'Playing out'

maman

I'm surprised at the number of parents who approve of 'playing out' i.e. out in the street unsupervised by an adult from an early age. I think 5 is the youngest I've read but I could be wrong.


I contrast this with children at Primary school who are constantly supervised. Teachers could be disciplined and a school taken to court if something happened to a child and the supervision was seen to be inadequate.


Yet schools are 'in loco parentis'.


I wonder how many of the supporters of 'playing out' would approve if children were just turfed out of school while teachers took a break.

GwylimT

maman wrote: »

I'm surprised at the number of parents who approve of 'playing out' i.e. out in the street unsupervised by an adult from an early age. I think 5 is the youngest I've read but I could be wrong.


I contrast this with children at Primary school who are constantly supervised. Teachers could be disciplined and a school taken to court if something happened to a child and the supervision was seen to be inadequate.


Yet schools are 'in loco parentis'.


I wonder how many of the supporters of 'playing out' would approve if children were just turfed out of school while teachers took a break.

It is the same for secondary school, so by your reasoning is it unsuitable to allow a sixteen year old out on their own?

Jagraf

maman wrote: »

I'm surprised at the number of parents who approve of 'playing out' i.e. out in the street unsupervised by an adult from an early age. I think 5 is the youngest I've read but I could be wrong.


I contrast this with children at Primary school who are constantly supervised. Teachers could be disciplined and a school taken to court if something happened to a child and the supervision was seen to be inadequate.


Yet schools are 'in loco parentis'.



I wonder how many of the supporters of 'playing out' would approve if children were just turfed out of school while teachers took a break.

I tend to agree here. I don't agree with sending young children out unsupervised to play in the road (which is what a cul-de-sac is).

To be honest, I'm not happy with 15/16 year olds hanging around doing nothing on street corners either.

I have no problem with young children, supervised, in a park. Or older kids, aiming to do something, playing football etc. when we were kids we would gather together in each others gardens too,which was lovely.

But actually playing out isn't always playing out, its hanging around, if its in public places.

How would people feel if a group of 8 fully grown men started kicking a ball round or sitting on the pavement in a cul-de-sac, with cans of pop?

j.e.j.

FBaby wrote: »

You're negative views of children is quite shocking. Why is this?

I don't have negative views of children. Kids are kids.

I do have negative views of parents who choose to shirk their responsibilities, though.

And yes I have met quite a few of them, it's not a new phenomenon.

j.e.j.

GwylimT wrote: »

It is the same for secondary school, so by your reasoning is it unsuitable to allow a sixteen year old out on their own?

We weren't allowed off the school premises until home time, unless the child's parents had written a letter to say the child was coming home for lunch, for example. This was secondary school.

Spendless

j.e.j. wrote: »

We weren't allowed off the school premises until home time, unless the child's parents had written a letter to say the child was coming home for lunch, for example. This was secondary school.

That is the same as my kids Secondary school. Only allowed off premises at lunchtime in order to actually go home and parents written permission needed.

Schools have stricter rules when they are in charge, possibly for fear of litigation. When I contacted the Uni that my yr10 son attends via a school scheme to ask them details of how he could get there by public transport. A journey that involves 3 modes of transport (bus/train followed by train then bus/tram) they just answered the question there was no 'Sorry, we don't recommend he does this'.

Same child, just 2 different thought processes from the institutes that educate him.

maman

GwylimT wrote: »

It is the same for secondary school, so by your reasoning is it unsuitable to allow a sixteen year old out on their own?

I was simply pointing out double standards. Often the very parents who insist on high standards for schools (and rightly so IMO) don't follow it through at home. I suspect that's because it takes more effort to take children to the park or have friends round and supervise them in the garden.

FBaby

Kids are kids

That means nothing at all. Not all kids are the same. You can't make any decision on what is right or wrong on the basis that 'kids are kids'.

I do have negative views of parents who choose to shirk their responsibilities, though.

Same comment here. I think you would probably consider me a irresponsible motherfrom what you are writing and I would probably consider you irresponsible for over protecting your children. It is again a matter of different views on how to raise children.

Jagraf

FBaby wrote: »

That means nothing at all. Not all kids are the same. You can't make any decision on what is right or wrong on the basis that 'kids are kids'.


Same comment here. I think you would probably consider me a irresponsible motherfrom what you are writing and I would probably consider you irresponsible for over protecting your children. It is again a matter of different views on how to raise children.

I don't see it from a protection perspective. Kids hanging around or playing in the road aren't learning anything. There s nothing to be learnt from playing in the road other than dire consequence. And hanging around - sitting on other people's walls, playing with balls that go into the road, isn't that much fun either.

Kids can learn from walking to the shop, crossing the road etc. Or, they can play supervised, as playing is playing.

I don't think anyone is saying kids shouldn't play, or kids shouldn't learn. So I don't think its about over protection at all. It's about parents not knowing what young kids are up to, or kids hanging around, or kids being in danger or in adults' way.

j.e.j.

FBaby wrote: »

That means nothing at all. Not all kids are the same. You can't make any decision on what is right or wrong on the basis that 'kids are kids'.


Same comment here. I think you would probably consider me a irresponsible motherfrom what you are writing and I would probably consider you irresponsible for over protecting your children. It is again a matter of different views on how to raise children.

Well, if I need to spell it out for you.. the age of criminal responsibility is ten? Yet some parents are letting their under-10s out unsupervised.

So who is responsible for these kids actions if they decide to get up to no-good, as kids often do..?

Of course not every child is going to get up to mischief, but the opportunity is there, whereas it wouldn't be if they were with an adult.

I have no idea how you bring your kids up so there's no need to interpret things as though I am pointing a big stick at you personally.