leaving children on their own?

Dunroamin

Toto wrote: »

It was rather a sweeping statement, I felt you must have some basis for making such a judgement, which is why I asked.

Rather less sweeping than many things that have been said on this thread, I thought.

poet123

conradmum wrote: »

I think I've been the same as you and have allowed my children to do things at an earlier age than normal. They've all grown up to be quite fearless, though whether that's coincidence or not of course I don't know.

I have also allowed my kids to do things quite early, but under supervision. I just wouldn't have dreamed of leaving them alone at the age of nine though. They did however cook meals, do all kinds of outdoor sports, go away on school trips from that age.

conradmum wrote: »

I've met, taught and known children from many different countries and it's been my experience that British teenagers are the most immature by far. I once had the misfortune to teach a class of British 16 year olds and their behaviour was that of children 5 or 6 years younger. I couldn't imagine any of them holding down full time jobs as their grandparents did. As was said before, other cultures tend to expect more of children at an earlier age. I do believe these phenomena are linked.

I do agree totally with you here. I regularly think the same of some of the teens I come into contact with but don't necessarily think it stems from lower expectations. I think it stems from the type of parenting where the child is regularly told they can do no wrong and that it is everyone else who is out of step. They have crossed the fine line of instilling confidence and instead instil arrogance.

conradmum wrote: »

One central truth about children is that respond strongly to adults' expectations of them. They need to be trusted and given responsibilities so that they can believe themselves to be trustworthy and responsible. At what age parents should do this depends on the child, but the earlier the better imo.

Again, I agree but I don't think that leaving them alone earlier is tied into that at all. You can do this without leaving them to fend for themselves. There are other ways of doing this.

Toto wrote: »

I encourage my kids to do all sorts of things for themselves. They cook, they shop, they repair broken stuff themselves, they look for answers to their questions rather than simply coming to ask me as a first line. They are active and inquisitive and have been taught to problem solve for themselves.

I simply don't leave them home alone at the age of 9. I find the leap of opinion which equates not leaving young children home alone and them being smothered kids who can't wipe their own backsides quite incredible.

Exactly it is a ridiculous assumption that one leads to the other. We are talking about not leaving nine year olds, not keeping teenagers tied to your apron strings.

My kids are all problem solvers ( some are more practical than others). We have come home today from a few days away and our 15 year old has son has made us a casserole and put together a flat pack desk we had left out and apparently his older brother needed a tyre changed but had an urgent apointment so got a taxi and left his car here, when he got back our youngest had changed it for him!

He has been alone for most of the time we have been away apart from overnight as his brothers are at work all day. I certainly had no qualms leaving him as we have never had cause for concern in that area.

poet123

Dunroamin wrote: »

The trouble is, the longer parents leave it to allow children some independence, the less able they are to use it wisely and the more likely it becomes that things will go wrong. This then becomes a self fulfilling prophecy where the parents hold up their children's incompetence as a justification for their decision.

You can still have independence under supervision though. Mine camped from the age of sevenish, and cooked meals on campfires, and did camp chores, but under supervision. They went orienteering and skiing but again under supervision. They cooked meals at home, but there was someone around just in case, they have had friends round at 10/11 and lit our BBQ in the garden, but we were inside watching through the window, just in case.

[Deleted User]

FBaby wrote: »

By the way, it is English parents who have such an issue with expecting their children to show some maturity at that age. Go to anywhere on the continent and children that age and younger are left on their own without question. They don't have more accidents. They just don't have over protective parents who undermines what their kids can do.

Glad us welsh, scottish, and northern irish are different then!

lisaann72red

I leave my 13,11,10,9 year olds alone together to pop to the local shops. I have uncomfortably left the 13, 11 year olds alone for 1 - 2 hours if I was really local and contactable. I cant recall my age at the time but when I was a child I was left alone whilst my mum went out for 30- 45 minutes One time the plastic tumble dryer door melted I didnt know at all and when my mum came home she saw and smelt the fumes so I had been lucky it hadnt caught on fire. Another thing I often think about is if something happened to me whilst I was away from the house even for a short space of time like two minutes. I could have an accident or take ill. What would happen? What would they do? How would they find out something had happened to me? Ideally I take them everywhere with me but sometimes its impossible.

Dunroamin

poet123 wrote: »

You can still have independence under supervision though. Mine camped from the age of sevenish, and cooked meals on campfires, and did camp chores, but under supervision. They went orienteering and skiing but again under supervision. They cooked meals at home, but there was someone around just in case, they have had friends round at 10/11 and lit our BBQ in the garden, but we were inside watching through the window, just in case.

I think that sounds great but surely the point of doing things under supervision at first is that they'll soon be able to do them unsupervised? Apart from anything else, I don't think anybody's suggesting that a 9 year old left alone for an hour lights a barbecue or a campfire.:)

valk_scot

lisaann72red wrote: »

Another thing I often think about is if something happened to me whilst I was away from the house even for a short space of time like two minutes. I could have an accident or take ill. What would happen? What would they do? How would they find out something had happened to me?

This is the type of situation where mobile phones are an absolute godsend imho. I know if you got flattened by a bus a mobile wouldn't be much good, of course! But in many other situations being able to make direct contact between parent and child almost instantly changes a potentially really difficult situation into a managable one. When I go out and leave one or both of my kids (or the kids go out alone) I'm fanatical about ensuring everyone has their mobile, it's turned on, charged, in credit and somewhere the owner can hear it. I know having a mobile phone has changed many a "No, you can't do that" to a "Yes, but take your mobile".

FBaby

It all comes down to how people perceive and face risk. I think there is a section about risk taking in almost all personality tests that exist.

Two different parents will have a different perception of the risk a mature 9 year old takes and then a different attitude to whether it accepts that level of risk of not.

What I am gathering from this thread is that the issue is not so much whether a child can or cannot be mature enough to left alone but whether it is 'worth' taking the risk, hence the separation between emergency and choice.

The way I perceive risk as it's been stated by a few is that risk is all around us and there is a big difference between how risk is perceived and actual risk, all this indeed very much influenced by culture, society and our lovely media. Statistics are quite clear that a mature 9 year old is less likely to experience an accident alone at home than a 12 yo walking to school. Yet the vast majority would refuse to do the first but consider the second to be a risk to be taken.

Maybe I accept a level of risk in my life that is probably above the average threshold, that's because I am a strong believer that what stops people most from reaching the top of their ability is fear and lack of belief in oneself, two traits which are best challenged by taking some risk.

poet123

Dunroamin wrote: »

I think that sounds great but surely the point of doing things under supervision at first is that they'll soon be able to do them unsupervised? Apart from anything else, I don't think anybody's suggesting that a 9 year old left alone for an hour lights a barbecue or a campfire.:)

Under supervision for a reasonable length of time or at least with an adult in the vicinity. So that when they are older it is second nature to do things responsibly. There are those suggesting that if they aren't left at home by nine they will grow into mollycoddled teens, which is rubbish. I am just of the opinion that whatever a nine year old is doing they require supervision.

poet123

FBaby wrote: »

It all comes down to how people perceive and face risk. I think there is a section about risk taking in almost all personality tests that exist.

Two different parents will have a different perception of the risk a mature 9 year old takes and then a different attitude to whether it accepts that level of risk of not.

What I am gathering from this thread is that the issue is not so much whether a child can or cannot be mature enough to left alone but whether it is 'worth' taking the risk, hence the separation between emergency and choice.

The way I perceive risk as it's been stated by a few is that risk is all around us and there is a big difference between how risk is perceived and actual risk, all this indeed very much influenced by culture, society and our lovely media. Statistics are quite clear that a mature 9 year old is less likely to experience an accident alone at home than a 12 yo walking to school. Yet the vast majority would refuse to do the first but consider the second to be a risk to be taken.

Maybe I accept a level of risk in my life that is probably above the average threshold, that's because I am a strong believer that what stops people most from reaching the top of their ability is fear and lack of belief in oneself, two traits which are best challenged by taking some risk.

Do you have a link to these very specific stats?

Risk is a balance, but choosing a risk for oneself is very different to choosing it for your child imo. Fear is an emotion which can be used to good effect, it is not something which should limit you if you can work through it.

As for lack of self belief, I work with teens and in the main it is not something I see a lot of, actually, quite the reverse. I see more who believe they can do something even when that belief is misplaced. I also see a lot who actually can do, and do do, but they are usually those who do it quietly and without shouting about it.