PDA

View Full Version : How much freedom when?



Sarasvati
08-07-2009, 06:06 PM
Ravensworn posted this link on facebook the other day about children's loss of freedom.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-462091/How-children-lost-right-roam-generations.html

For the non-clickers:


When George Thomas was eight he walked everywhere.
It was 1926 and his parents were unable to afford the fare for a tram, let alone the cost of a bike and he regularly walked six miles to his favourite fishing haunt without adult supervision.
Fast forward to 2007 and Mr Thomas's eight-year-old great-grandson Edward enjoys none of that freedom.
He is driven the few minutes to school, is taken by car to a safe place to ride his bike and can roam no more than 300 yards from home.
Scroll down for more
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06_02/hattersleyDM1406_468x356.jpg Sign of the times: Jack, Vicky and Ed

Even if he wanted to play outdoors, none of his friends strays from their home or garden unsupervised.
The contrast between Edward and George's childhoods is highlighted in a report which warns that the mental health of 21st-century children is at risk because they are missing out on the exposure to the natural world enjoyed by past generations.
The report says the change in attitudes is reflected in four generations of the Thomas family in Sheffield.
The oldest member, George, was allowed to roam for six miles from home unaccompanied when he was eight.
His home was tiny and crowded and he spent most of his time outside, playing games and making dens.
Mr Thomas, who went on to become a carpenter, has never lost some of the habits picked up as a child and, aged 88, is still a keen walker.
His son-in-law, Jack Hattersley, 63, was also given freedom to roam.
He was aged eight in 1950, and was allowed to walk for about one mile on his own to the local woods. Again, he walked to school and never travelled by car.
Scroll down for more
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06_02/playgraphicDM1406_468x518.jpg (http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06_02/playgraphicDM1406_736x800.jpg) http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/nav/enlarge.gif (http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06_02/playgraphicDM1406_736x800.jpg)

By 1979, when his daughter Vicky Grant was eight, there were signs that children's independence was being eroded.
"I was able to go out quite freely - I'd ride my bike around the estate, play with friends in the park and walk to the swimming pool and to school," said Mrs Grant, 36.
"There was a lot less traffic then - and families had only one car. People didn't make all these short journeys."
Today, her son Edward spends little time on his own outside his garden in their quiet suburban street. She takes him by car to school to ensure she gets to her part-time job as a medical librarian on time.
While he enjoys piano lessons, cubs, skiing lessons, regular holidays and the trampoline, slide and climbing frame in the garden, his mother is concerned he may be missing out.
She said: "He can go out in the crescent but he doesn't tend to go out because the other children don't. We put a bike in the car and go off to the country where we can all cycle together.
"It's not just about time. Traffic is an important consideration, as is the fear of abduction, but I'm not sure whether that's real or perceived."
She added: "Over four generations our family is poles apart in terms of affluence. But I'm not sure our lives are any richer."
The report's author, Dr William Bird, the health adviser to Natural England and the organiser of a conference on nature and health on Monday, believes children's long-term mental health is at risk.
He has compiled evidence that people are healthier and better adjusted if they get out into the countryside, parks or gardens.
Stress levels fall within minutes of seeing green spaces, he says. Even filling a home with flowers and plants can improve concentration and lower stress.
"If children haven't had contact with nature, they never develop a relationship with natural environment and they are unable to use it to cope with stress," he said.
"Studies have shown that people deprived of contact with nature were at greater risk of depression and anxiety. Children are getting less and less unsupervised time in the natural environment.
"They need time playing in the countryside, in parks and in gardens where they can explore, dig up the ground and build dens."
The report, published by Natural England and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, also found that children's behaviour and school work improve if their playground has grassy areas, ponds and trees.
It also found evidence that hospital patients need fewer painkillers after surgery if they have views of nature from their bed.


I really struggle with this. I think it's true there are more human-made dangers these days, from cars to sociopathic children, to fucked up adults etc. We live across the road from a park, and next to a storm water drain (down a ditch, and just beyond that is a dog park). There really is a lot to explore. Last week Kira managed to unlatch the side gate and she couldn't figure out how to get back in, so was running around the front, then went across the road to the park to play with some bigger kids. Imogen alerted me eventually (I was making dinner) and I nearly had a heart attack. We padlocked the gate the next day as I explained to her that I really needed to know where she was. Since then she has been allowed to play out the front (it's not fenced but there is a big expanse of grass and it's not hard to keep an ear on her). But I'm unsure about letting her go across to the park alone. I wonder, what if she fell and hurt herself? What if some other kids came and were cruel to her? Or attacked her? Or if someone tried to abduct her? ARGH! Am I over-protective?

She played out the front for a bit today and on one of my random checks she wasn't out there. I thought I heard her and she was down outside the dog park watching the dogs. I thought about my own childhood. I loved running wild and free. I remember getting in huge amounts of trouble for getting up when I was about 5, and going to a neighbour's house while my parents slept. Mum was frantic. Kira understands to a point I need to know where she is. When I called her over from the dog park fence I explained that was a bit far away and I was worried when I couldn't see her. But I don't want to put so many fears on her she is crippled by fear herself!

So what do you do? Smother them and restrict their freedoms, or let them wander and constantly worry? Are there signs of readiness that you can trust them to roam? Should they have a mobile with them? I don't think it's as simple as age...

Anaed
08-07-2009, 09:04 PM
This is a tough one.
I need to ponder a while.

Sarasvati
08-07-2009, 09:37 PM
I just had a talk to Jake. I was pointing out that 50 years ago they had much more freedom. He said "population density" and I then said "and everyone knew each other"... that's a biggie hey? There were neighbours and people you knew who knew who your child was. These days no one has a clue which house a child belongs to.

We have decided 5 is a bit too young. I am going to go outside with her tomorrow and mark her boundaries and explain that if something happened I wouldn't be able to hear her past that. We will reassess in 6 months. I really don't want her to think she has to sneak out, I'd rather we knew, so if we still have issues we'll look at ways of trying to make it safer (we tossed up ideas like walky talkies :lol). Still really interested in other thoughts tho!

Beatrice
08-07-2009, 10:58 PM
I'm more relaxed with K than I was with B. When it's not getting dark so early I'll let her walk down to the corner (three houses :lol) to wait for Daddy. She plays out the front of our place and in the neighbour's front garden all the time, especially when she wants to ride her bike. We've pretty much let her out there from when we observed that she was sensible about staying away from the road, and aware that we prefer to know where she is; probably since she was about 3 1/2.

B has pretty much had the freedom to go out by herself to the playground or walking the dog since she was about 9. These days we let her bike to the mall and around the lake. She started out with a mobile til we stopped being so nervous but now we're fine without one because we know she's trustworthy and sensible.

Ceres
09-07-2009, 01:02 AM
I generally don't let my 5 year old much out of my sight. He has no impulse control and has a tendancy to bolt. It is going to be quite a while before that changes I think!
Philosophically I think that children need to have opportunities to practice independence and managing risk, but you have to know your own child and what is within their skill area. There are just so many weirdos out there. Even playing with other children at the park is a minefield of bullying!

Sarasvati
09-07-2009, 09:03 AM
So true ceres! That's my biggest real concern actually. She takes bullying to heart unfortunately, and there are some REALLY badly parented kids around here. She's not a bolter thankfully, and pretty cautious for a 5 year old but we really don't know anyone in our neighbourhood so there's no one else who will watch out for her. I HATE getting to know complete strangers but I might have to bite the bullet! *groan*

Ayla
11-07-2009, 09:57 AM
I think freedom in children is very important. When I was a kid growing up in Canberra I explored everywhere I could on my bike up to 2-3km away. I had to check in with mum and dad every half an hour but otherwise was free to go wherever the wind blew me that day. I was completely street-smart, had made friends all over my suburb, and recognised the friendly neighbours and also the ones to avoid. I always knew how to get home from wherever I was (usually multiple routes to choose from!) and I always knew how to get to friends houses. I was much safer than say the kid who was always sheltered and then one day decided to wander off...

LMCL65
13-07-2009, 08:27 AM
It's a very fine line, if we protect our children too much then when they do need to be street smart, they are ill equipped.

Sarasvati
13-07-2009, 09:41 AM
It is isn't it?

See I couldn't get Kira to check in every half hour, she has no real concept of half an hour. So obviously 5 is too young for that style of freedom.

We're certainly not the hovery type LOL. But I think it's fair to be a bit prudent until they reach an age where they know what to do if they get into trouble.

I had an interesting experience yesterday at Bunnings. There were twin siblings there playing with Kira (both 5, Kira is almost 5). Kira hurt and scared herself and came over for comforting (more for the fright). The sister asked me what I was doing... "Cuddling her" I replied "because she's upset". I thought that a bit odd. Then later the sister hurt herself too and the mother was nowhere near, and I was trying to see if she was ok/needed more help etc. She didn't seem to recognise what I was doing, she went inside and couldn't respond. It made me wonder if they are not really comforted much and she had a lot of trouble working through her upset on her own... yet her mother was happy to leave them for quite some time alone. "Fend for themselves" didn't really work in this situation, so I think it kind of confirmed for me that it is good to still be available for support at this age, and I reckon that will build resilience quicker, and more kindly, than letting her have freedom whereby she can't actually contact me if she needs me.

Ceres
13-07-2009, 09:57 AM
I like the idea of what Ayla suggested, maybe for a child a little older than mine!
Sarasvati, it sounds like what has happened there is the parents have pushed the chicks out of the nest before they were quite ready. I've always been of the opinion that I'll let DS separate from me when he's ready, and not for my own convenience. He's 5 too and needs a lot of comfort, cuddles and "kisses better" when he's hurt himself too.

Ayla
13-07-2009, 04:37 PM
Oh yeah sorry I should clarify that I was around about the age the article is talking about (8/9-12yrs old)

Beatrice
13-07-2009, 05:12 PM
B just suggested taking K for a walk to the local shops to spend their pocket money. She's got my phone in her pocket and if K has a meltdown and stops listening to her I'll come and get them. I'm mostly just amazed that they're actually getting on together well enough for that :uhh

Sarasvati
13-07-2009, 06:32 PM
:lol Yeah I's be ok with that too.

Ceres it was really sad actually. The complete lack of comprehension in her face... :(

bella
17-07-2009, 10:39 PM
Interesting article.

It's been different for all of our kids... The eldest didn't do much alone for a long time. She's just turned 15 now and goes to work, from work to the cafe or theatre or op shopping or to meet friends, library, sleepovers, parties, etc. I still do tons of drop-off and pick-up, can see her banking/spending online (it's attached to my accounts), I text her or get her to text me for checking in when we're apart for ages. I know most of her friends, and some of her workmates. We live in a rural town that's kinda behind cities by a generation, LOL. Not to say that it's 100% safe and nothing bad happens here, in fact I know of rapes, paedophiles, shocking vehicle accidents (fast, winding, narrow roads in the country, sigh) in our community.

When she was 12 about all she did alone was walk up about 12 houses along our street to visit friends, or ride her bike up and over the bridge to see another friend. Once, when I was out, her Dad let her ride to the local shop - 12km round trip - to buy lemonade. WTF? Anyway, she took his phone and whilst she made it there and back (took AGES) she was scared and didn't venture far for ages...

Anyway, despite having a fairly sheltered early years, she's adapted really well to going out and about now without us. :)

The next few kids along were a bit less sheltered 'cos they could tag along with their big sister. :)

Now we live in a different place and our neighbours are 1km away or more. Our kids have heaps of freedom on the farm - they can walk along the tracks, through rainforest and paddocks, with horses and wildlife, to the creek, etc. I am a bit protective about them riding their bikes on the road because it's hilly and has blind corners and is one lane...

Our eldest has walked to friend's places 6km away and 2km away (her choice to walk for fun), and to the local shops 2.5km away a couple of times. The others have walked to the neighbour's to take them eggs.

When we're in town, I've just started to let the kids walk from the library to the theatre or go and run errands for me at some shops while I go to others. I'm trying to familiarise them with the town and get them used to the safest places to cross the street etc. They sometimes stay at the park when I go to the post office, etc.

It's all really huge for me, even though I had a lot of freedom as a child - walking several blocks in inner Sydney to a friend's in a high rise building at six years old, going down to the river and around and home (maybe 8km) from around eight, when I lived at Dad's in the country, and when I lived in Brisbane, riding my bike around the neighbourhood, walking to the Westfield shopping centre, riding a friend's horse and other things unsupervised. I always swam unsupervised when my parents worked too.

Each child is different, and when they have siblings it's different again because the younger ones can watch the older ones and learn from them (in theory).

~*heket*~
17-07-2009, 11:10 PM
Stylish goes up to the video shop to hire her Buffy dvd's :lol she takes the mobile with her. It's a fair walk, but it's all along a main street and she only does it in the day time.

I used to be pent up, my parents were paranoid, but I seem to be getting over that now.

Ayla
17-07-2009, 11:52 PM
I forgot to mention that when I was at uni doing my primary school teaching degree (go on, laugh :lol) there was a lecture about children and safety. Since parents have become more protective of children, it has become less safe for them eg a park crawling with kids is more safe than a vacant park with one or two kids playing there. I don't remember all the stats, I don't even know if I kept the lecture notes, but they might still give that lecture at Griffith Uni if you can find out when it's on! :lol

~*heket*~
18-07-2009, 10:24 AM
I don't think there are any more pedophiles now than there were 30 years ago, I just think it's more out in the open than it was then. Although pedophilia is probably a percentage thing so there are more people now but still the same percentage of them are creepy arseholes and should be locked up for life.

(did that make sense? :lol)

bella
18-07-2009, 07:52 PM
Perfect sense!