"My parents dont let me watch the news": reflections on 11+ interviews I have carried out

[hannaretch]

Over the past few weeks I have been carrying out 11+ interviews with new applicants to our school -independent day school, outside of London, thought of as the most academic school in our town.

I generally talk to the children for 20 minutes about their studies, hobbies etc and ask them to talk about themselves. The aim is to get an idea of who they are and whether they will fit in with the school ethos. We tend to interview almost all applicants as we feel that a good interview will allow us to get a better view of the individual even those with marginal entrance exam results. They get information on the type of questions they are likely to get before the day to allow them to prepare. We also ask them to bring in an item which they then talk about.

One of the standard questions I and others ask is along the lines of do you follow the news? Talk about a current news story/ what do think about Ukraine/ climate change? type thing. Nothing too major but it allows us to get an idea of their awareness of the world. Most are able to answer with basic knowledge and some understanding of the issues and it often leads to good discussions.

I was shocked that two or three of the ones I have interviewed this year stated that they werent allowed to watch the news and had no opinions/ ideas about the issues. Surely watching the news at 6 etc or online or even Newsround is basic preparation for life? (or school interview at least?)

Mainstream media works on clickbait and sales.

You’re better off equipping them with how to navigate mainstream media rather than think of it as completely benign.

Critical thinking includes critiquing the media

Couple of points. Firstly, with the increase in mental health problems and suicides, especially amongst girls, I don't want to add to their anxiety by saying "let's all start watching the news together and afterwards we can discuss how you felt about the rapists, murderers, wars, corruption, missing people and misery". My eldest already has more than enough anxiety over their school exams without me adding to it. And yes, I remember the scary adverts about how to survive a nuclear bomb blast when I was a kid and they were scary, (and in reality utterly useless) and there was nothing I could do about it at all apart from worry.

Secondly, yes, dealing with anxiety is something that people need to do at times, but it's not that easy these days and we have more and more reasons to be anxious. I suffer from anxiety and have done for a number of years and it's not just a case of just learning some life skills and you're sorted. I wish it were, so I didn't have this condition. We're assaulted by more information in a week than the average person a hundred years or so would have received in a lifetime and our brains have obviously not been able to evolve to deal with that jump in information.

Ref the OP, I'm thankful that when my kids were interviewed for a place in private school after passing their 11+, that there weren't any questions about what they thought of the news. I think it's unfair to expect that of a 10 year old. There are plenty of other questions that can be asked and which were asked. If, as an adult I was asked what I thought of the news, I'd say I never watch it because it's the same unchanging misery which I cannot influence at all (and yes, I know I have a vote). If someone thought that made me less of a person, then that's on them and not me.

Thing is OP, the news isn’t like it was when you and I were young

Sorry @Stardu but , I mean propaganda, cbeebies? Rape and toture on the 6 oclock news??

Your post reminds me of my neighbour who thinks BBC is all woke propaganda, all media is too woke and GB News is the truth...My other neighbour thinks BBC is in the pockets of the hard right Tories , all media is very right wing and the only news he reads is in the New Statesman. 🙄

That would be correct. It is better to start with MSM than with Social Media, is the point I am making.

Some MSM is subscription-based like FT and WSJ, which is more independent and quality journalism. The Week and the Economist are also a good publications, the former being a good segue into news-based printed media.

My job requires researching information in the public domain and from more trusted databases. The difference between people who can only put info together (cut-and-paste style) and people who can read, analyse and summarise often contradictory information from different sources, is quite stark. We are talking adults here with many years of work experience. The level of general knowledge (lack) can also be quite shocking. These are educated professionals.

However, those people who reach the senior management levels of my organisation are to a person well read not just in their area of expertise but generally. Most get their news from FT and WSJ. Commercial awareness and the ability to think strategically relies on being well informed and intellectually curious. It is a valid question at 11+.

Yeah your right- any no better way to do that than show them scare mongering tv deliberately designed to instil fear and helplessness with a bit of torture death and murder thrown in.

Yeah your right- any no better way to do that than show them scare mongering tv deliberately designed to instil fear and helplessness with a bit of torture death and murder thrown in.
Exactly. Who knew the way to avoid mental health issues in young adulthood is to make sure primary school aged children get to have their regular dose of real life crime, updates on rape and murder investigations, and a helpful dose of live war footage?

I don’t agree with the last line. As pp said it is a separating question that works on what a child is exposed to in a household, and not in their control.

Ds did the 11 plus for a day school in London known for academics, and that has a wide range of careers after, and the process was interesting in that it was looking for talent / academics. Some would find the questions quite abstract and unrelated to daily life but they served a good purpose.

As for having to read print I prefer experts speaking. To give an example when it came to something like Covid we discussed the science not the headlines, they saw none but knew stuff like airborne / who was at risk etc. Zero anxiety over the virus but useful knowledge and interested in hearing more.

I’m sure there is some good print out there but reading this thread I don’t agree on some approaches - that it’s a good question at 11 plus nor that dc need to harden up by watching news.

Yet apparently, according to others on this post you are treating your 10 year old as a ‘baby’ and setting them up for a life time of snowflake and anxiety if you don’t encourage them to watch. Baffling

Is that how you would describe newsround or the 6 or 7 O clock news ? Really? coverage of the budget ? Or the clusterfuck which is the Northern Ireland Protocol ? these things are designed to instill fear ? Not doing a great job then are they ? Now channel 4's it's a sin, breaking bad or the hand maid's- yes. Also do they not still do " viewers may find this disturbing" warning anymore ?

Is that how you would describe newsround or the 6 or 7 O clock news ?Really? coverage of the budget ? Or the clusterfuck which is the Northern Ireland Protocol ? these things are designed to instill fear ?

Not newsround, but the 6 o clock news regularly has content that I wouldn't choose to expose primary aged children to.

It would be much better if the OP, instead of assuming the right kind of naice families all sit around the news, asked the children they interview what issues they care about, instead of asking a key stage 2 child their views on the Ukraine situation or whatever topic the OP decides to throw at a child.

I know many children who care about the oceans, recycling, saving energy, conservation, donating to the local food bank, the importance of local charities or causes close to their family's heart. Some are interested in science or history and the developments in those areas. One child I know is fascinated by space exploration. Their families talk about topics with them, support the child to develop their interests, they get children's news publications or NatGeo kids or books on the topics they're interested in. They might not sit around watching the goings on in the budget at the age of 9, or had daily updates on Putin's foreign policy, but they are kind, rounded children who enjoy learning.

I wouldn't expect a kS2 child to give a monkey's about either of those 2 topics was just trying to give some examples that really aren't designed to inspire fear.

I genuinely find it fascinating how different families can be. We don’t watch a lot of Tv but if I’m in the house we pretty much have the TV tuned to a 24 hour news channel. I have done this my entire adult life so both my kids have always had the news on in the background even from babies. They don’t always actively watch it but it’s on and so will ask questions if they see an interesting story. We’ve talked about the war, interest rates, strikes recently. We have also discussed politics from quite young. But then again they have no anxiety about anything so I’ve never needed to shield them. I suppose I’m quite lucky in that respect.

Drfosters
I think it's about knowing your children and knowing your parenting style isn't it.

You've done that and it works for your children, whereas I don't have the adult news on around them and we still talk about different world issues, read books, look at news for children.

It's a problem if children reach their teen years unable to talk about life beyond their street/town, but below that there's so many valid approaches that an interview process assuming families only follow one is a flawed interview process.

I feel really sorry for a child with lots of interests and general knowledge who might panic when put on the spot about a recent news event.

I agree with this. We all complain that our dc grow up too fast, stop playing with toys far too early, get into tech/social media/clothes/make up from a young age, yet we actively encourage them to take on the worries of the world. Childhood is short enough, it should be happy and carefree.

If this is true, I am more shocked that you think its OK to discuss this on a public Internet forum. Also, most teachers I know are intelligent enough to realise that kids are all very different and wouldn't be shocked by this at age 10. Nice try.

A) Why is it shocking to discuss it on the internet? It’s anonymous.

B) These kids are trying to get into an academic private school. That’s why the OP is surprised. It is normal to make your your kids are prepped for school interviews, otherwise they probably won’t get in.

Not all academic kids are well versed in the news at age 10. As the OP should realise.

My DD is 6.5 I don’t let her have free reign of the news but I tell her in a more diluted way what’s happening - Ukraine, Nicola Bulley & strikes are the current ones.

She is still traumatised at Adalia Rose story that popped up on YouTube even though I have restrictions on!

Not all academic kids are well versed in the news at age 10. As the OP should realise
Exactly this. It's quite concerning if someone who apparently assesses children's academic potential is so clueless about assessment that they fail to realise their own assessment questions aren't fit for purpose.

My kids were asked "what are your favourite subjects and why". ", What hobbies do you have. Tell me about them". " Why do you want to come to the school and what are you looking forward to about it". " Do you have any pets". And things like that. My youngest chatted about their love of the Famous Five.

They were not asked about their views on the events in the News. They were in primary school.

@Dyslexicwonder

Of Mice and Men is regarded as 9th and 10th grade reading material in the US. That is to say, teens aged 14-15, and within that cohort, kids whose reading level will mean they'll be ready for university level literature studies at 18.

It's absolutely not digestible by children who are in year 7. And the same goes for The Handmaid's Tale.

Being able to decode words and understand vocabulary doesn't mean being able to process what you're reading. Exposing children to literature they can't emotionally and psychologically process has no educational benefit whatsoever.

This isn't a case of wrapping children in cotton wool. A syllabus has the task of creating appropriate scaffolding, incremental exposure to complex themes and scenarios, and not pushing children through themes they can't deal with, acknowledging that there is zero benefit to taking the express train. The journey is important here.

Your investment in dropping children in at the deep end is obvious here. Did you have someone available to you to talk about the images of famine and nuclear disaster that you were exposed to, back when you were a child?

I had the most wonderful and supportive parents, DM was right there every afternoon, watching the news beside us. She was a teacher herself and quite polictally aware. Actually all my friends parents were, many were journalists, discussion of politics and/ or current affairs was in the air we breathed. We also listened to a news radio show in YR5 and discussed the topics in class. This was the 80's in London so IRA bombings and the cold War were part of our lives. It was thought important that we understood the situation in NI and why the IRA was angry, why the miner's were striking, the background to the cold War. By the time the wall fell in 1990 we could join in the celebrations as we really understood what it had represented. We were desperate to vote from about aged 14 onwards, which was why the Labour landslide following my first time was so special. Vis a vis the Ethiopian famine, we collected for CAFOD the Catholic charity, it inspired some of us to go and do aid work overseas, the abiding emotion was upset yes, but also an overwhelming desire to help. Again somewhat religious but also to " count your blessings" and perhaps make us slightly less materialisticIn the same vein we were sent ( by the school) to help out in a homeless shelter aged 14 so saw destitution and alcoholism first hand. I think our parents felt it was their duty to raise well informed, engaged citizens.

As for mice and men I think both my DCs covered it in year 7 (aged 11 or 12), we also read other upsetting/ unsuitable books- Virginia Andrews anyone ? Tales of the city, Lord of the flies and the whole Agatha Cristie cannon- I don't think our parents had a clue. These were all aged 10-14 ish, so M&M didn't seem so shocking or out place.

For the record there was plenty of mucking about on bikes, trips to the swimming pool, falling into rivers as well as I said it doesn't have to be either or.

I do not advocate throwing DCs in at the deep end at all it is a conscious process of news round at KS1, by the end of KS2 DC should have a clue about what is going on in the world. Of course this should all be supported by discussion with trusted adults. I do worry that some posters find the news so anxiety producing, what this might mean for thier DCs, that the world is a terrifying place.

I have 2 DC now 18 and 16. One has and has always been more polictally aware than the other. He was incensed he wasn't allowed to stay up for the 2015 election (aged 11), he certainly knew what was happening and had an opinion. In 2016 we all discussed Brexit endlessly and he could understand the various arguments, he was heartbroken with the result (aged 12). As family we all watched the ensuing chaos and by 2019, he was giving me updates about parliament being porouged etc. By the time corona virus hit, it absolutely didn't occur to me that the DCs aged 15&12 wouldn't be fully informed. I think it would have been more frightening if there was no run up and your school just suddenly closed?

My philosophy has always been not to hide anything from the DCs but to discuss in an age appropriate way. There is lots of evidence that knowledge and understanding reduces rather than increases anxiety.

Of mice and men is recommended for 11+/12+ on most websites.
If don't study it till yr 10 when do you do Shakespeare, Dickens and Austen ? Remember many British DCs won't do any literature after aged 16.

Of mice and men is recommended for 11+/12+ on most websites.
On most? Really?
Having taught it for years that seemed unlikely and when I looked at popular bookshops they don't age rate it.
Then I looked at what various reading systems rate it and it gets categorised as anywhere between 2nd/3rd grade through to upper high school depending on how the reading systems scores texts (e.g. some systems score more on decodability of the words, not the content of the book).

mathanxiety

I agree with you and would be unimpressed if my DC was taught OMAM in Year 7.

There was a big discussion when OMAM was removed from GCSE about where it should be taught because of the themes. Consensus generally rested around Year 9.

If the aim is to teach OMAM but do it in an age appropriate way, then for an 11 year old that means to ignore a lot of the book's context and to gloss over many of the representations in the text.

Can I ask what you do think they should be taught in yr 7 (age 11/12) ?
I think I also did Aldous Huxley brave new world and animal farm (again the cold War connection ?). Possibly Educating Rita ? I see a lot of Micheal Morpugno recommended for this age- those themes are quite complex too.