Phrase young people when we mean children

[FemaleAndLearning]

The feminist angle here is that I don't think it is right for my daughters (aged 12 and 14) to be called young people. It assummes they are responsible for what happens to them or that they are possibly 18, 19, 20 years old. I'm seeing it more and more, but I have just had an email from secondary school (with sixth form) asking 'all parents and carers of our young people from all year groups' to complete the survey.
I'm going to email the head about this but could do with some guidance or evidence from a safeguarding point to support why I think this is bad use of language. I don't see it as empowering to refer to children as young people. What do you think?

Our previous head started using the phrase young people years and years ago. I thought the same as you. they are children.

The new head has reverted to ‘pupils.’

its not wrong though they are young people. I’d have an issue with young adults but they are people and they are young. Although I agree pupils is probably more appropriate in this context

They are young people though ?

It is a term that is used in other contexts too e.g. www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for-doctors/protecting-children-and-young-people/definitions-of-children-young-people-and-parents

I am not sure that it is inappropriate. There is a difference as children mature and are able to take more responsibilities for themselves. That doesn't mean that they are entirely responsible for what happens to them, young people are still not treated as adults.

I don't know why they don't just say the factual "students".

However, if you're talking about a school addressing all students, which include sixth formers, I can see why they wouldn't address them as children. They want the older students to assume a level of responsibility and behave in a mature way. Referring to them as a child doesn't encourage them to do that.

Again, just calling them students would be the most reasonable thing.

Some sixth formers will be 18 or 9 so I can understand the desire not to use the term children in a context here they are included. I agree pupils would probably suffice though.

Yes pupils would be the best phrase as it covers all ages in a school setting. Students for college or above.

I know it sounds silly but I'm seeing it everywhere and it makes me uncomfortable. Language is so important. Young people just means youth to me so 16 plus.

'all parents and carers of our young people from all year groups"

So this encompasses all pupils in the school from age 12 - 18? "Young people" seems appropriate in that case, as it wouldn't be right to use "children" to include pupils aged 16+. If the phrase had been used to refer specifically to your daughter or your daughter's specific age group, I could see objecting, but using it as a broad term for all pupils in the school doesn't imply anything about any one particular pupil's competence. It seems like you're taking a general phrase too personally.

I guess I'm coming at it from a grooming point of view (not the school, but society in general). If an 11 year old is a young person not a child it makes lots of unsavoury things not sound so bad. I understand an 18 year old not wanting to be called a child.

I teach gigantic teenage boys. It seems odd to refer to them as 'children'. KS3, maybe. A neutral term like students is probably better I guess.

Again, just calling them students would be the most reasonable thing.

They aren't students though, are they? They are pupils.

Pupils are taught. Students study. Children in school are taught, therefore they are pupils.

Well it's all semantics really, but success in GCSEs and A-levels certainly requires study, not just passively 'being taught'.

I taught at one school that had an explicit aim of creating scholars. How's that?

They are not students in the sense that they study in the way university students study solo.

Kids in school revise what they have been taught when it comes to exams.

I think university students are on the whole less independent than you imagine and school students, more. After all, it's a continuum - one hopefully turns into the other.

A-level's supposed to be 5 hours taught, 5 hours independent study, give or take.

There are different brackets for categorising people. I am an adult, middle-aged, and in my 50s. My 17yo daughter and my 14yo son are children, teenagers and young people. Being any one of those does not preclude them from being any of the others. Language is subtle and varies according to context. Calling someone a young person is not the same as saying they are not a child in the same way as saying I am middle-aged is not the same as saying I'm not an adult.

I suspect that some secondary aged children will zone out or give the side eye when they are called children so treating them older and using gender neutral people is preferred by them. Pupil or student would cover things just as well.

I think it was originally used in social and care professions as an alternative to 'teenagers' but excluding 18+, so a way of referring to 13–17-year-olds, the gap between smaller children and adult teens.
The school were incorrect to use it for 11- and 12-year-olds, and in any case in that context the word 'pupils' is preferable.

'Students' has been fashionable for decades, but originally only applied if the young person had chosen the course. In the 90s it was introduced for KS4 as that is when 'options' are chosen. KS3 was always pupils. Personally, I think 'pupils' can be used for compulsory education up to age 16 as education is compulsory and 'students' for 6th form onwards.

I actually think we need legal clarity on when a child is a child. People forget a 17 year old remains a child. Some of the inconsistencies are ridiculous.

@Beancounter1 interesting in health services young people include 10-24

In social work / youth work this is a really common way of distinguishing the teens from the children and is probably about empowering them to feel they are have some agency within their life - adults make decisions but young people have an increasing input & responsibility around the choices they make which needs recognising (and encouraging). As a 14/15 yr old I would have responded very positively to that idea. Having said that, when first encountering it in 2003 I did find it a bit twee, but grew to accept it.

There is legal clarity that a child is a person under 18 but you do need to have a gradual change in legal treatment between 0-18. A cliff edge would be completely unworkable and of course anything else will have some confusion. That's not to say that there aren't some odd inconsistencies. What were you thinking of?

Sorry for lack of editing 'compulsory education up to age 16 as education is compulsory' (facepalm).

Interesting about the use in health services.
So basically, it is a meaningless phase.

From the OP point of view, yes it does somewhat downplay the fact that these 'young people' are often still children, and that could be a worry.

But I do think there is a need for a handy word that distinguishes 16–17-year-old children from younger ones. And perhaps such a word could be stretched to include 14+ or 13+, as for instance that is when many professionals and the courts give much more weight to their opinions and testimony.

On the other hand, when you hear about 'refugee children' in the media, do you imagine small children or big 17 year-old lads? In some cases, the word 'children' can give the wrong impression.

This is the preferred term at my kids school and the school I work at. I hate it, and use 'pupils' for everyone and 'children' for the under 16s. Because that's what they are- I find the blanket term 'young people' for everyone aged 11-18 glosses over the fact that they are children, a status that deserves and is afforded special protection under laws.

I agree with you - I've hated this for years.
I think it denies the responsibility we have as adults to care for under 18s.

It's similar to the use of "service users" in a medical setting when people used to be called "patients".

Again it denies the duty of care.