Vetoed conversations about crushes!

[Franny1]

Interested to know what people think about this… my DD’s year group (year 3) have been told they are no longer allowed to talk about who they have crushes on etc. DD said the teacher said something about secrets so I’m guessing someone has got upset after someone else told their secret and there’s been some teasing or embarrassment or something.

I totally get that this sort of thing can lead to people getting upset. And I also don’t care much for the silly crushes chat myself! But I feel really strongly that they can’t tell kids what they can or can’t talk about in their own private conversations, and that this is a terrible precedent/lesson to teach young people about free speech! Is my DD really supposed to stop herself if she’s just chatting quietly to a friend in the playground because the subject matter has been vetoed?? And surely in any case they need to teach them HOW to handle these types of conversations without upsetting people, ie the importance of not betraying confidences, not embarrassing people or teasing, and so on…

Thoughts?

I think the teacher is trying to teach them that you can’t trust friends to keep secrets and you shouldn’t tell them everything. They went about it the wrong way,

My kids primary school also “banned” girlfriends and boyfriends and talk of such things. I was quite happy with that as it’s pure nonsense at that age anyway and stops the silly status things associated with such couplings. Theyre kids ffs let them be kids and enjoy each others company regardless of sex… instead of putting adult connotations onto something innocent and fun. It worked well for DS anyway as he’s still friends with a few of the girls from primary- he had them and two make friends for sleepovers regularly until they went to high school and none of them ever dated each other. Theyre nearly 30 now!

They're 7/8. I don't blame the teacher for discouraging a topic that is not really age appropriate and does nothing but cause embarrassment and upset eventually, when it comes out about who 'fancies' who. 🤢

I use the 🤢 emoji as the idea of 7 year olds even having 'crushes' doesn't sit right with me. Why would anyone want to encourage that sort of thing at 7? At that age, they're simply friends. There is no need for any boyfriend/girlfriend talk. Kids fall out about enough things at that age. I don't blame the school for trying to avoid them arguing over boyfriends/girlfriends and who fancies who at 7 years old!

I teach children much younger than Year 3, but it's even an issue down our end as, weirdly, some parents seem to encourage that sort of thing. The minute their child has a friend of the opposite sex the parents will comment "aww you have a boyfriend" or ask "is she your girlfriend" etc. I don't understand why anyone would do that. Whenever I hear children in my class talking about someone being their boyfriend/girlfriend I discouraged it by saying "they are your friend who is a boy/girl. We can have lots of friends who are boys or girls".

I do the same with talk of 'best' friends, as that's another topic which causes great upset at that age. I'll simply say things like "you can have lots of friends", or "we can all be friends here" when a child is wailing the someone isn't their best friend anymore simply because they don't want to play their game. I'll remind them "we can like different things or play different games with different people and still be friends with each other".

I also discourage party talk. If someone uses the classic line "you're not coming to my party", I shut it down straight away (usually with "your birthday isn't for another 10 months" or such like 😂 ).

Basically, I don't blame the teachers at all. It's not about trying to dictating what they can and can't talk about, it's about encouraging them not to say things which we know inevitably cause upset somewhere along the line. Teachers have heard it all before and know which topics always end in tears.

I don't think the freedom of speech argument really applies here. If the staff think the conversations are inappropriate, they have the right to ban them on school grounds. For example, what if the children were using swear words when talking to each other? Don't you agree that the teachers would be right to step in and forbid that?

If it's happening on school grounds then it is the schools business. It is inappropriate gor children of this age and it is potentially embarrassing for both crusher and crushee.

Our school's PTA held a Valentines disco a few years back. The tears and the resulting fall out made it a nightmare and school said they were never to do it again. (It's an Easter Bop now.)

Teachers have better things to do than police what children are saying, you are absolutely right. For them to have done so strongly suggests they have been dealing with the fall out of what is, after all, absolute nonsense - they are year 3! - and I don't blame them one bit.

They can have freedom of speech in their private conversations outside of school!

In school, their teachers will guide them on what is and isn't appropriate for 7 year olds especially as children are getting upset.

I would just tell your DD that at school she follows the teacher's rules and out of school it is up to her. This kind of talk in school is catching. If some are talking about their crushes, others join in so they aren't left out. It's not what I want my 7yo to focus on, so it seems reasonable for the teacher to ask this. In a similar way my kids' school have said things like 'only play with children in your year group at lunch' and 'no fighting/guns games' to deal with issues that are arising.

Who’d be a teacher these days, they can’t do right for doing wrong.

I would totally agree with the school here ...freedom of speech?! 😂Honestly. These kind of silly conversations about crushes can easily get out of hand, kids getting upset, endless drama....best to nip it in the bud.

Also these kids don't have crushes...they've latched into a word without really understanding it and are now creating drama and silliness around it.