"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?)

I don’t watch the news and I’m an adult.

My DD is allowed to watch the news but doesn’t.

When I am in the right frame of mind then I’ll read it.
I don’t watch it and wouldn’t encourage it as I try and protect our MH as much as possible.

Watching the news is no reflection on what type of person you are.

@Cocobutt so do you get your news another way? Or do you just not know what is going on in the world?

Being informed re what the news uses to get you hooked and make an impact is more useful than just saying watch the news.

It’s not necessary to be a news consumer, there are better ways to access knowledge and it’s good to help dc learn about the strong influence of the media.

Surely watching the news at 6 etc or online or even Newsround is basic preparation for life?

We don’t watch the news at 6 because we don’t have a TV in the house….
It doesn’t stop anyone to talk about the news as a family. And my two dcs are both pretty clued up on what’s going on in the world. Sometimes, quicker than me.

The issue isn’t that some children aren’t watching the news. The issue is that news aren’t a subject of discussion within the family.

@ManyNameChanges Children still have to get news from somewhere. But I agree if parents are not interested then children will never hear it being discussed.

Several things;

• firstly there are many age appropriate ways for children to have access to the news. It doesn’t have to be TV news; there are children’s News magazines, websites, news round etc. The OP wasn’t specifically asking about watching TV news, but being aware of current topics.
• It could be the question wasn’t understood by the kids; they didn’t understand it was about current issues and not specifically about TV. watching and therefore they answers about not watching TV news, rather than showing they did know something about some issues but through a different medium.
• This raises the question not about TV news (which some have become fixated on) but children being aware of bigger issues in the world. This doesn’t have to include specific nasty incidents of murder etc, but broader general issues like the environment, war with Ukraine, royal family etc. Part of being in an interview even for 10 year olds is to talk simply about issues and to share some thoughts or perhaps to engage in simple discussion. It doesn’t have to be at a high level - the process is looking for engagement and ability to talk and discuss. Remember this is an academic school. Likewise children would be asked to talk about books or hobbies and engage with discussion. It’s not so much about their knowledge but being willing and able to talk and engage.

In Primary schools of all types, and especially in Preps, children will have had to deliver a short talk about a topic of interest. Talking to others and in front of others is an important skill and part of learning today. I’d say, being interested in the wider world and being curious is an important part of being successful academically. There are age appropriate ways to encourage this, but often it comes down to if parents are interested in the wider world and curious themselves. Some families watch TV or look at the internet together or they discuss ideas at dinner, even with very small children….at a level they can cope with. Some people instantly think this is exposing them to horror. No. It could be talking about what do they think about there being a Royal family, or about reusable water bottles, or vegetarianism. Children if all ages can start to grasp some information and develop some views.

Im sure OP didn’t reject these children on the basis of this. The key thing determining their place would have been their entrance exam result. Interviews can help decide if someone is marginal and the interview or chat is there to gauge their enthusiasm for the school and to do a PR job (as often the kids have applied to multiple schools). Op was simply surprised as she’d heard the answer more than once and it made her think about some wider issues relating to how children are growing up.

I also think this is why some people share those stupid memes on facebook lamenting that everyone talks about covid/austerity/latest tragedy in the West and no one talks about what is happening in Eritrea.Palestine, etc. Because it is not true. Decent news sources in the UK have good international coverage of events in many countries including Palestine. But if you never read or watch it you wont know about that.

so do you get your news another way? Or do you just not know what is going on in the world?

@AllOutofEverything

Yes I read it online.

Sometimes I will miss what’s going on in the world if I don’t read it for a few days if my MH is playing up but it’s impossible to know about everything that’s going on in the world anyway.

I tend to skim read it everyday because I get an email with local news and the big issues.

It’s interesting. I don’t watch the news on tv. Don’t have time. I do listen to the news on the car radio though if and when I’m in the car. I also have the bbc news app so that usually pops up with stories. My kids don’t watch the news at home either but seem to have a good knowledge of the world events. One does seem to watch newsround in her class at school whilst they have milk (she’s 10). I do recall a Mumsnet post or two about parents being appalled at schools showing newsround and that they would complain. My eldest is 13 and does have access to social media via a family tik tok account - I monitor it. She picks things up from there and checks with me about content quite a lot.

what do you think they should be taught in year 7?

In my DCs' case, in a RC elementary school in the US, they studied Greek literature in what would have been 6th grade (age 11-12). The aim of the literature course was to provide a solid foundation of the nuts and bolts of plot structure, narrative voices, character development, sub plot, as well as poetry, drama, and elements like the chorus, etc. They did a whole class dramatic production every year, for which I sacrificed a good few sheets over the years. Greek literature provides the basis of many of the themes we see in modern western literature, as well as the narrative structure and countless other elements. It's a gift that keeps on giving.

They composed and recited poetry in certain forms, read and rewrote news articles, produced book reports based on their own home reading, and annotated the class novel.

In 7th grade they studied a lot of poetry, lyrics, and drama, and did a lot of class novel annotation - The Outsiders and The Giver spring to mind - in general, coming of age literature at various levels of complexity. They also looked at forms such as graphic novels and did a Shakespeare play. They did a lot of class presentations that year, and iirc learning and presenting scenes from their Shakespeare play was part of that.

This morphed into coming of age novels centered on the interwar years and the time of the rise of the Nazis in 8th grade. My state mandates a serious study of the Holocaust, which can be accomplished in either history or English class. In the DCs' school the 8th grade English teacher developed a very thoughtful Holocaust curriculum for 8th grade, with reading material spanning the range between Lois Lowry and Elie Wiesel. The theme of the Holocaust was expanded to global genocide. They were also expected to produce a thoughtful journal documenting all aspects of their own lives.

And they do.
As I said it’s not unusual that they know about stuff before me nowadays.

They are young adults and older teens now and it has always been the case.
Talking about stuff, News Roy do when they were little, magazines at home, discussions. Nowadays they use the internet just like I do.

TV is a very old fashion way to get news.
(and don’t get me started on the 24/7 news channels)

**Newsround …. (autocorrect etc….)

mathanxiety
That sounds interesting and by far better preparation for studying literature than the bizarre obsession some parents and teachers in the UK have about cramming as many 'hard hitting' texts in as young as possible, and then acting like it's a badge of honour that their children are so far 'ahead'.
It happens further down the ages as well. Texts that were established as interesting Key Stage 3 texts that deal with challenging topics in age appropriate ways ended up being put into Year 6,5 and even Year 4. One year the DfE published something about a KS1 student reading one of the later Harry Potter books as proof of greater depth and some people couldn't understand why quite a lot of people thought it was a weird free reader choice. Some people really seemed to struggle with the fact there's a difference between being able to decode a text, appreciate the narrative and having the emotional maturity to appreciate the wider themes and issues raised.

I had an interesting discussion with students/parents one year who felt that they were redoing primary school by studying a particular shakespeare play. What they actually meant is their children encountered a highly sanitised and superficial version of the play when they were far too young to cover the central ideas and themes.

I find it both hilarious and baffling that so many people in the UK think the main way to prove their children are advanced is to shove adult material at the children and pat themselves on the back.

@LolaSmiles Agree!

The news is just a selection of negative stories - some are included and some are mostly ignored, depending on whether a certain country is deemed important enough or whether it suits someone’s agenda to have the public know about it. It’s not truly representative of what’s happening in the world.

Our reality is formed by the things we pay attention to. And people aren’t more intelligent or well-informed because they know what’s been in the news recently. They certainly aren’t more interesting. However, if someone is still able to have a debate after you’ve given them the very basic information that you’ve learned from the news, then that shows real intelligence.

You sound conventional.

We don't have a TV. Even so, I check the news regularly each day and discuss with my children. Youngest watches Newsround at school most weekdays, and often wants to discuss it when I pick her up.

Personally, I want my kids (appropriately) aware of what's going on in the world, and to have an opinion.

My issues with all of that are as follows:

Your definition of 'the wider world' is actually quite narrowly restricted to knowledge of political events, war, and disasters both man made and natural. Perhaps a little sports. Perhaps a little celebrity or royal family gossip. That's what the nightly news will bring into your sitting room.

People can have interests in a wide variety of other areas and live lives of immense artistic or musical creativity, high levels of civic/ charity involvement, and intellectual curiosity, while still steering their children clear of war, mayhem, cruelty, starvation, etc, because they are conscientious about the sort of themes they are willing to expose their children to. This is not 'overprotection'. Media content and games have ratings for a reason. Why include X rated themes in your children's lives?

Nobody moves suddenly from knowing nothing to total exposure. Awareness happens gradually as children naturally develop and mature, become awarebof their own full human nature and that of others. This is accomplished by means of just growing and maturing, along with exposure to literature and life itself. As they grow they start understanding human instincts and they can see how they play out through history and literature.

It is not necessary to expose children to even a small dose of current events in order for them to develop an interest. Geopolitics and the baser elements of human nature in the abstract are beyond the ability of children to process emotionally and psychologically. They can start on it around age 14-15.

Exposure to horror in the form of daily news shows earlier than that does no good and can actually harm them. They don't have the historical knowledge that would help them to make sense in a cognitive way of the Vietnam war or the war in Ukraine. They don't have the hardness of heart to blow past scenes of dead pets in the streets of Eastern Ukrainian cities or families arriving dazed and bewildered in Polish railway stations, and move on to Arsenal v Everton, or whatever. Why would we even want them to develop the thick hide needed to breeze through the news? It's really only useful as a means for the parent to indulge their own news-related anxiety, or to mindlessly recreate their own childhood and the focus of their own parents, all parent-centered behaviour that is not in the best interests of children.

If you want to get children interested in the wider world, eat foods from different cuisines, talk positively about cultures both contemporary and ancient, travel, get stuck into duolingo and get them involved, buy a globe for the home, watch travel and nature programmes, visit museums, play 'what's the capital city'/ 'name three artists from X country' type games. The possibilities when it comes to opening a child's eyes to the wider world while at the same time being mindful and respectful of the child's developmental readiness are endless. There is no need whatsoever to hurry children past the scaffolding, the developmental stages they need, into full exposure to the human condition.

I specifically stated that the wider world is not just about current events and gave examples. So I have no idea why you keep pushing that strawman.

If you think children should know nothing about current affairs until they can full understand geopolitical events at as you suggest around 14 or 15 years old, then we are worlds apart. I do not belive in keeping children in a bubble.
And there are lots of childrens TV papers and newsround, no one is suggesting showing them a hard hitting documentary of genocides.

Geopolitics and the baser elements of human nature in the abstract are beyond the ability of children to process emotionally and psychologically. They can start on it around age 14-15.

Thesis just patently bullshit. Of course an averagely bright 12 year can understand this stuff. The age of criminal responsibly is 10 in the UK. I maybe wrong but I think mathanxiety is a teacher stateside. If so it's a pity you have such low expectations of your pupils.

"If you want to get children interested in the wider world, eat foods from different cuisines, talk positively about cultures both contemporary and ancient, travel, get stuck into duolingo and get them involved, buy a globe for the home, watch travel and nature programmes, visit museums, play 'what's the capital city'/ 'name three artists from X country' type games."

Any decent parent does this as well. But if that is all they understand they are getting a western centric colonialised view of countries.

I didn't say it was 'the job' of a school to teach kids about current events. I said I thought most schools show Newsround, which I do!!

Pretty much all of my son's opinions (eg hates Boris & Trump) have filtered down from Newsround and us talking at home, I'd assume, but unless he decides to start putting the news on himself, he's not going to see it because we don't watch it.

We don't even have the TV on until he's in bed!

If schools show Newsround it is because too many parents are failing their children.

I asked my 11 yo about this earlier off the back of this thread.
We are very much a radio on constant exposure to news / newsround/week junior family.
She said sometimes it's a bit scary like gangs/murders but on balance it's better to know what's going on in the world.

On asking they didn’t do Newsround at dc school. I’m fine with that

The trouble with the news is that it’s all negative.

My own daughter never wants to go to America because she thinks she’d be shot and killed by the police.
I tell her lots of black people visit and live happily in America but from the news you wouldn’t know that.

When COVID was at height, every news station was talking about the deaths, how things will he bet be the same etc.

Then it was all about the war in Ukraine.

I don’t think children need to hear this constantly when they already have so many issues and MH issues and anxiety in young people are at an all time high.

I read a lot of scientific journals and a discovery of a foot of an extinct animal is still news but because it’s not murder it doesn’t get shown on the mainstream news channels.