To think this is a bit too graphic for Y7

[LikeARockhopper]

DD history class shown this clip.

They're Y7 so 11-12 yrs old. I'm after a sanity check really as I can be over protective. DD said it made her and her friend feel sick and she found it upsetting. I have asked teacher and he says it was to show religious persecution and how films are not always historically accurate.

AIBU to think Y7 shouldn't be shown a graphic clip from a 15 film in class?

If its a 15 rating then it illegal

OMG, I'm a lot older than your children and that made me feel ill.

YANBU!!

I couldn't even finish watching that clip and I'm 39! I would be absolutely furious if my DD was shown that clip so young, especially if it is rated 15 - which will be rated at for good reason. I would be speaking to the school about this.

This is not the first time I've read on here parents concern after their dc have been shown film content in class that is inappropriate to their age. Where is the common sense of the teachers who do this?

I don’t that something which in actual fact is upsetting, is necessarily wrong to show because the depiction of it is also upsetting.

I didn’t find it particularly graphic or upsetting personally. I think because the people were alive, speaking and the flames were around them not actually consuming them. I’d have found it more graphic if there was burnt skin.

In this case, I think it’s more powerful than a drawn picture in a history book of people on a fire - but not hugely more graphic.

If it’s historically accurate I’d be OK for my child to see it. If it’s not actually accurate (I don’t know - but it sounds like the point is that it wasn’t?) then for this age I think it was gratuitous to show it.

That's from 'Elizabeth' isn't it? I'm 35 and always fast forward that bit. It's an incredibly distressing scene. It's very important to teach the reality of religious persecution but not like this, and certainly not to children of that age.

To be fair I’m just amazed at how fire proof their wee white smocks were.....

It's not illegal to show a 15 to 11 year old as the film classifications don't apply in schools.

I have shown clips of 15 films to younger age groups.

I don't think it's too graphic at all. It doesn't show burnt flesh etc. It's important not to sanitise history.

Lots of history sources contain vivid descriptions that pupils have to read and interpret.

It is upsetting but isn't that the point? It's not graphic (no blood, gore, nudity etc.) And its only 90 seconds so its not like they were sat for hours watching a gory film.

I teach science and have often shown clips of inside the body. I have also done organ dissections etc. with year 7 and 8 classes. Some of them find it upsetting, I warn them in advance to look away if they don't like it. I think this is similar really.

Have you got a link to that law please Intents?

Film classifications and schools

I do get that it'd important not to flower history up and to learn from terrible things that were done to people, but I also think it's important to teach those things at the right age. Something like that could be taught in Year 10 just as easily and whilst some children would still find it distressing they might cope better with it than Year 7s. Some kids are more sensitive than others and I think people who aren't like that themselves don't get that. Just because it doesn't affect person A doesn't mean the same is true of person B.

I think its fairly standard to study The boy in the striped pyjamas in Y6?
I freaked out a tad when DD was shown Watership Down in Y5 but apparently the kids werent as upset as my generation.
DD reported the consensus was
"Its Bunny call of duty"

Thanks everyone for the various opinions on this.
Reading the BBFC guidance, I definitely wasn't consulted. If it was a 12A or 12, I'd have been ok with it, or if it was historically accurate, I could probably understand it.
For the record, it makes me feel queasy and I'm 41
I really don't want to be "that" parent but I did have to deal with the fall out yesterday. DD is not that sensitive but it is quite graphic and had upset her. I think that overshadowed the learning outcomes...

I'm a wuss when it comes to things like that but it's really not that graphic.

Ohh that programme last year about Guy Fawkes was worse !

But it isn't graphic. As I a teacher I never consulted parents first. I made a professional decision.

It is horrific, but being burnt at the stake was horrific. Its supposed to be upsetting.

Why do you say it isn't historically accurate?

No need to show that to a y7. We dont even teach the reformation u til year 8 and I wouldnt dream of showing them that. In year 7 we are still on horrible histories for clips (to be fair so are my sixth formers but that is at their insistence not mine!)

The teacher told me it was used to demonstrate historical inaccuracy in films.

Yanbu at all. DD is in year 7 and a bit sensitive and, I would imagine, be very distressed by seeing something like this. Seems wholly unnecessary to me.

It really isn’t graphic though? It’s history & that’s what happened.

Well Elizabeth I did execute far more people (mostly catholics) than Mary.

It's a tricky one as suppose the point is to show how historical inaccuracy is used in films usually to dramatic effect-to make things bloodier, more heroic, more horrific than it actually was.

That film does a lot of dodgy moving of time lines and painting of goodies and baddies that have no historical basis. Because it needs to "tell a story" and suit a film genre.

I'm genuinely not sure how it's graphic. It shows 3 people and flames. None of them are shown burning, no blood, guts, gore.

Also the film is a 12 not a 15

That made me feel a bit ill. Gunpowder really traumatised me as well.

My DD would have been really upset by that.