that she dosnt enjoy and is below her level? Shouldnt she be encouraged to challenge herself and have an enjoyment for reading not punished?

Do your schools do the same? AIBU to want to challenge this stupid rule?

Uncle Tom's Cabin (yes really, and I know it actually is pretty inappropriate)

I'd disagree. It's of it's age, and gives a fascinating - if horrifying -window into a world not of fiction. Not a made up world. But a world that really existed. It would only be inappropriate if it was given to a child to read with a suggestion that it was "the good old days"

I can recall being given a childrens book from the Edwardian era. I think it belonged to my DGM who passed it to my DM ... It was about famous children in history - definitely a childrens book. One chapter was about the Dauphin - Louis XVIII - with pictures of sans-culottes waving heads-on-spikes about outside the Palais...

I also remember asking my DGM to give me the book with "The Monkeys Paw" in it when I visited, aged 11. (I was getting into ghost stories and my DM mentioned WW Jacob, as she never really got into him).

I know my batshit crazy MiL had things to say when I was reading "Alice In Wonderland" to DS, aged 4,5. But that's batshit crazy for you. He loved it. Especially the silly "pomes" as Enid Blytons Ernie would have said.

Anyone else remember the ban on Enid Blyton books in the 70s . We were called to school and told to stop our daughter reading them .
My husband quietly informed them that he didn't care what she read, even the daily newspapers , as long as she was reading and found it enjoyable

I was a child in the 70s, but don't remember a ban on Enid Blyton books in schools - but my mum had already banned them, so I would never have had one in school and so wouldn't have been aware of a wider ban.

I felt properly rebellious, when I bought some of the Famous Five books for my dses!!

The only thing worse that having books with dodgy content (Enid Blyton is almost a poster child for that) is having well-meaning meddlers retrospectively sanitise such dodgy content for future readers. If nothing else it actually rehabilitates authors with questionable - not to say loathsome - views.

"Well, I read Enid Blyton , and I couldn't see anything wrong !".

Airbrushing history should not be a thing.

My mum had banned them in the 60s. Our school library had them, and I was astonished by that as in comparison to school, our home life was very liberal. Still didn't read any of them. Got a 2nd hand copy of a Blyton for dd, and dissuaded her from wanting any more, though.

No banning in our house, but I had pretty much outread Enid Blyton before I was 10 or 11 ... my DM was into the Chalet School books, which I never really got. Same as Georgette Heyer. Also Tolkien ... I did try, bless, but although I loved the story, the prose is a tad ... not for me (same as Orwell).

Forget books, how about magazines ? I read "OMNI" since it's launch in 1978, and it had some pretty challenging short stories. Orson Scott Card for a start. I used to take that into school ....

Actually just been thinking about this over protectiveness. I know I was reading adult broadsheet newspapers at 10/11 years old - I know because of a challenge at school where we had to make up a story from a cut out headline, and I had read the original story. I left this school at 11 and 5 months old, so I know I could not have been older than that. My parents were obviously happy with me reading the newspaper as I don't remember any discussions about it at all.

School librarian here. YA books are not for 'advanced readers' they are for teenage readers. Many of them have a lower level of difficulty than books aimed at much younger readers.
This title hasn't been levelled yet on any of the tools I use, but the first book in the series has a reading difficulty level that is quite a bit lower than 'How to Train Your Dragon'.
So it's not a difficult book, just one that's aimed at an older audience.
Whether the content is suitable for your DD or not is a different matter.

A High Wind From Jamaica. I loved that book at 10yo, and at 12, and at 14. I think I might read it again now and see if it's as I remember.

Daddy Long Legs is a great book as well.

Actually, I've just read the synopsis of the plot - obviously much of it went over my head even at 14 - and have realised that it is a very bad recommendation indeed.

Please don't give that book to children.

I liked a High Wind in Jamaica as a teenager too, and I am surprised the plot went over your head as it is not that complex.

No, but I had a horribly sheltered upbringing and didn't even know what at erection was until I was 15ish, didn't see one until quite a few years later....... The idea that children could be the object of that sort of sexual attention was so far away from anything I had ever heard or thought of, I'm not remotely surprised I missed all or a lot of it.

Ah! That explains why you didn't understand it.
I knew about child abuse when I read that book. What affected me in that book was the older sister being dumped into the sea and floating I think in a white nightdress; and the boy who fell through the trap door thingy and died. I think the boy dying had the biggest impact because I was kind of used to everything being sort of all right in the end.

And I remember the scene when they met the adults again back home and one asked where the boy, Peter was it?, was, and the children all stood around in an awkward silence. That was incredibly poignant.

But I do think in books like this where things are hinted at, it does not matter if you don't really understand everything. You enjoyed it, so that is fine. And because it is hinted at rather than very explicitly said, you can't suddenly be told something that you are not aware of. So I think its fine for kids to read.

Ah it helps me to know that it really wasn't spelt out; the synopsis i just read certainly spelt it all out, and I was wondering just exactly how dumb I was....

I do remember reading Sara's Face by Melvin Burgess from the school library when I was about 12. I don't remember much of it now, just that it was a freaky story about face transplants (conned into a face transplant ?). It definitely disturbed me at the time!

Sara may only be 16, but she knows her own mind. "Unfortunately this means that she has decided that her face is not her own. And now she is in the clutches of unscrupulous psychiatrists who say she has "Karel's Syndrome," and that the only cure is to have a new face"

WTF made me pick that up and think it would be a good idea is beyond me

Jux It is written from the young child's viewpoint, who does not seem to totally understand what is going on, so no, you are not stupid.

@ crunchy, phew!

alpine it sounds really gruesome, and actually rather bad. Is there such a thing as Karel's Syndrome? Nothing bad ever happened just from never opening a book again. Some authors deserve it.

I took Stephen Kings Gerald's Game in for my independent reading at 12 the school should have stopped me, my mum didn't give a toss. I had read his whole collection by 13 and still read them. Now that was inappropriate. DDs book is far from inappropriate or wrong, it's a shame she is being discouraged from reading what she enjoys.

I think they are just airing on the side of caution. We are now in a overprotective, easily offended world and the school is just covering their arse. All it would take was one parent finding out that 14+ rated material was around their dear darlings and the school then has a potential lawsuit on their hands.