Was this appropriate?

[Tincletoes]

I genuinely don't know if I'm overreacting or being pfb here and would appreciate some advice.

DS is year 1, 6 years old, goes to local state primary school. Last month the terrible shootings in the US occurred, and we spent about 2 weeks staying off the news channels etc - we just felt it was too much for him to process etc.

Anyway all good until over the holidays he pipes up with "I know that someone in America went into a school and killed some teachers and children". We were surprised and asked him how he knew about that, and he said it was because the headteacher told them about it in assembly.

Now I know we've only got his side of the story. I know we may not have the proper facts or that there may be a good reason why it was brought up. But would it be reasonable for me to ask the head why it was raised? Or am I being desperately pfb? I have a feeling from things he said that the reason it may have been raised was to pray for everyone involved - which is obviously well meant, but surely could the situation could have been alluded to for the benefit of children who did know what had happened, rather than specifying quite precise detail? Or are we unusual in having protected him from this news?

Genuinely interested in other opinions here so thanks in advance.

I am American and we took the kids to the US over the holidays as well. From the time it happened all through our holiday there we did not put on news that would refer to the Sandy town shootings. I think you are not being unreasonable and that for small kids to hear about someone killing kids, IN SCHOOL, is not necessary. I would probably first speak to other parents at school, if possible, and then consider approaching the head as a group. I think her judgement, if not intentions, were off in this case, and if it were me I would like to let her know my feelings, in the nicest possible way.

Personally I don't think you are doing him any favours by turning off the news etc. When they start school they hear allsorts of things, he could just have easily heard this from his peers, I think this may be why schools do bring this sort of thing up and talk about it, to save half truths and stories being bandied about the playground.

I wouldn't raise this with them, its pretty normal for them to do this sort of thing in assembly.

If its any consolation I found it really hard when DS started school and I realised I couldn't control everything he learned about anymore as well.

When terrible events like this happen I always try to explain them in kid-speak for my 8 and 5 year old. In this case I explained it much like Mrs
Elliott did. They will overhear bits of the story when adults are discussing it and not be able to make sense of it otherwise. I don't turn the news off when they are around.

I think my view on this comes because I was faced as a young teacher with having to deal with a class of 6 year olds the morning after 9/11. They were genuinely terrified because they had listened all night to their parents talking about war and death and destruction and no one had explained to them what was actually going on. We gave up on lessons that day and played and talked. I never want to go through a day like that again with either my own or other peoples children.

It's very likely that a number of children in the school did know about this, and were talking to one another about it.

It's also quite possible that they embellished the story and began to distort the facts; this can often mean that children become alarmed and scared by things that aren't true, even though the truth is alarming enough.

I think the head did a very sensible thing by talking to all the children about it, allowing them to hear the facts from a trusted adult in language they understand, allaying some fears and allowing them to process others.

what tethersend said.

The kids will be talking about it, the ones that know will be telling the ones that don't and it becomes a messed up story.

The children do talk about it. Much better that you talk to him about the news in a controlled environment than he hears exaggerated gruesome details from his class mates.

For example there was a nasty incident at our local primary where a TA was "taken ill". We received a text telling us... however what had really happened was she'd been preparing fruit in a side room, knife had slipped and she'd nearly cut her fingure off.
Despite the head telling the children in assembly, she was "only a little ill, and ambulance was a precaution" the children by the second day were talking about her pulling out a large knife and trying to cut her head off in the middle of lunch

My year 1 (5yo) ds likes to come and read the headlines on the BBC website (looking for plane news mostly). Sometimes he sees a headline and asks about it.
I've found that actually brushing a "nasty" story away actually makes it worse. Now I let him read the story or tell him the basic facts, and he's generally "oh right that happened" rather than it worrying away at him. He'll then ask questions which I can answer on an individual way for him.

Thanks all. Very helpful.

My son goes to Elementry School in the US and we received a message from the Head over the weekend of Sandy Hook tragedy to say that the faculty had decided they would address and discuss any concerns of the children individually if they brought the subject up but they respected that many families would choose to shield their younger children from this particular story.

Hello

We've edited the OP to remove a RL name.

I felt the same over the Maddie case as DD2 was just the wrong age to understand.

I didn't turn it on, but she knew about it any way. You can't shield them from things, but I'm not sure they need them in assembly.

These days we all read the Internet news and I know DD2 knows everything, because she likes the Celebrity, TV and popstar news and runs a home page with a news ticker because such stuff bores everyone else ridged.

When I was at school my Head used to talk to us when this kind of thing happened (Dunblane, Jamie Bulger, etc) and I think it was the right thing to do. I remember in the JB case he stressed how the perpetrators were only a little older than us.
I teach year 6 now and they're quite a savvy bunch. If any of them raised an issue like this I would talk to them as a class and I think it would be quite beneficial to all, including me. Six is quite young, but we can't pretend these things don't happen. I think hearing the facts in appropriate language from someone they respect is a good thing.

Thanks Rowan - although please be reassured the head isn't really called that! It just made more sense with a name.

Actually NotMore I think that was a good point, ie communication was good. I think I've just been a bit naive and hadn't thought school would raise - of course there may be really good reasons to have done so and I do understand that. But as we get about 10 texts a week from school about every minuscule detail I think maybe something saying they'd had to raise but it had been done sensitively might have just given me a bit of warning. Although I guess that would have brought a whole load of other problems!
Anyway thank goodness this sort of thing is rare and I will be better prepared next time. I'm also reassured that even if it was naive I'm not the only parent who did try to shield their child from the news and that I'm not being too pfb! Genuinely thank you for all the helpful and tolerant responses.

DS watched a weekly "news roundup" in year one , followed by a "news quiz". It was about the only news he saw, bar the R2 headlines in the mornings. Now he watches newsround most days.