Free Range vs Helicopter parenting: Poll

Depends on the era and environment. In the suburbs in the 70s-80s, I didn’t have unspoiled wilderness to tromp in, but I was allowed the run of my subdivision (about a half a mile squared). We were told to stay out of the retention ponds and manmade river that ran through the middle, and the farmer’s cornfield that ran along the southern boundary (and sometimes we stayed out, sometimes we didn’t) but my girlfriends and I were just as unsupervised as the boys. Just had to be home when the streetlights came on.

Not Huck Finn, but considerably more freedom than the children who live there today are allowed.

No, girls weren’t sheltered “back in the day”. Once they reached a certain age, they were treated like miniature womenfolk and granted womenfolk responsibilities. Like getting the supper on the table and babysitting younger siblings. And working outside of the home.

Maybe you’re only talking about kids from rich and pampered backgrounds? Because keeping kids sheltered has always been a bit of luxury. Before the days of birth control, no one was “sheltering” girl children in working class families. Kids grew up fast in those days.

I voted “free range,” but I hope there’s a certain understanding that this means different things for different ages. You don’t let your 5-year-old leave the house at dawn and tell him to be back by suppertime if he can’t tell time yet. “Free range” doesn’t mean abandoning all parental responsibilities, nor expecting your kids to earn privileges. In fact, in my time (I was born in January of 1967), kids still go shoved out and told to “go play,” and basically stay out of their parent’s hair, but how far they could roam was often defined by what barriers they’d broken through showing responsibility, mainly by obeying previous standards, and following house rules, including doing chores.

Of course, one thing about free-range parenting, is that when everyone was doing it, the kids traveled in packs. When I was six, and wandering around Manhattan, I was with kids as old as 13, one of whom was often my 12-year-old cousin. I wasn’t free-ranging all by myself.

Right now, we live in an apartment building where everyone is either free-range, or just laissez-faire, and so my son hangs out with a group of kids I know, and whose parents I know. If he is playing basketball in the parking lot, in the designated no-car hoop area, at 7pm, I know who he’s with, and that a couple of the kids are 14 or 15. I’m not expecting that the older kids are actually babysitting him, just that their presence discourages someone who might approach an 8-year-old alone.

My son is going to camp this summer, we are considering getting my son his first phone. It won’t be a Smartphone, just something he can use mainly to call us, 911, and whatever his destination is, if he is lost and needs directions-- you know, if he finds the right building, but not the right room. He will be nine in October, and he can ride a city but that will be a straight shot, from right in front of our building, to right in front of the camp location, and we are thinking of letting him do it.

When I was ten, I used to take a bus home alone from school in Moscow, when I still spoke Russian poorly, and I had a five-block walk to the bus stop, and a three-block walk home, including crossing a busy street. We’ll ride the bus with our son a few times, and then let him make up his own mind about whether or not his is comfortable taking it alone. But if he does, he will have a phone, because there just are not pay phones every block anymore.

A bigger debate is whether to get him a prepaid debit card. My husband is in favor of it, because if he loses it, or it is stolen, he can get the money back by cancelling it. I think it’s too much like a credit card, and won’t teach him the value of money. DH thinks letting him carry cash makes him a target, but I can’t imagine he’ll ever have more than $5 at once. Frankly, I can’t even believe we’re having this discussion.

But at any rate, we wouldn’t be considering letting him ride the bus alone if he hadn’t done a lot of little things that demonstrated he was ready, like going down to the school bus on his own (including watching the clock, and knowing when to go), and always calling for permission to be out later than the agreed-upon time, even if he just wants to be a half-hour late (sometimes he might be playing a game at a friends’ house, and he wants to finish it, for example), and never going farther than the agreed-upon boundaries, as defined by the busy streets without safe crossing (ie, no stop sign or light).

I guess that sounds more like “free range,” with limits, but I think free range has always had limits, especially for children in cities. Compared to some of the parents at our son’s school, we have practically relinquished him to the wolves. But old-fashioned parenting has always included things like music lessons, dance lessons, and chores, so it was never just turning the kid loose from the time school got out until dusk.

My point is that “free range” isn’t mindless. It’s a series of decisions guided by the over-riding philosophy that less is more when it comes to direct supervision, and that teaching the kid to make his own good decisions, through example and experience, is better than being there every minute to make then all for him.

Actually, “Old school” might be a better term for what we do, than “free range.” Our kid has lessons, and chores, and is expected to behave nicely a the table, participating in family dinners. He’s expected to get his homework done before computer or TV time, and to play outside. He gets an allowance so he has autonomy, but also so we can dock it as punishment (which at eight is more effective than grounding, or anything else, probably more effective than a spanking). He gets a generous allowance, and has to decide whether he wants to put some of it in his school lunch account, or make a lunch for himself every night before school (help if requested, but only if requested). He has to lay out his clothes the night before, and we help him check the weather on the computer so he can decide what he needs to wear the next day. He’s allowed to watch only one hour of TV a day on school days, but he is free to DVR things, so on the exceptions, sick days, rainy days, and school vacation days when it’s cold out, and Sundays, he can watch a lot more. I remember once he had strep, and all he could do was lie on the couch-- he probably watched 20 hours of TV over three days. We do go to Sunday afternoon movies, and spoil him with popcorn and soda.

He’s a happy little boy who does well in school, and he’s not a natural student, but he’s a hard worker, so I don’t think we’re doing too badly.

They’re the terms of the day, not something I made up. I don’t like either one of them, but that’s what we’re stuck with.

Read Laura Ingalls Wilder’s books. She came from a family with four very much free range girls.

Maybe in the city and among the rich, girls were sheltered more than boys, in that boys tended to be sent to school, while girls tended to be taught at home by governesses, but that was really a by-product, and not the reason for that system. When more girls schools opened, the system changed, and then, many of the day schools became co-educational.

Huck Finn was considered neglected by an alcoholic father. He’s not really a good example of a “free-range” kid, because he was neglected even by the standards of his own time. The Ingalls girls of the “Little House” books would be a better example.

Somewhat interesting, but not unexpected, poll results, especially given the negative connotation of ‘helicopter parents’. I would suspect that it’s a correct assumption that parents who are overly protective don’t see themselves as such. My next door neighbor’s kids are afraid of their own shadows and literally cling to their mother’s legs when outdoors. The boy has never said a word to me in five years, and I’m pretty non-threatening. These parents are intelligent professionals (lawyer and medical field). The little 7-year old girl on the other side of us goes to and from the bus stop by herself every day, is loquacious, bright, and self-assured. She routinely plays outside with a friend or on her own, but if she wants to play with those other kids mentioned, has to go to their house and play indoors. But she’s a rarity. I almost never see young children playing outdoors on their own.

I would also suspect that those who report children at risk who are clearly not so, are a self-appointed vigilante minority who manage to get themselves in the news and wreak havoc in other peoples’ lives. The cops overreact, as do CPS entities, although it’s hard to blame them; there are a lot of stories where not reacting has led to the death or abuse of a child.

Anyhow, I was just curious about the opinions of those on this board as a cross-section of the larger population.

It’s nice to be informed that we working class Catholic kids had this much in common with the rich and pampered. Our parents didn’t spare us chores or outside work (I was digging graves at the parish cemetery at 14 for $3/hr). I think it was something else they were obsessed on keeping their daughters and less masculine sons from coming in contact with.

I wouldn’t use the word “helicoptering,” but it’s obvious that kids need to be supervised the majority of the time. If they can go to the park by themselves, why do you need them to be supervised during recess? If they can hang out at home alone, why do babysitters exist?

Helicoptering is a derogatory term for parents that never let their kids grow up, doing everything for them. Free range puts kids without any supervision. Neither is good. But “helicoptering with some freedom” is as close as given to the description of what good parenting is. Free range with prudent controls is a contradiction in terms–you can’t control your kid if they are on a free range outing.

I think that people are choosing what they are because “helicoptering” is a derogatory term. No one thinks they are helicoptering. But if you actually look at how much supervision you think children should have, you’re going to side more with them being supervised most of the time, with some freedom thrown in.

The balance to more freedom than supervision doesn’t tip over until the mid teens.

I’m pretty sure my grandparents didn’t let my four aunts hang out with every Tom, Dick, and Harry in town when they were growing up. Especially since the family was so ultra-religious. But there’s a difference between “I had better not ever catch you coming out of Tom, Dick, or Harry’s house!” and “You are not to leave this house unaccompanied.” The latter would have marked my grandparents as peculiar within their social class.

Fast forward to recent years…my aunt (from the other side of the family) didn’t trust her teenage daughter to be a latch-key kid. It’s amazing how things have changed in a single generation.

Yeah, I don’t think anyone thinks they’re a helicopter parent. Everyone thinks they’re ‘free-range with prudent controls’. They just disagree about what the prudent controls are.

The definition also depends on where you live. We’re in a city, on a street with a fair amount of traffic, no front gardens, no green space and not enough kids of the appropriate ages to make a loose group who can keep a vague eye on each other. My five-year-old doesn’t get to play out front on her own - sinister strangers are low on my worry list, but bad drivers are high up. When we go over to my brother’s house, in a suburban estate with lots of green spaces and speed bumps and no traffic except people who actually live there, the five-year-olds (theirs and ours) play outside with the resident gang of kids. ‘Prudent controls’ mean different things in the two places.

To expand on this point – about 10 years ago, an 11-year-old boy got lost in the mountains of Utah. It took four days to find him.

Here’s the kicker–

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/22/missing.scout/

yellowjacketcoder–NOW do you begin to see why “stranger danger” paranoia is so insidious and so dangerous?

Then don’t be surprised if the well’s already been poisoned.

It’s Sunday afternoon. I think there are currently 10 kids in my house or yard between the ages of 7 and 13. Two of them belong to me. I said that I think that’s how many there are, because it’s been a while since I’ve been downstairs to count. One of the kids I’ve never met before, which is odd because I thought I knew most of the kids in the neighborhood. Other kids were here earlier in the day, but have since gone home. Various groups of kids have gone off to ride skateboards around the neighborhood or to go visit other people’s homes at different points.

My husband and I have mostly been home this afternoon, but I’m not sure that I can really say we’ve been supervising them. Would you say that we have been? I’d define this as a free-range with some controls, because the littler kids are supposed to let us know when they leave the general vicinity of our house, and I expect that all of them will let me know if there’s some sort of injury that needs adult attention. If I were helicoptering, I’d be downstairs keeping a closer eye on on the younger kids. I’m not entirely sure that letting the big kids skateboard is consistent with helicopter parenting, either. They do get awfully beat up.

Never had kids BUT

My SO and I had a beautiful white Persian cat named Teddy. One time a friend who had raised 3 kids pretty much by herself was over and was watching us interact with Teddy. After a while she said “You two should never have kids.” And we haven’t!

Due primarily to this, I chose “Helicopter with some freedom”.

It was in my neighborhood.

This is so exactly like my childhood that I could have written it! (Except I was a bit earlier, late 60s-early 70s.) The moms in our neighborhood had an agreement that at 9 am, the kids were booted out of the house with, “And don’t come back till I call you.” My mom actually had a whistle (the kind football coaches wear) so we could hear her from a greater distance.

We were taught not to talk to strangers and to never get in a car if a stranger offered you a ride. We were told this, but not in such a way that we would become, as another poster said, afraid of our own shadows. It was just given as information, in the same general tone as “Look both ways before you cross the street.”

I really think kids today are much poorer for the fact that they’re never allowed to just “be kids.” Every moment of their lives is scripted for them, with no free time. No wonder their anxiety levels are so high–they never get to live with the lid off.

PS: A fun book about being a free range kid is called “Where Did You Go? Out. What Did You Do? Nothing.” http://www.amazon.com/Where-Did-Out-What-Nothing/dp/B00DPNXM7W It was written in the 50s, but it captures the essence.

That’s pretty much how it worked for me, in a step-wise fashion.

When I was a little kid (3-4), the mothers watched us. As we got older, we could roam the backyards at will by ourselves. Then we graduated to the frontyards. Eventually they’d let us go to our friends’ houses on our own- but we had to call and let them know we were there. Eventually that stopped, and we just had to come home at some certain time.

Then we got to roam around a particular part of the neighborhood, and so on and so forth. That’s where we were when we hit 9th grade, and we started knowing people who had cars. Then we had curfews, and what-not.

But I remember being turned loose at about 7-8 to ride my bike to the swimming pool at the other end of the next street over, and to spend some 3-4 hours at the pool with friends, which is unthinkable in today’s society.

No kids here, so I am not voting, but I want to share my favorite story. My coworker brought her 8 YO daughter in one day. Coworker was on the phone, and the girl came and asked me where the restroom was. It’s just around the corner, and I told her so, and she went. I didn’t worry.

She came back in and her mom came rushing (!) out. “You can’t go to the bathroom without me! There are bad people waiting there to take you from me!”

Whoa.

What a way to either give the girl a complex, or ensure that she ends up never believing anything you say.