I have been writing recently about why children need risk. In The Sunday Times (4 July 2010) there was an article about an interesting aspect of this.
Two parents had decided to let their children, aged 8 and 5, cycle to school alone. They live in Dulwich. They were cycling along pavements and only crossed one road, with the help of a lollipop lady. The parents had concluded “the risk is very low and the benefits significantly outweigh them“.
However, the school has decided this is not safe and, having a legal responsibility to notify the local authority if they feel a child in their care is at risk, have said they will involve social services if this unsupervised school-run does not stop.
This raises some interesting issues. Firstly, the Interfering State, which I have posted about before. Can parents not make their own decisions about their children? In this article the mum asks “do the government have the right to put an obligation on schools not to allow any level of risk whatsoever?”
This leads on to the second issue; the level of risk. In my last post on risk I sharedmy concerns about my son tripping off the pavement as he runs to school. Despite some very sensible comments on my post, I still have an issue with this bit of pavement. This week I watched a child on a scooter have a near miss with a van pulling out of a driveway. What is the right reaction to this? Should we all insist our children walk with us – as a mum it’s so hard to get this balance right; modern parents are criticised for being over cautious, saying “no” and “don’t” too often. Playground Mum says – think about how many children walk down that pavement every day and how many actually get hurt.
This is what the Dulwich parents have done – assessed the risks and decided they are minimal. They say they have gradually exposed their children to taking greater responsibility and risks and have adjusted, mature and independent children as a result. “We wanted to recreate the simple freedom of our childhood…these days children live such regimented lives. They can do nothing unless it’s planned beforehand“.
Professor Furedi is quoted in the piece as saying that the state is steadily encroaching and that excessive protection of children harms their development. He says the measures these parents took “actually protect the children by developing resilience and resourcefulness through facing challenging situations”.
It is lamented that children these days have no freedom to simply run in the park. Dulwich Dad says “we are trying to let them enjoy their lives and teach them a little bit about the risks of life…[which] are no greater today than they were 30 years ago. It’s all about the perception of risk rather than reality”.
In an article in The Daily Telegraph, Michael Owen was expressing concern about the parks being empty of parent-free children, but for a different reason. His point was that children are not getting enough football practice. “When school was finished I would be straight to the park at 4pm and my mum would be dragging me by the ear at 9pm to get home to bed. ” Nowadays, young boys are on their computers and the parks are empty.
The Dulwich parents report that they tried to encourage other parents to allow the children to meet for a free play in the park but were met with “a wall of silence”.
As a parent in this age of information and choice, the decisions are so difficult. Do I let my child race down the pavement and pray each day that a van is not pulling out of the hidden driveway? Or do I start a campaign, for drivers and children, promoting road awareness at school run time? Do we need a zebra crossing or lollipop lady to protect us from cars racing a short cut through the village or should I insist my children always hold my hand and walk with me? Am I being a Good Mother or a fusspot?
The dangers are there; how do we assess them and facilitate safe, practical living for our children. Is it right that we could be overruled in this judgement by schools “under obligation” to consider children’s safety?
thanks for your thoughtful post. this is something which concerns us hugely, and we confront it almost daily. i think in answer to your questions, if i asked the same of myself, then yes, mostly!
should they run off ahead? yes, and it’s my responsibility they have a code for kerbs, driveways, hidden entrances, vehicle hazards. i try and take the time to teach them about things they might not notice – vehicle indicator lights, reversing lights. is it always successful? no. i yell. they turn and tell me off and remind me they’re not blind. are my knuckles chewed? yes!
do you start a campaign? yes. also for wobbly pavements and other hazards, contact your council and don’t give up. what’s the worst that can happen? you become a nuisance? (in my book, that’s success!)
zebra crossings and lollipops? yes, if you think it’s necessary. get a survey done.
always hold a hand? yes, i still do require that (they are aged 10) but only at danger points, and i explain why. we talk about road features, blind spots, local hazards.
if you have a safety centre near you, organise a trip, or press the school to set up a day on the topic at the start of each new school year. (we have used this one here http://www.safetycentre.co.uk which i still think is a good idea, even though it sent my dd into counselling.)
thanks again for your post.
Thank you Grit for this long and considered answer. It really helps to get another mum’s perspective.
I’ve been thinking about this too. Partially because of that same family (although as someone I read somewhere commented they were brought up in rural Kent and the German countryside (I think, but it was something like that anyway) so the real traffic risk was much lower, when they come to compare childhoods), and also because we’ve moved, and somehow, here, the risks seem much lower…
So I’m prepared to let L walk alongside me on the pavement, although I do always hold her hand when we cross roads, and I’m happy for her to run ahead of me a little while. And then I ask myself when do I let her go to the park on her own (just across the road) or to school (just across the park?
And I’m reminded of something I read on this subject a year or so back, that said that it’s self-perpetuating. I can’t let my mini-Michael Owen out to play football until 9 pm because no-one else is doing the same with theirs. This isn’t just because of the curtain twitching, Dulwich headmasterly busybodies, but it’s a real safety thing. When we were all out playing there would have been ten, or twenty, or more other children there all, however subconsciously, watching out for each other. If I let my girls out on their own, it’ll be just them…
I realise that it’s a vicious circle, if I don’t do it, no one else will, but am I (are any of us) brave enough to be the first?
Thanks Plan B, that is an excellent point. There is real safety in numbers. Do you think that where you live, if you let your girls out, other would join? That was not the experience of this family in Dulwich.
I have really examined your excellent post. I think that many parents have a knee jerk reaction to the cycling part. If you substitute “cycling” (even though it was on the pavement) for “scootering” or “walking” I don’t think there would have been such a reaction. Silly really, as the kids weren’t in any danger from cars.
To your question “Can parents make their own decisions about their chlildren?” – No, but on the whole, that’s OK. If I knew of parents who fed their children nothing but crisps, let them smoke joints with them and skip school I would meet with no criticism if I grassed on them. It’s only when the topic is controversial that the whole “authority” question raises its head. Better to have a village looking after the children than everyone turning a blind eye at the end of the day.
This is a difficult point Expat Mum. I completely agree with the ethos of a village looking after a child – we have a great community where we live. But everyone raises their children with different principals and priorities and, unless it’s something completely obvious, like giving five year olds joints, who’s to say what is right and what is wrong?
i think about this a lot too. because I want to let my children learn, roam and experiment, but i am also incredibly paranoid of the exceptions (Madelein Mcann, Mike Tyson’s kid…) so many accidents, so many rare things waiting to happen. it is a fine balance indeed. Yet, I feel I am quite forward in letting them experiment, as long as someone is there to catch them
I’ve moved to holland 18 months ago. here they have free medical care for all children under 4yo, and the first visit is in your home. When my 4 yo started school, her teacher and the assistant also came for a visit. It is odd for me, but actually, I think it is fantastic. So they saw my home and her environment, so? so did the plumber and the cable man. but not only does that help them understand better who she is, if it helps catch even one child that is falling out of the net I think it is worth it.
Children can’t defend themselves, and the boundaries are complex, but -within reason- it’s good that someone is watching out for them.
It’s interesting to hear about that interaction in Holland Angelica.
I have just read an article by Tim Gill referencing the Schonrocks, the “Dulwich parents”. He makes an interesting point that by raising this issue the Schonrocks have questioned “the idea that being a good parents means being a controlling parent”. Gill says, “it comes down to what you think is important for children.” Another interesting slant on this issue I thought.
Very interesting post. I live on a street in a small village where all the children play out unsupervised. It is not a through-road and I imagine that the parents are checking now and again out of their windows but no-one is actually outside with the children. My eldest two boys (8 and 7) are also encouraged to walk down to the park and play – where there are sometimes other children playing but not always – but on the condition they take their mobile phone, they stay together and they come home if they feel uncomfortable about anything. I want them to have the same freedom I had as a child, but with a nod to my protectiveness at the fears I feel.
Interestingly, despite the freedom I try to encourage in my children, I would let them run ahead but I would also make them stop at the hidden driveway. In the same vein, although I let my children play out, I wouldn’t let my children cycle to school alone at that age. So freedom on the one hand, fusspot on the other!
Thanks for this comment Ella, glad you liked the post. It’s really comforting to hear that children are still playing outside – sounds like you have a good balance. I like the comment to your boys to come home if they feel uncomfortable about anything. And I agree entirely about wanting to give children the same freedom we had as children “but with a nod to protectiveness and the fears” – good compromise!
I’ve just read some stats released for Playday 2010 which “suggest that half of all adults think it’s unsafe to let a child play outside unsupervised” and “one in three parents believe they would be judged by their neighbours if they let their child play outside on their own”. Sounds like you have more sensible neighbours!
But where does this leave the children? Tim Gill, who I referred to above, also writes “children will only become responsible people if they are given the chance to learn from their experiences”.
As for the hidden driveway, I’ve asked my children to stop and look, and we’ve talked about why, but you know how it is when children are running and in that state of utter abandon! I don’t want to have to insist they can’t run on and must walk with me. I’m hoping that with the new term, the stopping and looking at the driveway becomes a habit that helps them understand sensible road-use behaviour.