Do YOU have a free-range kid?

[Laura Corin]

Hobbes goes for long walks on his own over the fields (not our fields) and through the woods (also not ours). He got lost one day and walked up to the nearest house to ask them to call me. He didn't go into the house - just played outside with the daughter. When I drove down the road to pick him up, I could see the two of them bouncing up and down on the trampoline.

 

When we lived in Asia, Calvin used to set out on the Hong Kong underground system - he just used to ride it for fun and get out where he fancied. He was eleven at the time. For the last year I have dropped him in town at 6pm on a Friday night. He has Taekwondo, then walks to scouts. In winter it's dark. I pick him up at 9:30.

 

So, my children are pretty free range. A friend of mine - a highly logical woman - checked the statistics for violence against children. They have not changed since we were children - what has changed is the amount of money that various media outlets can make out of exploiting them. Deaths due to traffic have increased - I'm very cautious about having the children walk or ride bikes on serious roads.

 

Laura

[jewellsmommy]

It is kinda funny to see this discussion in comparison to the one about the young lady who was sailing...

 

I want to add that I do not think that it was unreasonable what this young lady did. When my dd is older and if I feel that she has a good head on her shoulders then, sure, I will allow a lot more freedom for to her to showcase her responsibility. She will volunteer, work, participate in outside interests on her own but, only after growing up witnessing first hand from her parents how to do these things safely, wisely and responsibly. This is what we will work up to. It will be gradual with each yr that she ages.

[Caitilin]

I am trying to be as FR as possible; DH is more cautious. We try to strike the balance between our two approaches.

[jewellsmommy]

what is a l.e.o.?

 

 

Sorry, law enforcement officer (cop). I was just being lazy :D.

[jewellsmommy]

I agree with poster who said that it's the extremes (on either end of the continuum of free/non-free ranginess) that are worrisome.

 

It's absolutely dependent on where you live and who your kids are and how much risk you can tolerate.

 

Older daughter -- more free range potential (she's very mature and independent)

Younger daughter -- less free range potential (she's much less mature and even more independent - a dangerous combo)

 

Old neighborhood in CT - Dangerous... Less free range -- kids weren't allowed outside of the fenced back yard.

New neighborhood in OR - Much safer... kids can roam around the block and may even be allowed to walk to the park in the next year.

 

 

Most definitely. There are a lot of factors.

[astrid]

Just because my son would not do well being alone does not mean he's not responsible. He's seen his brother have enough grand mal seizures, to expect him to be calm about staying home with them alone is not something I'd put on his shoulders. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Thankfully we live in a country where we can make that decision for ourselves.

 

And *I* never said that he wasn't responsible. I said my daughter WAS. How could I ever make any sort of judgement about your son, whom I've never met?

 

You, however, did comment that free range kids are made to grow up too fast, which would imply that my free-range kid has been made to abdicate her childhood and rush to grow up. That is not what the whole free-range philosophy is about.

 

astrid

[scubamama]

Former "almost free range" family here...when we lived in rural PA my kids ran until they had to stop at the farmer next door's freshy planted field, they explored the woods where I couldn't see them (think far off on the horizon) could walk around the center square of our small town while I was chatting with a friend. They weren't in arms reach there, but more like yelling distance.

A small town has good and bad - kids are known there by folks and folks slow down and are fond of their own childhood memories of ridning your bike to the corner store for a candy bar and things like that.

I had that childhood. My parents only worried I would get snakebit or a terrible case of poison ivy ( I SWELLLLL!!!!!).

I could let them roam my IL's farm and not worry about some crazy person...only that they'd annoy the grumpy neighbor if they scared his horses.

Now we're in LA. It sucks.

Shortly after our arrival we met a pedoph1le at the playground - ds ran to the bathroom and a man was chatting him up as he prepared to enter - I was only 30 seconds behind him with the other kids (running ). It scared me to my core.

We don't hide int he house but there's no way I'd leave my kids at a park or go for a walk without me. The local school districts aren't allowed to have kids run around the block for gym b/c kids were taken!!! Our HS PE teacher told us to "use caution" and told us he wasn't an alarmist but the times we live in here are differnt. NO kidding. So, I'm discouraged and very grieved for my kids. They are missing out on so much.

 

I believe that it all depends on where you are. I never thought of free range parenting as a concept before. I guess I was very sheltered! I miss that!!

 

Michele

[LauraGB]

Yes. Free range kid here, and proud of it.

 

I tire quickly of those who seem to equate parents who allow their kids to play outside, ride their bikes to the library, walk to sports practice or a friend's house, etc. with the height of neglect and sloth.

Free Range Kid does not equal Neglected Kid. Free Range Parenting does not equal Poor Parenting.

 

(not saying you said this, OP, but I can see it coming and it's a sore spot with me.)

 

astrid

 

 

ETA -:lol: I'm a dope! It says you are from CT, USA right in your "location". Duh! Disregard my post. :blushing:

 

 

Astrid, I think you are not in America, correct? Do you feel that your area is possibly safer than many in America? (I'm totally not being snarky :) - I know tone gets lost in this sort of communication - I'm really just curious because I've witnessed other cultures being much more free range, and I kind of feel it is an American culture thing more than anything else)

Edited June 14, 2010 by LauraGB
adding words

[MyBlueLobsters]

And *I* never said that he wasn't responsible. I said my daughter WAS. How could I ever make any sort of judgement about your son, whom I've never met?

 

You, however, did comment that free range kids are made to grow up too fast, which would imply that my free-range kid has been made to abdicate her childhood and rush to grow up. That is not what the whole free-range philosophy is about.

 

astrid

 

We're all entitled to our own opinions.

[LibraryLover]

Astrid, I think you are not in America, correct? Do you feel that your area is safer than many in America? (I'm totally not being snarky :) - I know tone gets lost in this sort of communication - I'm really just curious because I've witnessed other cultures being much more free range, and I kind of feel it is an American culture thing more than anything else)

 

 

I'm in America. lol A lot of us free, or semi--rangers are. Crime is down, abductions have not increased. I read that young children being preyed upon is up in some ways; one being due to divorce rates and sickos looking for single women with children to exploit. (That's a statistic, not a given for any single mother with a boy friend, and I didn't make this up! Don't shoot the messenger). I wouldn't live where I lived if I felt unsafe most of the time. We moved to our current home/town specifically for a certain lifestyle, which would include children being able to move about on their own (together) and not being 100% reliant on being driven everywhere for everything. I realize most people don't have many housing choices due to money or work. I am grateful we do.

 

I don't think it's perfect...no place is. There are always going to be 'off' people. Risk assessment is a good skill to have. If my mailbox was across a highway, I wouldn't be sending my toddlers to fetch mail. I read the predator posters at the library etc. I keep my eyes open...other people's children matter to me. The more we retreat into our homes and cars the more we will feel cut-off from our communitities, and the more we will insulate ourselves to people who only think as we do. (Limiting our intereations with on other christian or Rad Unschool groups, just quiverfulls, just people who don't believe in god, just hsers etc) people etc etc.). It's important to me to know the people in my community...not just the people with which I share interests. So what if the neighbor next door is not the exact same kind of parent I am? That doesn't matter to me one bit. I like knowing all kinds of folks, and I like that my librarians know us, the fish guy knows us, the people at the health food store know us. I like that people in town know my kids, even if not by name. That means they are keeping an eye out for them, and other children. That's a community.

 

I do think many Americans have been well -trained by media to be easily riled-up and/or paranoid, however. We see danger that doesn't exist, and sometimes ignore warning signs in front of our faces. Many people do keep children indoors, either becuase they think have to, or they think they have to. SO instead of playing with mud in the yard, kids are holed up watching CSI reruns, and getting scared out of their wits. Or they are watching Jerry Springer all afternoon and dulling their senses to people flashing their boobs at each other. (If this is not your family, don't say it's not your family...I am talking in general and not at anyone here. Don't take offense where none is intended).

Edited June 14, 2010 by LibraryLover

[MyBlueLobsters]

Hello Jenny: I agree with your original post.

 

I hope with the help of God my wife and I will be able to give our children a great education and a whole lot of freedom. Being new to this forum, I have been reading a lot of posts, and it appears to me there are two mindsets for people who choose to homeschool.

 

Many people want to teach their children the truth, cause them to be informed about what goes on in the world. They want their kids to be well trained as to how to succeed and how to avoid avoidable problems, how to get help when needed, and how to resolve the unavoidable problems. I hope to be part of this group.

 

Another group sounds like they want to protect their children from knowing the truth. It sounds like some of them avoid the truth themselves. I hope to avoid this.

 

All this said, you are responsible to manage the risks you subject your children to. In Anchorage AK I could let a child do a lot of roaming. In Hampton VA, I would not feel it safe to leave them roam the streets without a doberman and two pitbulls. :001_smile:

 

 

I am curious as to what the 'truth' you speak of is?

[PiCO]

1) Imagine a person who has CNN on in the background for several hours a day. Then, in the evening, they "relax" by watching popular shows like Law and Order and CSI. Unusual? Probably not.

Does this kind of viewing affect one's psyche and outlook on the world? Does it cause anxiety levels to rise? Does it make people think the world is more dangerous than it actually is?

 

I read the news, and I watch CSI, Bones, etc. and I am definitely a free range parent.

 

2) Teens and tweens today are so used to years of being told, "Don't do this; it's not safe" or "Don't do that; that's something for an adult to do!" that they are turning passive and useless in a way past generations typically were not. No wonder teenagers are surly and self-centered when they are given little independence and responsibility. A hundred years ago, 17 year old females were often married and running households of their own. Today, a female a year or two much younger might not even go to the grocery store alone, ever, to buy a jug of milk.

 

I don't say these things to my teens, and my friends don't either. I don't think teens are any more passive and useless or surly and self-centered than past generations. (Is this a quote from the book?)

 

3) Along those same lines, there is not much opportunity today for teens to work. It used to be that, at age 12 or so, you could get a job delivering newspapers -- and kids used to babysit at ages 10 and 11. Now, most newspapers will not even hire a deliverer under the age of 18. And many people think a 10 year old needs to HAVE a babysitter, not be one.

 

In my area, ages 12+ can baby-sit, volunteer at the Humane Society, library, and many businesses. There are also many teens who are very involved in sports and practice 10-20 hours/week. I think this is beneficial, especial if there is no manual labor for them to do.

 

3) In most non-English-speaking countries,children are given much independence than American and English children. Just as one example, in other countries, at age four people starting leaving their children at public park filled with other children of various ages, but no adults. In fact, people from other countries think Americans are kinda weird in this regard. One German was quoted as saying, incredulous, "The land of the free and the home of the brave? Ha!"

 

I would be comfortable with that if it was the cultural norm in my area. However, if I left a 4 yo alone on a playground someone would probably call the cops on me.

 

4) Is it any surprise that child obesity rates are rising, when kids are rarely allowed to play outside or GO anywhere themselves? (A few parents were quoted as saying that they would not let their children walk to the mailbox at the end of their driveway alone "because something bad could happen.")

 

I think the tendency of most Americans to overprotect their children is a contributing factor to childhood obesity. This doesn't mean all free-range kids are thin or all overprotected kids will be obese though.

 

5) Since today's kids are rarely alone anymore, we as parents tend to not teach them the skills they need, since we're always there for them. For example, if a kid never rides their bike or walks to school or the library alone, we are unlikely to teach them the rules of being a pedestrian, etc.

 

I think you can teach kids the skills they need without leaving them alone. Have the child lead on the way to the Library, for example.

 

What does anyone think of this? Is she crazy? Is she right? Have you seen evidence of these trends? Do you have a free-range kid? SHOULD you have a free-range kid? And how do you personally give your kids responsibility and independence in a society where most people are afraid to let kids do much of anything?

 

I have free-range kids. Especially the youngest, because that's just her nature and has been since she was born. I also tell my kids to talk to strangers (as suggested in The Gift of Fear.)

 

I think there is a tendency in this country to not let kids wander around alone, but I don't think that people are "afraid to let kids do much of anything." I think most parents who want to protect their kids from strangers look for other ways to develop responsibility and independence.

Edited June 14, 2010 by PiCO

[angela in ohio]

I don't have free range kids, but I have responsible teens. I think there is a difference. Many people have the goal of having responsible adults by 18; that doesn't have to happen at 8 yo. There is a continuum, imho.

[KarenNC]

I don't have free range kids, but I have responsible teens. I think there is a difference. Many people have the goal of having responsible adults by 18; that doesn't have to happen at 8 yo. There is a continuum, imho.

 

Agreed. For us, it's a process of letting out the line, then pulling back when she tries to go too far. This year, I have felt more comfortable with her being able to play in the cul-de-sac just down the street with friends. She is allowed a lot more leeway in the park as long as she stays in a group with her friends.

 

I have also allowed her to take responsibility for getting to swim team practice 1/4 mile down our street (development with sidewalks). This worked really well until the pool opened to the general community and she decided to push the limits by staying an extra 15 min to play with a friend after practice (the pool rules are that you have to be supervised by a parent or adult if under 14, and the swim coaches shouldn't have to be supervising after the practice is over). That would be why she's grounded from most activities and from the pool except for meets this week.;) I don't anticipate having that specific problem again soon (not to say there won't be another one).

[LibraryLover]

Exactly. You don't drop a four yr old off at the playground alone and go to Hot Yoga (I just love typing Hot Yoga). If you know your next door neighbor has been in jail 6 times for child molestation, you don't encourage your child to make friends. If your next door neighbor is an old lady who was known as the city's most loving librarian, you're probably ok with your child playing Farkle with her on the porch. ;)

 

 

Agreed. For us, it's a process of letting out the line, then pulling back when she tries to go too far. This year, I have felt more comfortable with her being able to play in the cul-de-sac just down the street with friends. She is allowed a lot more leeway in the park as long as she stays in a group with her friends.

 

I have also allowed her to take responsibility for getting to swim team practice 1/4 mile down our street (development with sidewalks). This worked really well until the pool opened to the general community and she decided to push the limits by staying an extra 15 min to play with a friend after practice (the pool rules are that you have to be supervised by a parent or adult if under 14, and the swim coaches shouldn't have to be supervising after the practice is over). That would be why she's grounded from most activities and from the pool except for meets this week.;) I don't anticipate having that specific problem again soon (not to say there won't be another one).

[mcconnellboys]

I think she makes many good points. I think John Gatto and others have also descried the infantization of our youth. In my time and the time of my parents and grandparents, children had much more responsibility - on a number of fronts - from the time they were about middle school age (some younger than that).

 

Parents were also more thorough in their training and instruction of their children at home, so that they felt they could trust them when they were out on their own.

 

I can recall vividly when the high tech toys began to hit. Everyone disappeared from their yards. Parents find these an easy babysitter. Children are (pretty) quiet and compliant (not counting Wii, LOL) while playing with video games. Many parents just don't/won't take the time to pry their children away from this and send them outside. When they do, there's no one else there to play with, anyway......

 

It's no surprise to me that "helicoptor parents" are on the rise, nor that many college freshmen are lost at handling even the basics of life on their own......

 

The brain really doesn't completely mature until about age 25. That said, there's no reason that kids still can't shoulder much, MUCH more responsibility in the real world before that time.....

 

We only use about a fifth of our brain under the best of circumstances. But we don't have to have reached maturity before we're able to fully utilize these capacities. In fact, many neural pathways are better opened at younger ages than later..... A nine year old who has entrepreneurial leanings may soar, if he's allowed to, to heights he might never reach if he's reigned until he's finished with college..... An empathetic kid may hone those skills in ways we'll never see come to fruition if we just keep him plugged in to video games until he's graduated from high school.....

 

I think the thing that perhaps scares me the most about the internet right now is that Facebook encourages very social people to have literally hundreds of "friends" - mostly complete strangers who don't really know or care a whit for them. I'm afraid that the undertanding of what it means to be a "friend", truly, or to be close to people in any way is changing drastically. I'm not sure what this sort of emotional isolation - or isolation of the soul, as I think of it - is going to do in the long term.....

[simka2]

I have been the victim of violent crime and so has my mother all in the last 3 yrs. I am freer than some in my neigborhood and more controlling than others. I don't let dd9 ride her bike around our development, but I do let her ride it around the block. All my kids have to check in with me when they reach someones house or go around the block. There are kids that are allowed to just ride around the neighborhood, but it will be another year before I am ready for that. I let mine play as a group in our developments volleyball pit, but I have a friend who won't let hers.

 

On the flip side I drop dd9 of at a large stable with 20+ horses all day most weekends. She is allowed to walk out to the pasture amongst a herd of about 8 horses to get hers. She canters bareback and jumps! That's scary enough :)

[BikeBookBread]

We *want* badly to be free range parents, but due to the age of our children (6 and 4), where we live ( in a nice development that happens to be within 1 mile of a major interstate, 60 miles from the Mexican border with daily border patrol helicopter sitings over our home tracking drug-courier illegals coming through the desert), common sense tells me, "no" to the free range movement. For now.

 

Parents need to use common sense, not fear alone (although legitimate fear is a good thing, not a bad thing), to determine how and when their kids can be free range.

[msjones]

NO. I do NOT agree with the author's premise. I have lived overseas. There are REASONS that the U.S. is not appropriate for 'free range kids'. We do not have the same sense of community.

 

If you peruse the author's website you will see the post in which she advocates DROPPING OFF 7 YEAR OLD KIDS AT THE PARK AND LEAVING. :confused:

 

 

That's not free-range, that's just stupidity. :001_huh:

 

It could be stupidity, depending on the park. But, it could be just fine, imho. I think it depends so much on the neighborhood and each particular kid.

[littlebug42]

Yes. Free range kid here, and proud of it.

 

I tire quickly of those who seem to equate parents who allow their kids to play outside, ride their bikes to the library, walk to sports practice or a friend's house, etc. with the height of neglect and sloth.

Free Range Kid does not equal Neglected Kid. Free Range Parenting does not equal Poor Parenting.

 

(not saying you said this, OP, but I can see it coming and it's a sore spot with me.)

 

astrid

 

Along the same lines, it doesn't make me a bad parent if I choose not to free range. It doesn't mean that I am raising a child that will be an emotionally crippled, irresponsible adult forever tied to my apron strings. Sorry, but this is also a sore point for me. I am not saying that you said this but a merely using your quote as an example that the opposite is also true. :001_smile:

[Jenny in GA]

I read the news, and I watch CSI, Bones, etc. and I am definitely a free range parent.

 

The point was not that you can't be "free-range" if you watch the news or crime shows, but that spending many many hours a week watching that kind of stuff probably has a definite effect -- on individuals and/or society as a whole.

 

I don't say these things to my teens, and my friends don't either. I don't think teens are any more passive and useless or surly and self-centered than past generations. (Is this a quote from the book?)

 

Whether you and your friends say it or not, I think it's still out there.

 

The author cited some Disney Playhouse cartoon with "safety twins" or something. A child starts to make breakfast for her mom, and the cartoon characters say, "No! Ovens and stoves are hot! Let an adult do it!" and then they barricade the stove and oven.

 

Then the child starts to cut some food, and the characters say, "No! Knives are sharp! Let an adult do it!" The idea being that the kid is trying to do something useful and helpful, and they're told it's dangerous, and they shouldn't try. After a lot of these messages, I could easily picture just giving up even trying -- or just assuming there's really nothing that you can do.

 

Yes, the comment about teens being surly because they feel useless all the time was from the book. The author said that teens are naturally read to start to "get out there" and do things and have their own lives, but there's nothing they can really do. She printed a letter she got from a fifteen year old who said she was home for winter break from school, and realized sadly that about the only things she was able to do on break were play video games, watch TV, and eat snacks.

 

I know that when I was a teen, I was sure surly and whiny and frustrated often as a direct result of never feeling competent or useful.

 

I would be comfortable with that if it was the cultural norm in my area. However, if I left a 4 yo alone on a playground someone would probably call the cops on me.

 

The point was not that we should all start doing that, but that our entire culture is very different from most everyone else's in that regard.

 

I think you can teach kids the skills they need without leaving them alone. Have the child lead on the way to the Library, for example.

 

But the point (whether it's true or not) was that adults are less likely to take the time to do that -- or even think about the need to do it -- if they have no intention of the kids every doing things themselves.

[Jenny in GA]

Along the same lines, it doesn't make me a bad parent if I choose not to free range. It doesn't mean that I am raising a child that will be an emotionally crippled, irresponsible adult forever tied to my apron strings. Sorry, but this is also a sore point for me. I am not saying that you said this but a merely using your quote as an example that the opposite is also true.

 

***********************************************

I think it depends on what the definition of "free-range is." It doesn't just mean letting them be unattended, but rather finding things to let your kids do without being overly scared of the possible danger.

 

For example, the author said that if you're letting your kids cook dinner, or thinking about doing it soon, then you're a free-range parent.

[littlebug42]

 

The author cited some Disney Playhouse cartoon with "safety twins" or something. A child starts to make breakfast for her mom, and the cartoon characters say, "No! Ovens and stoves are hot! Let an adult do it!" and then they barricade the stove and oven.

 

Then the child starts to cut some food, and the characters say, "No! Knives are sharp! Let an adult do it!" The idea being that the kid is trying to do something useful and helpful, and they're told it's dangerous, and they shouldn't try. After a lot of these messages, I could easily picture just giving up even trying -- or just assuming there's really nothing that you can do.

 

 

 

Playhouse Disney is specifically targeted to preschoolers, not older kids. IMO, preschoolers shouldn't be using knives and the oven without adult supervision.

[daddygeek]

I am curious as to what the 'truth' you speak of is?

 

Hello MyBlueLobsters:

Most Importantly Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life". Jesus is the most important truth for mankind.

 

In the post, I was refering to being open and honest with children: A bad example is my sister hiding where meat comes from until her daughter started school. But from a young age, children should know that not all people have good intentions, and some ways to spot bad intentions. The world is a dangerous place, and how to deal with dangers etc. I do not think hiding the basics of sexual reproduction etc helps children.

[phathui5]

No wonder teenagers are surly and self-centered when they are given little independence and responsibility.

 

 

 

I was surly and self-centered even though I had a paying job and was allowed to spend lots of time with friends. I don't know why, as now I really like my parents. I think it's part of separating yourself and becoming an adult maybe.

[TravelingChris]

By the way, when I said we allow our kids to play in the wooded park behind our house or to walk to the pool by themselves, etc., that didn't mean that I thought everyone with a pre-teen or teen should do this. It completely depends on where you live. One time, we lived in a now closed base in CA. It was okay for our kids to go to the playground across the street. It was not okay for our then 9 or 10 year old son to go to the Walmart two blocks away. We weren't living in a safe neighborhood. THe base itself was fine= guards and ID checks. The neighborhood outside and the shopping center has lots of robberies and other crimes. We routinely had helicopters searching for suspects on Friday and Saturday nights. So I completely understand that parents have to change rules based on where they live and the particular abilities and personalities of their own children. Where one ten year old is responsible enough to bike a few blocks away in a safe neighborhood, another isn't.

[Jenny in GA]

I was surly and self-centered even though I had a paying job and was allowed to spend lots of time with friends. I don't know why, as now I really like my parents. I think it's part of separating yourself and becoming an adult maybe.

 

 

Do you feel like you could have had more responsibility that you had?

 

For myself, I think part of the reason I felt surly (and this is kinda the book's point) is that I was not given much real stuff to do regularly. I too had a paying job (that my parents drove me to and picked me up from), but I wasn't able to cook dinner, mow the lawn, or do much of anything in day-to-day life. I remember being bored and frustrated.

 

I read once that "teens today don't have too many freedoms, or too few freedoms; they have the wrong freedoms. They have the freedom to hang out at the mall, and to spend lots of money on CDs and video games. They need more real freedoms."

[jewellsmommy]

Hello MyBlueLobsters:

Most Importantly Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life". Jesus is the most important truth for mankind.

 

In the post, I was refering to being open and honest with children: A bad example is my sister hiding where meat comes from until her daughter started school. But from a young age, children should know that not all people have good intentions, and some ways to spot bad intentions. The world is a dangerous place, and how to deal with dangers etc. I do not think hiding the basics of sexual reproduction etc helps children.

 

Though I agree with your sentiment, the free range being discussed in the book (as per my understanding) refers to a physical letting go and of course there is a mind set that goes with it. I read your post to reference more of a mental non-sheltering. If that makes sense.

 

What I am saying is that even though I don't let my dd ride around neighborhood or take a bus or walk to the store etc. I hold a similar view about what you speak. So, don't equate the two.

 

Now, if I lived somewhere else, I might feel more free to allow dd to roam. I don't think roamers are irresponsible, bad parents and I don't think non-roamers are overprotective, sheltering, head in the sand parents.

 

Everyone on here probably falls in the middle and varies by several degrees to the next person both in the physical freedom they allow AND the mental/emotional openess they share with their children. But, the two don't necessarily go hand in hand.

 

ETA: No snarkiness intended, I promise....darn this lack of body language thing.

[MyBlueLobsters]

Hello MyBlueLobsters:

Most Importantly Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life". Jesus is the most important truth for mankind.

 

In the post, I was refering to being open and honest with children: A bad example is my sister hiding where meat comes from until her daughter started school. But from a young age, children should know that not all people have good intentions, and some ways to spot bad intentions. The world is a dangerous place, and how to deal with dangers etc. I do not think hiding the basics of sexual reproduction etc helps children.

 

Thanks for clarifying. :001_smile: I didn't know if there was some secret "WTM truth" that I didn't know about.... :lol:

[angela in ohio]

Playhouse Disney is specifically targeted to preschoolers, not older kids. IMO, preschoolers shouldn't be using knives and the oven without adult supervision.

 

:iagree:

 

This seems like a weak argument for the author. We don't let four year-olds use knives and the stoves, and so we're stunting their growth?

[angela in ohio]

I was surly and self-centered even though I had a paying job and was allowed to spend lots of time with friends.

 

I was thinking the same thing. I had so much responsibility and independence, and I was beyond surly and self-centered as a teen. I don't think this is the reason. I think many teens are surly and self-centered often because (1.) their parents are, and (2.) they are allowed to be, and (3.) they are seeking meaningful attention from busy adults in their lives (which was my case.) And then there are those who are just born surly. :tongue_smilie:

[angela in ohio]

Yes, the comment about teens being surly because they feel useless all the time was from the book. The author said that teens are naturally read to start to "get out there" and do things and have their own lives, but there's nothing they can really do. She printed a letter she got from a fifteen year old who said she was home for winter break from school, and realized sadly that about the only things she was able to do on break were play video games, watch TV, and eat snacks.

 

I do agree with this. People think they are doing kids and teens a favor by not making them do any chores or take care of even themselves, and I just see them ending up frustrated and gloomy. I have a family member like this. They give him everything, they do everything for him, and he just gets more miserable. His father feels bad that he didn't have "the good life" as a kid, so he is giving it to his son. Except it's not.

 

I still don't think of letting teens have responsibility as the same as free-range parenting, though.

[Wheres Toto]

Do you feel like you could have had more responsibility that you had?

 

For myself, I think part of the reason I felt surly (and this is kinda the book's point) is that I was not given much real stuff to do regularly. I too had a paying job (that my parents drove me to and picked me up from), but I wasn't able to cook dinner, mow the lawn, or do much of anything in day-to-day life. I remember being bored and frustrated.

 

I read once that "teens today don't have too many freedoms, or too few freedoms; they have the wrong freedoms. They have the freedom to hang out at the mall, and to spend lots of money on CDs and video games. They need more real freedoms."

 

I was surly, moody and self centered but had lots of responsibility. I did my own laundry from about 6 years old (my older brother had to carry it to the apartment complex laundry room for me because it was too heavy), paper route from 12, babysat 11 or 12, retail job at 16, could walk miles to library at 11, washed dishes from about 4 or 5, cooked dinner starting at 8 or 9, did grocery shopping from about 12 - from about 14 on had to cross highway with 3 lanes in each direction divided by median (did have traffic lights). Didn't stop me from being the typical nasty teenager.

 

My oldest is actually usually very pleasant, at least to me. She's had a lot of responsibility connected with her dancing from a pretty young age, does babysit for her brother and sister, cooks food for herself (and them), does her own laundry, she's probably going to start working at her dance studio to help pay for her lessons next year.

 

I think part of its a personality thing, part of its a separating from parents thing and part of it may be a boredom/not feeling worthwhile thing.

[Ravin]

We definitely fall more on the free-range end of the spectrum. For the better part of a year DD has had free range of our neighborhood. She has also led the way on more distant excursions, such as to the grocery store down the street. At Wal-Mart she is allowed to go to the next aisle over to find items for me, and has checked things out at the self-check while I'm over at a regular cashier getting our ad-matched items. Last summer and this she's spent a month at her grandmother's in TX. I'm going to give my mom a feel for her limits here and hopefully she'll be allowed to do things like walk up to my friend A's house to play with her kids some of the time and help with shopping there, too.

 

In the mornings, she is effectively in charge of herself because she's an early riser and I'll be at work while everyone else is sleeping. So I leave her a to-do list and she does what's on the list and amuses herself until someone gets up or I get home. A few times she's been home alone completely, and been fine (it was her idea).

 

I give her as much freedom and responsibility as she can handle, I think.

 

I'd let her ride to the park if there was one in our neighborhood, but I'm still not ready to let her cross a 5 lane 45 mph road to get there. I'd let her go with her stepbrothers (13 and 11), but it hasn't come up.

[LibraryLover]

Well...we spend a lot of time in the kitchen, so I did let my 4 year olds handle knives with supervision. It simply wasn't a big deal. They could cut easily cut stems off of strawberries, butter bread, amke a peanut butter and jelly sandwich etc., and they didn't even run with them. They also adored my Pampered Chef veggie peeler. ;) I also taught them how to turn on the oven and use a timer. By 6 they knew how to boil water for eggs and pasta etc. Of course, if your have a stove with igniters that don't work; I mean if you use a match to light your burners, I wouldn't recommend this. ;)

 

Some of us really do include children in every day work that might seem dangerous to others, but work well for our families. We're not the wicked stepmother bossing Cinderellla around; we're letting them participate safely in daily living. Kids like to contribute to the running of the home, ime. Little kids love to gain useful skills.

 

I am don't think people who highly surpervise their children and don't let them work in the kitchen are bad parents. I am not sure why people who are less comfortable with children using knives etc seemed so annoyed by those of us who do. What's the deal with that? If you don't feel comfortable with your child in the kitchen or using knives, or you have an impulsive child who would set the house on fire if they knew how to turn the oven on, I get that. That's cool. I don't care whether people let their young children uses knives or not. :D

Edited June 14, 2010 by LibraryLover

[Farrar]

It's interesting to me that one of Lenore Skenazy's arguments is that the media has conditioned us to think that the US is unsafe and scary, despite the fact that crime statistics show that violent crime is much lower than when we were all kids. And in this thread, many people have stated that they don't think America has the right kind of society or culture for free range kids. But how much of that is because they've been influenced by those media reports?

 

Obviously, different neighborhoods and regions require different approaches and levels of safety (as she herself has said). However, this strikes me as a sort of cyclical problem. There are no kids at the park alone and no sense of community among neighborhoods therefore people refuse to let their kids roam around the neighborhood or go to the park alone, which just serves to increase the feeling that there's no community. In many other countries, kids do roam freer at younger ages and I think that increases the feeling that it is somehow safer. But one of Lenore Skenazy's arguments is that statistically speaking, that's just not really true. She does say that there's safety for kids in numbers. So, for example, when she advised people to leave their kids at the park, she advised people (especially of younger kids - by which she meant at least 7 yo and up) to only do this in groups. I think the problem arises when no one wants to be the first one.

 

Obviously, this philosophy isn't for everyone. However, I just really question why people think the US isn't a place you can have free range kids.

[LibraryLover]

I think you mean *some* people in the US think this. There are lots of us whose children have freedom with common sense and thoughtful boundaries. Although, I am on the Free- Range Spectrum...I am not a 100% free-ranger...is anyone, really? "Of course you can play ball on the freeway honey, you're Free -Range!" "Here suburban 4 year old, take this giant, razor- sharp machete and go play outside with your friends!" "Oh, there is a moutain lion/alligator/rabid racoon in the neighborhood, go help the police find it!"

 

 

It's interesting to me that one of Lenore Skenazy's arguments is that the media has conditioned us to think that the US is unsafe and scary, despite the fact that crime statistics show that violent crime is much lower than when we were all kids. And in this thread, many people have stated that they don't think America has the right kind of society or culture for free range kids. But how much of that is because they've been influenced by those media reports?

 

Obviously, different neighborhoods and regions require different approaches and levels of safety (as she herself has said). However, this strikes me as a sort of cyclical problem. There are no kids at the park alone and no sense of community among neighborhoods therefore people refuse to let their kids roam around the neighborhood or go to the park alone, which just serves to increase the feeling that there's no community. In many other countries, kids do roam freer at younger ages and I think that increases the feeling that it is somehow safer. But one of Lenore Skenazy's arguments is that statistically speaking, that's just not really true. She does say that there's safety for kids in numbers. So, for example, when she advised people to leave their kids at the park, she advised people (especially of younger kids - by which she meant at least 7 yo and up) to only do this in groups. I think the problem arises when no one wants to be the first one.

 

Obviously, this philosophy isn't for everyone. However, I just really question why people think the US isn't a place you can have free range kids.

[Lara in Colo]

Honstly my biggest problem with the "free range thing" is other people. Nothing like having someone else think you aren't doing it right and call the authorities to investgate. I let my children ride their bikes in the street--just in front of out house and the next door neighbors'. Our lot is long and takes up a lot of the street. This guy stopped my children (I was in the driveway about 500 feet way) to yell at them and tell them to get out of the street. I live in a closed residential neighborhood that is a dead end---no through traffic. The only ones on our street should belong here. There are no sidewalks. This man then proceeded to yell at me that I wasn't watching them carefully enough. I told him I could see them, but he was outraged that I even let them be more than 20 ft from me!!! I tried to tell him they were fine, I could see them (and him). He walked away saying I didn't get it and he would have to "take this further". I lived in fear for weeks that CPS would knock on my door. True the people in my neighborhood drive to fast and I do not let the children out near the street before 10 or after 4:30 or on weekends just because the neighbors would rather hit them to prove a lesson than to slow down and watch out for them. So I limit what the children do mainly because people don't watch out for children anymore and they would call CPS ina heartbeat and I NEVER want to be on that list. Too many times in the news you hear that what once would have been a tragedy is now a crime.

 

 

Lara

[littlebug42]

Well...we spend a lot of time in the kitchen, so I did let my 4 year olds handle knives with supervision. It simply wasn't a big deal. They could cut easily cut stems off of strawberries, butter bread, amke a peanut butter and jelly sandwich etc., and they didn't even run with them. They also adored my Pampered Chef veggie peeler. ;) I also taught them how to turn on the oven and use a timer. By 6 they knew how to boil water for eggs and pasta etc. Of course, if your have a stove with igniters that don't work; I mean if you use a match to light your burners, I wouldn't recommend this. ;)

 

Some of us really do include children in every day work that might seem dangerous to others, but work well for our families. We're not the wicked stepmother bossing Cinderellla around; we're letting them participate safely in daily living. Kids like to contribute to the running of the home, ime. Little kids love to gain useful skills.

 

I am don't think people who highly surpervise their children and don't let them work in the kitchen are bad parents. I am not sure why people who are less comfortable with children using knives etc seemed so annoyed by those of us who do. What's the deal with that? If you don't feel comfortable with your child in the kitchen or using knives, or you have an impulsive child who would set the house on fire if they knew how to turn the oven on, I get that. That's cool. I don't care whether people let their young children uses knives or not. :D

 

I think what you have done here is very appropriate. I also let my kids help in the kitchen but I believe the Playhouse Disney item is more aimed at the littles that would be watching it, not trying to do those things on their own. The thought of my 6 year old with a knife, unsupervised, makes me very fearful because she cannot yet handle that responsibility. I have seen the Safety twins items on Playhouse Disney and they are aimed at keeping PRESCHOOLERS safe. I have known many children that spend more time with Playhouse Disney than they do their parents so I don't think that is inappropriate.

[Farrar]

As I tried to make clear, I was referring specifically to the fact that in this thread at least a dozen people lamented that they didn't free range because they didn't find the US to be free range friendly. Obviously, not everyone in the country (or even in this discussion) felt that way. I just wanted to point out that this seems to be exactly the kind of thinking that Lenore Skenazy is trying to counteract. I think that this is a feeling we have grown into as a nation that somehow we don't have a safe country or a country that is as community oriented as others. The US is far from perfect, but I think this stems from fear that is (at least partially) driven by a fear-mongering media and simply isn't borne out by statistical data.

 

But thank goodness not everyone feels that way!

 

I think you mean *some* people in the US think this. There are lots of us whose children have freedom with common sense and thoughtful boundaries. Although, I am on the Free- Range Spectrum...I am not a 100% free-ranger...is anyone, really? "Of course you can play ball on the freeway honey, you're Free -Range!" "Here suburban 4 year old, take this giant, razor- sharp machete and go play outside with your friends!" "Oh, there is a moutain lion/alligator/rabid racoon in the neighborhood, go help the police find it!"

[Mama Geek]

It amazing to me that some states require kids to still be in car seats when they have their drivers license. :auto:

 

I can remember road trips where my little brother and I would be in the back with the seats laid down so we could sleep or play or keep ourselves amused. Now that would probably end up with a parent in jail for neglect.

[Peela]

My brother and I were free range kids- much more so than other kids we knew. Our parents really valued trusting us, and putting us in situations that stretched us. I remember going for a long bushwalk with my parents and another adult couple. When we got back to the river on the opposite side of the camping ground where we were staying, rather than walk the extra mile or two around to cross the bridge, everyone stripped off and swam across the river. My brother and I were around 6 or 7 years old and this was a very fast flowing river. A whole crowd gathered on the beach on the other side of the river, very concerned for my brother and I, especially since we both preferred to swim under the water rather than on top! However we had been taught how to swim a fast flowing river and were fine.

We canoed, bushwalked and swam alone, together and with our families, frequently. As we got older we would disappear for half or whole days and even camped in the bush with friends.

One thing that made me very independent was having to catch a bus and a train, plus walk a mile, to get to and from school each day, from age 9. It was an hour's journey and I often had to leave home in the dark.

 

Our kids are not so free range in the same way, but also, nor are they "nature kids" the way my brother and I were. They really are city kids. However we put them in Scouts and they sail a lot, and they are very competent both in the bush and on water. They are much more social than I was.

They both catch public transport but they didnt start that till they were each about 13.

They probably watch less TV than I did as a kid, yet I didnt have a computer and they spend time on theirs.

I would happily leave my small kids in the fenced in park to play while I went for a brisk walk. Dh and I would leave them alone and go for walks or to the movies from quite young. I rmember allowing my toddlers to climb the slippery dips alone as soon as they could walk, and I didnt hover underneath them- I am and never was a hoverer, waiting for my kid to fall. I figured their motor skills would only increase every time they fell.

 

Yes, I do thnk kids are overprotected nowadays and I don't know if the U.S. is really that dangerous or if it is the media everyone watches. The media focuses on a lot of horrible things and if you watch it your head is filled with terrible images that do you no good whatsoever.

 

I think there is a criteria for knowing if you are being overprotective, and that is, are you coming from fear and from a space of telling yourself all the terrible things that could happen to your children, or are you coming from a calm and considered place, using the information you have available about your particular area and your kids, to make decisions.

 

I think people come from fear much too often nowdays, and the media plays on that fear and expands it, and it is easy to justify it. But I think the kids pay the price of growing up with fear governing their parents decisions. Fear is what allows people to accept the government making more and more laws "for our own good" and it is what makes parents sit their kids inside at home on the computer rather than letting them out to ride their bikes around the neighbourhood.

 

If we grow up in fearful environments, we spend our whole lives in fear. It makes us easily manipulated. Free range kids are those who are allowed to explore and adventure and overcome their fears, and there is ALWAYS risk, but life without risk is a poor life.

[LibraryLover]

We don't have cable. I've never heard of this program. What is your risk factor? Would your parenting style/home be condusive to little children using knives supervised? If this show is for older children, and little ones are watching, maybe have a talk with your litte one about knives. Let him know he is always able to help you in the kitchen and you are happy to help him learn how to use a knife safely while you're working together in the kitchen. If he wants to use a knife as the children on this show do, he'll need to come get you so you can help. For us, 6 was old enough to use even sharp knives supervised. In four children, we've never had an issue.

 

 

I think what you have done here is very appropriate. I also let my kids help in the kitchen but I believe the Playhouse Disney item is more aimed at the littles that would be watching it, not trying to do those things on their own. The thought of my 6 year old with a knife, unsupervised, makes me very fearful because she cannot yet handle that responsibility. I have seen the Safety twins items on Playhouse Disney and they are aimed at keeping PRESCHOOLERS safe. I have known many children that spend more time with Playhouse Disney than they do their parents so I don't think that is inappropriate.

Edited June 15, 2010 by LibraryLover

[jewellsmommy]

It's interesting to me that one of Lenore Skenazy's arguments is that the media has conditioned us to think that the US is unsafe and scary, despite the fact that crime statistics show that violent crime is much lower than when we were all kids. And in this thread, many people have stated that they don't think America has the right kind of society or culture for free range kids. But how much of that is because they've been influenced by those media reports?

 

Obviously, different neighborhoods and regions require different approaches and levels of safety (as she herself has said). However, this strikes me as a sort of cyclical problem. There are no kids at the park alone and no sense of community among neighborhoods therefore people refuse to let their kids roam around the neighborhood or go to the park alone, which just serves to increase the feeling that there's no community. In many other countries, kids do roam freer at younger ages and I think that increases the feeling that it is somehow safer. But one of Lenore Skenazy's arguments is that statistically speaking, that's just not really true. She does say that there's safety for kids in numbers. So, for example, when she advised people to leave their kids at the park, she advised people (especially of younger kids - by which she meant at least 7 yo and up) to only do this in groups. I think the problem arises when no one wants to be the first one.

 

Obviously, this philosophy isn't for everyone. However, I just really question why people think the US isn't a place you can have free range kids.

 

 

It really does vary by city. I know the crime statistics in my area. They have steadily risen along with the population. One yr might be lower then the one before and then go up again and then down a little, but the overall big picture does show increase. Some statistics are difficult to calculate because certain crimes are reported more often while some have a tendency to go unreported and of course the type of crime varies by even which neighborhood you are in. This simply may not be the case in a smaller town or one where the population does not changeover so rapidly.

 

Again, I also admit to being slightly more 'aware' of the dangers because my father knows exactly the kind of things that happen in our city after being an officer for so many yrs. It would be difficult for someone to convince me that my view of the safety of my area is out of touch with the reality of my area. I have made it a point to be educated about my surroundings.

 

Despite our caution, we are raising dd to be 'less hampered' in a very different way. She is quite un-sheltered in her knowledge and her activities (dd is quite the shot with a .22 rifle) She is certainly not siting home eating twinkies because its too dangerous to go outside. Come to think of it, if she could take her rifle, I might just let her on a subway alone. :D just kidding.

[IsabelC]

I am not finding this whole 'free-range' concept all that helpful. For one thing, it is now there as something that we can aspire to (I can't help thinking of free-range chickens and battery chickens: who wants to have 'battery children'?) and that makes it just another thing I have to beat myself up about if it doesn't get achieved. For another thing, it inevitably becomes something for people to support, oppose, redefine and debate, which all too often can end up dropping down to the level of "You're an interfering helicopter parent whose kids have no freedom" vs "You're a neglectful laissez faire parent whose kids have no boundaries or too much responsibility" when in reality we are all trying to balance benefits and risks and give out children a reasonable amount of guidance to keep them safe.

[jewellsmommy]

I am not finding this whole 'free-range' concept all that helpful. For one thing, it is now there as something that we can aspire to (I can't help thinking of free-range chickens and battery chickens: who wants to have 'battery children'?) and that makes it just another thing I have to beat myself up about if it doesn't get achieved. For another thing, it inevitably becomes something for people to support, oppose, redefine and debate, which all too often can end up dropping down to the level of "You're an interfering helicopter parent whose kids have no freedom" vs "You're a neglectful laissez faire parent whose kids have no boundaries or too much responsibility" when in reality we are all trying to balance benefits and risks and give out children a reasonable amount of guidance to keep them safe.

 

 

Absolutely. Everyone is going to fall somewhere in the middle anyway. None of us do it the same. We all have different experiences that color us, different children, live in different areas...etc. We couldn't parent alike even if we tried. :D

[PiCO]

Me-I read the news, and I watch CSI, Bones, etc. and I am definitely a free range parent.

 

Jenny- The point was not that you can't be "free-range" if you watch the news or crime shows, but that spending many many hours a week watching that kind of stuff probably has a definite effect -- on individuals and/or society as a whole.

 

Me - I understood the point. I was making the point that some (most?) people can tell the difference between fiction (TV shows) and reality. It seems like people who get freaked out by watching these shows know they're over reacting to a fictional show, so they stop watching.

 

 

Me- I don't say these things to my teens, and my friends don't either. I don't think teens are any more passive and useless or surly and self-centered than past generations. (Is this a quote from the book?)

 

Jenny- Whether you and your friends say it or not, I think it's still out there.

 

Me- A lot of things are "out there". I was making the point that passive, surely, useless teens are not necessarily the societal norm. The idea of the book interests me- but not if the author throws around a bunch of ideas that are "out there" as if they are societal norms.

 

Jenny- The author cited some Disney Playhouse cartoon with "safety twins" or something. A child starts to make breakfast for her mom, and the cartoon characters say, "No! Ovens and stoves are hot! Let an adult do it!" and then they barricade the stove and oven.

 

Then the child starts to cut some food, and the characters say, "No! Knives are sharp! Let an adult do it!" The idea being that the kid is trying to do something useful and helpful, and they're told it's dangerous, and they shouldn't try. After a lot of these messages, I could easily picture just giving up even trying -- or just assuming there's really nothing that you can do.

 

Me- As someone else mentioned, Disney Playhouse is geared towards pre-schoolers. I did let my pre-schoolers play with knives and ovens (well, not "play" really... I taught them proper use...) but I am not normal.

 

 

Yes, the comment about teens being surly because they feel useless all the time was from the book. The author said that teens are naturally read to start to "get out there" and do things and have their own lives, but there's nothing they can really do. She printed a letter she got from a fifteen year old who said she was home for winter break from school, and realized sadly that about the only things she was able to do on break were play video games, watch TV, and eat snacks.

 

I know that when I was a teen, I was sure surly and whiny and frustrated often as a direct result of never feeling competent or useful.

 

Me- This is a good point- teens do need real things to do. Parents need to make sure they have them. I wasn't surly whiny and frustrated, probably because I did feel competent and useful. (I was, however, hormone-riddled- but that's another story!)

 

 

Me- I would be comfortable with that if it was the cultural norm in my area. However, if I left a 4 yo alone on a playground someone would probably call the cops on me.

 

Jenny- The point was not that we should all start doing that, but that our entire culture is very different from most everyone else's in that regard.

 

Me- I agree- but I don't think that's going to happen in the near future. Too many people think any child left unattended will be abducted.

 

 

Me- I think you can teach kids the skills they need without leaving them alone. Have the child lead on the way to the Library, for example.

 

Jenny- But the point (whether it's true or not) was that adults are less likely to take the time to do that -- or even think about the need to do it -- if they have no intention of the kids every doing things themselves.

 

Me- I don't agree with the premise. Maybe I just hang around with people who care... but I don't know a lot of parents who don't take the time to teach their kids basic skills, even if they are what I consider overprotective.

 

I guess I'm a free-range parent who wouldn't like this book!

[LibraryLover]

I was agreeng with you. :iagree:

 

As I tried to make clear, I was referring specifically to the fact that in this thread at least a dozen people lamented that they didn't free range because they didn't find the US to be free range friendly. Obviously, not everyone in the country (or even in this discussion) felt that way. I just wanted to point out that this seems to be exactly the kind of thinking that Lenore Skenazy is trying to counteract. I think that this is a feeling we have grown into as a nation that somehow we don't have a safe country or a country that is as community oriented as others. The US is far from perfect, but I think this stems from fear that is (at least partially) driven by a fear-mongering media and simply isn't borne out by statistical data.

 

But thank goodness not everyone feels that way!

[LibraryLover]

Oh, I like that! 'Less-hampered"! Fear is so destructive, and it's right to examine our fears in the light of what is true, and what is hype.

 

It really does vary by city. I know the crime statistics in my area. They have steadily risen along with the population. One yr might be lower then the one before and then go up again and then down a little, but the overall big picture does show increase. Some statistics are difficult to calculate because certain crimes are reported more often while some have a tendency to go unreported and of course the type of crime varies by even which neighborhood you are in. This simply may not be the case in a smaller town or one where the population does not changeover so rapidly.

 

Again, I also admit to being slightly more 'aware' of the dangers because my father knows exactly the kind of things that happen in our city after being an officer for so many yrs. It would be difficult for someone to convince me that my view of the safety of my area is out of touch with the reality of my area. I have made it a point to be educated about my surroundings.

 

Despite our caution, we are raising dd to be 'less hampered' in a very different way. She is quite un-sheltered in her knowledge and her activities (dd is quite the shot with a .22 rifle) She is certainly not siting home eating twinkies because its too dangerous to go outside. Come to think of it, if she could take her rifle, I might just let her on a subway alone. :D just kidding.

[Catherine]

I have allowed my just-turned 17 yo travel alone to a very large city 4 hours away by public transport, and back again. Several times in fact. He has a summer job, and has had a checking account since he was 16 and first started working. He totally manages his own money.

 

I think one of the biggest benefits of homeschooling is that my kids have more freedom. So I am not letting my 13 yo travel alone, but I am teaching him how to manage money, giving him as much freedom as a kid who has no job and cannot drive, can have. I'm hoping he can work next summer as a golf caddy.

 

I also though agree with the poster who said she had a free range childhood and it did her no favors. Hours on end that are unsupervised is not my aim, but freedom to move about alone is. There is a big difference. I also would never let my kid travel around our city alone. We have talked many times, unfortunately, about the "hustlers" all over the place here and how to handle them verbally if necessary, though in truth I do not allow them to do anything that would bring them into contact with these people unless I am with them.