the boy in the striped pyjamas

[workshy]

my yr5 DD watched this in school the other day

school sent home a permission slip explaining that it was a 12 but was related to a topic they had been covering in school

I know about the film and chatted to DD about it and was confident she would be ok so I gave my permission -obviously lots of parents had absolutely no idea what the film was like and many DCs were upset by it

is it really a film they should be showing to 9&10 year olds?

images.scholastic.co.uk/assets/a/ca/03/rr-bspj-p27-sip-910246.pdf

images.scholastic.co.uk/assets/a/b4/60/rr-bspj-p30-sip-910253.pdf

Every time you return to a book you have read you appreciate it at a whole new level surely. I doubt any of us understood the message of The Water Babies or Gulliver's Travels as children.

I find the argument that it's ok because it's literacy not History disingenuous. Literacy is about understanding the content of what you read.

I admit to very strong views about younger generations understanding the Holocaust, which is why I'm in favour of our Sixth Form students visiting Auschwitz. But I have equally strong views about it not being trivialised at primary level. Those responsible for Horrible Histories have avoided the topic altogether as far as I know (the description I found too grotesque was the description of a civilian hanging, nothing to do with the camps). I don't come at this from a Jewish heritage at all, though I understand completely why those with that background feel passionately that this should be taught with full understanding and respect.

Did I say it was OK?

I thought you took the view that it is ok to broach the subject because it's only literacy, yes.

My vote is no. I think Auschwitz has got the age about right: 14, not less.

I am incredibly open and honest with my daughter, she knows where her food comes from, etc. But the holocaust and what people did to each other and how they were manipulated into doing it in WWII is just a bit too horrible for her to be taught. We won't be tackling this one in any depth until at least her early teens.

I am an adult and I can't watch The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas because I know the ending. I wouldn't expect my DD to watch a film I wouldn't watch myself.

Fiction is different than facts. My DS (10) has been to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum in Jerusalem, where younger than 10 are not allowed in. You can just imagine what it is like. He was fine afterwards, mind you he is quite mature for his age. But interestingly enough, I would not let him read The Boy... because he would identify with the characters and that's where the really emotional stuff happens, and the upset. Dramatic fiction is about creatig empathy and then delivering the blow. So it can be more upsetting than reality IYKWIM.

There is an interesting thread in MN on Lord of the Flies. It semes to me primary age children are being given more and more challenging books to read! The Hampton Schol 11plus entrance recommended reading list includes "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime" which is full of f words and includes the line "Suck my c**". DS wants to read it but frankly...why is it on a list for 10 year olds?

challenging: I meant not suitable

I completely agree with yellowtip. Just because it has resources and is sold as literacy (even when the author says it isn't for that age group!) doesn't mean it is appropriate or quality. I don't think this is an appropriate topic for teaching the difference between history and fiction when the latter conflicts with the former to the point of sending the wrong message (that good people and children didn't know, that feeds into the dangerous 'we wouldn't let that happen' mentality). There are far better texts and ways to teach the subject of the Holocaust and teaching the difference in non-fiction and fiction even with WW2. Why use it just because it is available when there is so many really well done texts?

Personally, I wish more used the speakers events at the Holocaust Memorial in Nottingham (as they went through it as children themselves, I found them very good at pegging it at that age group while still getting across the truth of the matter and answered everyone's questions well -- and it is an opportunity we will not forever have) and their fictional account "The Journey", aimed at primary school age children, would work far better as an example of fiction versus reality when it comes to WW2.

Yellowtip all I know is that the OPs child watched the film. I don't know what teaching there was about the subject of the holocaust, or indeed if there was any history taught. I do know that it is a common literacy unit.

Many children of refugees (myself included) faced a deafening silence about the events of WW2 within their own families. It was simply too painful, or the survivors felt too guilty to talk. The third and fourth generations are in a better position to hear a full and a truthful account, now that those emotions are distanced.

Playing with the subject at primary level should be re-thought, for sure.

I know the grandson of a Jewish refugee who has taught The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas in primary and I think he would argue he wasn't playing with the subject

Maples - yes.

I took 10 and 12 year old to Buchenwald last year. Both understood, both were moved and both were able to deal with it. I saw Belsen at the same age it shaped my opinions from then on as avidly anti war.

He will have known he couldn't broach the subject fully mrz.

and someone who isn't the descendent of a Jewish refugee wouldn't know that Yellowtip?

I haven't said what my background is mrz, but on the basis of your argument it would allow me to empathize more than most I suppose.

That said, I've always felt the second generation shouldn't presume to feel what the first generation did, because we did nothing, and didn't suffer ourselves. It seems cheap. But of course that's only my personal view.

Oh I see I've misread your post mrz (I read would for wouldn't).

Nevertheless you seemed to make a particular point that this teacher was Jewish, as though it made his approach unquestionably valid, and I'm not sure it does.

I think you should re read your own posts

Yellowtip Thu 05-Apr-12 12:20:15

Many children of refugees (myself included) ..... Playing with the subject at primary level should be re-thought, for sure.

which my comment about a descendent of a Jewish refugee was a response

Not sure I need to mrz.

You've cut a sentence in half and juxtaposed it with something quite separate.

I was saving space because I assumed you knew what you had written

Yellowtip Thu 05-Apr-12 12:20:15

Many children of refugees (myself included) faced a deafening silence about the events of WW2 within their own families. It was simply too painful, or the survivors felt too guilty to talk. The third and fourth generations are in a better position to hear a full and a truthful account, now that those emotions are distanced.

Playing with the subject at primary level should be re-thought, for sure.

response

mrz Thu 05-Apr-12 12:24:29

I know the grandson of a Jewish refugee who has taught The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas in primary and I think he would argue he wasn't playing with the subject

Blimey, we're going to end up repeating the thread.

Ok, so I then said he might argue he wasn't 'playing' because the terminology is a bit flip but he'd also be peculiarly likely to know, as the grandson of a Jewish refugee, that he could only broach the subject of the Holocaust at primary level in the most elliptical of ways.

My view is that it's too young to broach at all at primary level and when taught, should be taught without any brakes on the truth.