Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Back to Basics: Raising an 'unhurried child'

The free-range child

TRALEE PEARCE

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 10:14 AM EDT 18/06/08

A growing number of parents espouse a radical philosophy: It's time children got life skills by actually living ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. John Deriso from Edmonton, Canada writes: I can't imagine children being raised with such tightly structured lives every day, all day. I'll bet the national suicide rate will spike when these kids get to be young adults.
  2. Ed Doerksen from Simcoe, Canada writes: This is great! It is time to let kids be kids and stop trying to create an adult that does a lot and accomplishes nothing.

    Too often parents relive their childhood through their kids.
  3. Rollo Tomasi from Hot, sunny, med-like, Belgium writes: With a growing swell of parenting experts to feed each impulse, parents can easily forget that childrearing is hardwired into them.
    ==================

    Nope, I had to read books. I work at parenting all the time, communication and time are everything. This glorious spring I'm enjoying being a Little League baseball coach with 11 tightly organized boys who are learning to hustle and who wouldn't want to be anywhere else doing anything else. Structure has its time and place.
  4. Mike Krafchik from Canada writes: I am a newer parent (less than 2 years now) and can't believe some of the crap I see. I don't even want to go into what I see people trying to teach their babies to do. Why are we in a big hurry to have our kids grow up? Does every one of them need to be a genius? Anyhow, didn't even realize that there was a term for what we do, but have no plans to ruin my kid's childhood...
  5. della baird from vancouver, Canada writes: dee vancouver: i would give up my tiny bathroom for an outhouse again,just to hear a songbird, try to catch a robin, even see one. to play 'dodge ball', to thrill at winning a whole nickle , even if i did'nt win a whole race. stop and smell my mother's snow white sheets as i pass under the clothes line on my way to the scrub field to play ball. to breathe the clean fresh air and know it's mine and will be there tomorrow.and i would give anything to hear my mother's voice calling me to a hard won supper. from ice skating on borrowed skates,in the dark of winter to fresh biscuits from a wood range oven and the hypnotic odour of a goodand tender beef stew created by work worn hands. best of all,surrounded by our small family who learned to appreciate the smallest everyday things because we unfortunately never knew how long they would last. even with the bad i crave those times now, after the last world war.so all you 'modern skeptics out there, exuse me, while this old lady goes for what i hope to be a d,,, good bawl.
  6. tori scott from Canada writes: omg...can it actually be...common sense?!?!?!
  7. John Dallas from Ottawa, Canada writes: My daughter is three years old. I believe in SOME structure, as the little league coach brought up above, but too much is TOO MUCH. Truly, we should simply let our instincts guide us a little more. If we feel stressed because of all the activities, we should cut back.

    The great thing about moderation is that the kids will impress you every time. I can't count the number of people who marvel at how well my daughter climbs on the structures at the park. I don't hold her or even stay within ten feet. I keep her in sight, but she is on her own. The reason she climbs so well is that she has done it so many times, has the confidence to do it on her own and doesn't have me next to her telling her to be careful or she might hurt herself. Independance is one of the greatest gifts we can give our children. It will incite them to have their own minds, and that is truly where the next generation of innovation and creativity will come from.

    Thanks for the great article.
  8. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: What a refreshing trend this is. I hope it has legs. Yes, some structured activities are a good idea, and kids can still enjoy such activities. But the constant, near-obsessive shuttling from swimming lessons to hockey practice to ballet to piano lessons to...... It's insane. Give kids a chance to run free and make their own fun for once. And giving three month old babies "lessons" of any kind is ridiculous.
  9. Bryan Bertie from Toronto, Canada writes: Well, well. Finally a reasonable correction on the 'market mania' of hyper parenting. Rest in peace you helicopter parents. It is full speed ahead to the future via the past. Common sense at last!
  10. J Broomer from Toronto (but really Etobicoke), Canada writes: I am constantly at odds against those around me who feel that the kids should be on a short leash. John Moore had a guest on CFRB on Friday (I missed his intro and therefore his name) who was talking about risk. One comment was that a child in the US is 26 times more likely to be killed/injured in a car accident than be abducted by a stranger, yet the vast majority of parents drive their kids everywhere to avoid such a scenario occurring.
  11. Kim Philby from Ottawa, Canada writes: Only in this crazy day and age would letting kids be kids be considered a news story.

    As for "stranger danger", Dan Gardiner's book Risk - the Science and Politics of Fear, puts it in perspective; the risk of your kid being grabbed by a stranger in North America is so small that risk calculators call it "de minimis", meaning the chance of it happening is about as close to zero as it can be. Your kid is far more likely to be hurt in a car crash while being driven somewhere by a parent.

    So, let 'em out there to get mud on their shoes and scrapes on their elbows.
  12. David Wilson from Rio Grande, Brazil writes: Della Baird - amen to that - you call yourself an "old lady" but you sound young at heart, be well.
  13. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: Kim Philby, while I enjoy Dan Gardiner, and consider him one of the better thinkers out there, try perusing a website of missing children sometime. He ought to have done that himself. Statistics are meaningless when you are one of the statistics. It is not the odds of such an abduction happening, it's the horror caused by the ones that do actually happen that make people worry about them.
  14. Sue Hickey from Grand Falls-Windsor, Canada writes: My kid is seven and is not in a "structured" lifestyle. She takes swimming lessons, has been since she was five but because SHE wanted to (and both her parents are excellent swimmers of course!) and she has been swimming since she was a wee babe. She "skipped" the first level of classes because she could already swim! She even loves to swim "in the deep end" and likes to retrieve stuff at the bottom, swimming down 11 feet...and has been doing that since she was five. And the response when she does that? "You shouldn't let her do THAT, she might hurt her ears!" When we go shopping to the local Dominion big box store I'm not at her side every minute! I think that part of the hyperparent trend is one part misguided concern, but the other part is status seeking ("oh, your child is out at the playground by herself? Sorry, I must leave. I have to take little Breanna and Apple to their ballet classes and then to piano practise before they go to Suzuki violin lessons before they start doing their pre-Harvard studies!"). These are the same people who get a designer pedigreed dog instead of a smart loveable mutt from the local SPCA. BTW, read Benjamin Barber's "Consumed: How the market exploits children and infantilzes adults...."
  15. Popeye Dillon from North Vancouver, Canada writes: I had a great time as a kid. We lived in the country and the out doors were the back yard. Today however I'd hesitate to let the kids run loose like we did because of all the freaks that are out there. They probably were some when I was a kid too but the courts sent them to jail in those days where they didn't last very long in the general prison population.
  16. Graydon Grey from Pleasantville Acres, Canada writes: Hyperparenting is a form of legitimized hysteria. Like workhaholism, it has the imprimatur of having an end that seems utterly reasonable - on the face of things.

    Too many are convinced - at some perverse level - that they and their children can avoid every possible hazard, mishap, accident, peril, disaster or calamity - in whatever guise they may occur - if they only have enough information, enough planning, enough oversight...enough "care" and "love" and...

    No one gets out of here alive. Including the kids. And when was it ever different? It seems all too indicative of a society incapable of the maturity to deal with life's myriad forms of unpleasantness. But our money will insulate us...right? Money...and stuff...will make all the unpleasant things go away...
  17. Ragnar Smurfslayer from Here to Eternity, Canada writes: Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: ... Statistics are meaningless when you are one of the statistics. It is not the odds of such an abduction happening, it's the horror caused by the ones that do actually happen that make people worry about them.

    =========================

    That concept, as simple as it seems to normal people, is something that so-called risk managers seem to have hard time grasping.
  18. Darrin Duell from Canada writes: I remember when we decided to move to the town we live in.. it was a Sunday afternoon in June, we were driving around all day looking fo a suitable location to move. When we arrived at this town we saw children running and playing everywhere, between yards, little girls walking a dog down the sidewalk without their parents. All these people out playing slowpitch tournament at the local ball diamonds. It was a no brainer, we bought the first house we looked at and never looked back. My kids are definately free range.. but if we lived in the city this wouldn't be the case. I read in the paper all the time, how judges grant bail to the most vile repeat offenders there aren't enough police to watch all of em.. the criminals own the city
  19. carol c from Canada writes: 'I'd hesitate to let the kids run loose like we did because of all the freaks that are out there. They probably were some when I was a kid too but the courts sent them to jail in those days'

    There were either the same amount or more. It is in the recent past that talking about being abused as a child has become acceptable. Before that there was silence. This gave people the idea of safety, but it made abuse survivors feel like freaks. I'm not sure society is better as a whole now where abuse survivors can speak out, but having the general populous believe that they are never safe. I'm glad they have a voice. I'm sad that it makes people feel like we're less safe.
  20. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: Ragnar Smurfslayer, you got that right. I just read The Black Swan by Naseem Nicolas Taleb a few months back. His book is critical, dismissive actually, of modern statistics because it does not account for the fact that the most unlikely of events (i.e. outliers) are also the most significant in terms of their impact on us. Parents might well seem overprotective nowadays, but I do not believe stranger-danger has been overblown. Predators are out there, and you cannot blame parents for trying to reduce even the SLIGHT chance their child will be victimized by one of them.
  21. It Is Me from Canada writes: ugh.

    No, children are not 'free range'--I believe that's a term resevered for poultry.

    Aristotle always had it right--it's about balance, it's about the mean. Yes, overstructring and overprotection is bad but so is this so-called 'free range' parenting. Sending a 9 year old alone on the subway without even a cell phone? I think that's stupid. This is not 1950. This is the age of the internet, cell phone cameras, etc, etc.

    The answer to hyperparenting is not 'free range'. The answer to hyperparenting is simply less overprotection.
  22. Megan Ratcliffe from Toronto, Canada writes: I agree whole heartedly. Although I do not have children myself, I am qualified as an Early Childhood Educator, and have worked with various age groups. I also have a 2 year old nephew and an 8 day old niece. In my own childhood my parents let us ride our bikes and walk to my grandparents by ourselves. YOu could see my grandparents house from my house but I remember more time spent playing scrub baseball with neighbourhood kids, and exploring in our local woodlot and jumping in puddles than anything. Yes, all of us took swimming lessons and both my sisters played hockey/ringette but when I got older and didn't want to be dragged to the arena (again) my parents let me stay home by myself. I hope things are different when Ihave children but I guarantee that they will not be in lessons all the time.
    Thanks for applauding common sense.
  23. M Hawk from Canada writes: I'm glad to hear about this, but I also wish that some parents would not take that 'freedom' to extremes.
    I work at a large, very busy, specialty retail store that is constantly full of moms and kids. I cannot count how many times I've seen kids left in our store while the moms go to OTHER stores, leaving their kids to 'play' like it was some kind of daycare. Most kids are fine, but i've seen kids who can barely walk been left for more than an hour.. when they realize mom is nowhere near, they get scared and cry... and the parents don't care, they come waddling in 2 hours later wondering what WE did to make little Johnny cry.

    Sorry, had to get that out of my system. Some people should just not procreate.
  24. Trilly B from Canada writes: Geez, imagine that. What's next, moving out of the parents' house before you're 25? Only the current generation of parents would decide they're onto something, and give it a special name.

    Lock up the video games for the summer, parents.
  25. Neon Cab from Canada writes: Try the castle park in High Park in Toronto to test whether you are a hyperparent or "free range".
    It's a great structure, the kids love it, but you can only ever supervise about one fifth of the play area. There's a large castle (hence the name) with a big slide that the kids disappear into, wander around in (for up to 10 minutes), and then emerge from on the other side of the thing far away from where you're standing. The thing is huge and blocks your view of the other side, plus it has tunnels and secret entrances that kids can go through. My sons (5 and 3) have a ball, as do our friends' kids when they come into town.
    I admit, I've had a few worrisome moments...but then the boys come back into sight. We've had no cause for alarm other than our own insecurities (knock on wood) and I highly recommend this park for anyone nearby (or something similar of you're to far away).
  26. K McIntyre from Oshawa, Canada writes: J Broomer wrote: "One comment was that a child in the US is 26 times more likely to be killed/injured in a car accident than be abducted by a stranger, yet the vast majority of parents drive their kids everywhere to avoid such a scenario occurring."

    The danger of letting your kids walk around by themselves is that she might get hit by a car; a risk mitigated by driving her somewhere. Although if you walk your kid to where she's going, you reduce both risks.

    I would suggest that you should give your kids free reign as far as you can be confident they are able to avoid risks of vehicle traffic and moving water. A rational parent should know that the greatest threats to their children are getting hit by a car and drowning. Maybe part of the reason for that is that we don't think enough about those risks, while we stress out about the really unlikely scenarios such as shootings and abductions.
  27. The view from here from Canada writes: Lets understand this right-
    Let your kids be kids? Don't put them into programs?

    But how can I prove to my neighbours and peers how much money I have unless I put my kids into the best programs available at least 5 days a week? Where will my wife brag to the other wives about where we took our last vacation, and where we plan to take the next one? Who will we get come to my childs fancy Birthday bash to see the jumping castle, and magician I provided?
    I must be able to prove my value and my level of achievements through my kids, and their participation in many different progams for their "cultural" benifits and preparations for success in their own lives.
    Just let them be kids?
    Play on the street?
    Build a tree fort?
    Oh, Ok- but only if I can buy them the best running shoes, the best tools to build with, and the best safety equiptment to do it all in.

    Phew... Look neighbours, my son has a makita drill for his tree fort and home depot is coming by later with a load of building supplies, and Jr. - keep that helmet on!

  28. Lowen Wrainger from Canada writes: Gee, I can remember growing up like that .... road hockey until supper was ready ... rode my bike to the park to play baseball. No wonder my parents didn't have to wage any expensive custody battles to do what today's legal system, family lawyers & 454 page self-help books recommended ... they just stayed together until we grew up and then they separated. Free Range, eh? Times have changed though, haven't they? Oh, gotta go now and pick up my kids for my weekly visitation and then off to the gazillion activities for them I have to cram into a 5 hr slot.
  29. Jennifer Menna from Canada writes: Regarding the comments about Child abduction - this is a parents biggest fear. However I feel stranger Danger is over blown. 98 % of children killed or kidnapped have been by a near relative. Of the remaining 2 % - 1 % have been taken by others they know and are not related to. So only on percent is actual strangers. If we were looking to protect it would be more a case of watching family.

    Case in Point - Holly Jones is in the news again. Her family knew the man that killed her.
  30. M Liggins from Perth, Canada writes: I can't agree more, our over protectiveness has yielded kids who often don't have the confidence socially or otherwise to do the simplest of things without guidance. Conversely, we shouldn't take a "180" and go totally free range. Yes, it's about balance.

    My favorite story of obsessive hothousing, I have a niece who in grade 2 in english class (in the US) was asked to state what the picture on the board was (a boat). To which she answered "bateau".

    Obviously in the rush to stuff data into the kids head, they forgot meaning, significance and relevance. Blame not the kid, but the somewhat misguided parents in this regard.
  31. K McIntyre from Oshawa, Canada writes: Alistair McLaughlin: "Predators are out there, and you cannot blame parents for trying to reduce even the SLIGHT chance their child will be victimized by one of them." This is thinking based on emotion rather than reason. Acting rationally, we weigh the risks to our children based on a combination of the damage caused and the likelihood of it happening (this is the classic formula Risk = Loss x Probability). Then we identify the worst risks and take steps to mitigate them. The worst risks, by a long shot, are kids running into the street and getting hit by cars, and kids falling or wandering into water and drowning. They don't have websites with pictures of all the kids killed in car accidents, or all the kids who have drowned. But the numbers are vastly higher than the number of abductions or murders. In the US, there are around 3000 traffic-related child fatalities every year, 1000 child drownings, and only about 100 children abducted by strangers. You can object that sure, if you are a parent of one of the 100, the statistics don't matter. But you are 40 times more likely to be in one of the other groups who loses a child, and in that case you are very likely to compare the time you spent worrying about or taking precautions around stranger safety to the time spent on water/traffic safety, and notice the disproportionality of it. Ultimately the chance of a child getting abducted is somewhere around 1 in 700,000 per year. We accept many far greater risks to our children's lives (we shrug off the presence of many carcinogens because they are not significant enough to worry about). Placing major restrictions on our chidren's lives because of such a tiny risk is totally unreasonable.
  32. Kim Philby from Ottawa, Canada writes: Alistair: going by your logic - i.e., statistics are meaningless when the statistic happens to you - I would have to presume you're busy digging a deep underground survivor shelter, because, you know, another killer asteroid could be on its way.

    Keep in mind, too, that there apparently is a down side to being overprotective of children, which is why this "new" idea in parenting has emerged. The likelihood (or lack thereof) of stranger abduction has to be weighed against the benefits of allowing kids some freedom.
  33. John Stanton from Canada writes: Great article. In our mid town neighbourhood in Toronto, kids have become part of the social status symbolism. It isnt about kids' creativity or what they like to do. It is all about what school (private of course) they go to, what clubs they are at, how many sports and events they can attend in a week. Of course, nannies raise these kids while both parents rush off to pay the $ 500,000 mortgage. Then they come home and shower the kids with presents but ignore the basic fact of attention and love. They are too busy playing with blackberries. It's no wonder these kids lack accountability, responsibility and calmness. Great to see a new wave of common sense (aka the way we were all raised!) coming back for some parents.
  34. L Harder from Canada writes: Lot of parents still haven't let go of their kids in high school. School I'm around still has huge car line ups every morning. Walking is good for kids and these parents are setting a life style that will harm their kids health in the long run.

    Key to safety is having enough kids on the street. Probably not as safe now as there are no kids on the street. Parents would probably have to help implement some group walking if the streets are empty all the time.
  35. Al Bore from O-T-T-A-W-A, Canada writes: Great article!
    I can't believe the number of parents that brag about how busy they are because their kids are involved in so many things. Dance, soccer, hockey, cadets, scouts, marathons, plays, you name it. I think it's a way of avoiding actually having a conversation with you kid at home.
    Most of these kids wouldn't have a clue how to entertain themselves.
  36. Al Bore from O-T-T-A-W-A, Canada writes: My co-worker just took the afternoon off to take his kid ( 23 year old university student) to the dentist. Good Grief!
  37. Mia Zen from Canada writes: Hopefully, this style of parenting could lead to a less competitive, less efficiency oriented society. Even a kinder society, may be.
    No more war.
    Let's dream.
  38. Robin H From Toronto from Toronto, Canada writes: We were treated horribly by other parents in the years our kids were younger, as we gasp, let them find their way around their wonderful neighbourhood, walking to and from school, and eventually taking those first transit voyages alone.

    Parents in our community would demand they walk our kids home at age 10 and eleven, in mid-day sunshine, around the corner of a residential neighbourhood where my kids knew every neighbour. And upon arrival with our child would note that they were being safer. We didn't appreciate the message that sent our kids. There was simply nothing for them to fear in that distance from one home to another. A phone call to say they were on their way home would allay all fear. No hand holding necessary. We have always coached our kids on personal safety age appropriately.

    We don't deny we wore ruts in our living room floor in those early days, when they were first walking home from school alone. But that irrational fear was our problem, not theirs. The truth is, it's hard for parents as we learn more about the number of adult men who think about raping children. But this can never be the child's problem. Police need to stop putting out warnings for children to use caution...for god's sake. It's the challenge for adults to do more to stop men from hurting kids. But the reality is that kids aren't being abducted from our streets every day. It was important to us that our kids grew up smart, knowledgeable, informed, confident and known in the community.

    We wanted our kids to do activities they were interested in and have as much free kid time as possible with friends.

    That was difficult. Many parents we encountered controlled, scheduled and saw every move their kids made through grade six. We saw many parents let their own fears and rigidity kick responsible parenting to the curb.
  39. tori scott from Canada writes: "Geez, imagine that. What's next, moving out of the parents' house before you're 25? Only the current generation of parents would decide they're onto something, and give it a special name."

    after i read the article, I said something very similar to my husband...that now there will be a "rush" to parent like this (I've always parented this way) because media have spun it as in vogue and trendy.
  40. Kay Ay from Canada writes: I have often wondered how a child is supposed to be ready to drive a car at 16 when they have only been allowed to sit in the front seat for three years previous. Sitting in the front seat can be scary (no offense to my husband :)). I have also wondered how they are supposed to become independent people making common sense decisions when we do everything for them. Nice to see other people are wondering the same thing. I've already "underprogrammed" my kids. No dancing lessons for the child who doesn't want to perform, currently no swimming lessons repeating the same level 3 times because one skill is stopping progress & well the little one just doesn't want to let go of the side of the pool. You should hear the veiled comments from my family members about how I'm "wasting" their talents. In a related thread the bus drops my kids off at the end of my driveway. Come September I won't necessarily be there to let them in the house... as my oldest will then be 11 I think she should be able to let them both in and get them both a snack. When I was 9 I walked home from school through the woods and while the direct route should have only taken 20 minutes...my ramblings and tree climbing and construction inspections (they were building a new pool for our town kinda on the way) could easily add another 30 min to the trip. And I know my husband had similiar freedom (except he only lived a 10 min sidewalk trek from his school). The grandmothers are totally against this idea. But I'm going to do it anyway. (The stats I read recently were 1 in 5 million chance of your child being abducted by a stranger in Canada...yes that's still scary.)
  41. The Wight from Canada writes: It Is Me

    "This is not 1950. This is the age of the internet, cell phone cameras, etc, etc."

    Sure, it's not 1950. Child abuse isn't hidden quite so well, pedophiles are registered with the police and the public gets notice when they move into the area. Parents can buy a child-oriented cell phone with GPS in it so that they can keep tabs on their kids 24/7 if they want to, even one with a restricted set of numbers available to it. There is software to monitor their Internet activity, tiny cameras for their room, etc. For the Big Brother parent, today is their dream world.
  42. J S from Canada writes: tori scott - and is that a bad thing? Or will you brag about how how you parented that way "before it was cool"
  43. chris churchill from oakville, Canada writes: Kids being kids... what a novel idea. It's encouraging to see more and more parents backing off the pressure and getting back to basics. It isn't rocket science, kids who have the opportunity to enjoy unstructured play are healthier, physically, emotionally and socially. And it helps to build stronger families by reducing stress and worry. All these are the kinds of things that we've been promoting on our Playbourhood web site network. Read more at www.oakvillenorth.playbourhood.com. Welcome to the revolution and thanks for taking up the challenge.
  44. Farenheit 451 from Vancouver, Canada writes: Statistically I believe your child is far more likely to be killed or injured in car accident than they are to be hurt in any other way. It constantly amazes me that parents never seem terribly bothered by that, and yet they won't let their child go two inches down the street on their own in case something happens to them.

    I guess if your kids get hurt because you are driving too aggressively thats OK.
  45. joanne feenstra from Armstrong BC, Canada writes: All that structure is scarey! It might be easier to make choices for less structure living in smaller communities; neighbours are friends and school mates live next door so walking home could involve walking two blocks in a rural community with people you know. Or on a bus with more people you know.
  46. Cooler Head from West of TO, Canada writes: Alistair McLaughlin writes, "Parents might well seem overprotective nowadays, but I do not believe stranger-danger has been overblown. Predators are out there, and you cannot blame parents for trying to reduce even the SLIGHT chance their child will be victimized by one of them." So, Alistair, how do you propose to teach children self-reliance? I know fourteen year olds whose mom's won't let them go to a washroom at the Rogers Centre because something is sure to happen to them. Don't you suppose that said fourteen year olds are smart enough to raise a fuss if those crazed predators leap out at them from one of the stalls? Or do you imagine that in front of all of the diverse clientel of such a washroom, the perv will be given free rein to abscond with said fourteen year old. Risk management is about rational assessment. The same parents who won't let a child cross the street without adult accompaniement until the child can vote will happily take that child off skiing or will sign the child up for something equally "risky" in the realm of team sports. Ask the ER docs - from whence cometh the majority of your kid clients? It isn't from being struck down in the street. Yes, accidents happen. But that's precisely the point. They're accidents. Unforeseen consequences! Twists of fate!! Being a helicopter parent will paralyse you and turn your offspring into neurotics. How sad if the refrain "but you might get hurt, get attacked, get germs, etc" became the watchword of child rearing.
  47. NotASpoiledAthelete - from Canada writes: I love this - and am all for it because right now parents are under more pressure to keep their children "under control" than dog owners are about their pets.

    I just want to make sure that all of the people who agree with this style will remember this opinion when a parent who operates this way has something unfortunate happen to their child..because normally when that happens the wagging fingers of disapproval start flying.."You allowed your child to walk alone - don't you know better??"
  48. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: Cooler head, I don't recall promoting the idea of hand-holding while a 14 year old goes to the washroom. I simply said, I don't blame parents for not wanting their kids to roam about unsupervised. For the most part, we're talking about much younger kids here. By the way, if anyone had read my earlier comments, I am very much IN FAVOUR of more unstructured time in kids' lives. I think the modern parenting concept of lessons five nights a week and organized "play dates" is asinine. And yes, it is absolutely true that parents often downplay the risk of traffic accidents in their own minds as compared to the risk of abductions. Driving kids to hockey tournaments in all manner of winter storms, speeding to get the kids to ballet class on time, these are things I've seen MANY times, and it is absurd. So many parents just don't think.
  49. Cosmo Spacely from Canada writes: Free Range is just another term for abandoning your parental responsibilities...little johnny ran into me while he was skate boarding down the side walk, oh well, kids will be kids. Little Susie throwing a temper tantrum on an airplane, oh well, kids will be kids...
  50. bethany middleton from Canada writes: Parenting is not 'hardwired' as the article suggests....there is much to learn, and indeed, much to un-learn...

    As to hyperparenting: well, I've never been a fan of it. But it's the norm in Vancouver. Parents have kids as young as four scheduled for organized activities every day of the week. French preschool three times a week, followed by arts activities at arts umbrella and the english preschool and then add on to that beginner soccer, swimming lessons and piano. And that's a four year old.

    Some kids thrive on lots of scheduling; others don't. But all children need space and room to develop their imaginations and to explore their worlds on their own terms. They have a whole life of schedules and blackberries ahead of them.

    Walking to school alone - nope, not yet, but largely because there's a main artery between our house and the school and at a lost-in-my-own-world six, my oldest isn't quite ready to tackle that one yet. He'd chase a butterfly onto the street and that would be the end of it.

    Walking to a friend's house? if it's on the same street, yes. Otherwise, not yet. Children's safety is not an 'urban myth' when there have been three attempts at grabbing children after school in our generally safe neighbourhood during the past three years.

    But we'll get there. The biggest thing is that the kids have room to grow and that they grow at their speed and on their own terms. And if somebody wants to give it a fancy name, that's their prerogative; I'll just take it one day at a time and as it comes.
  51. Andrea Timmons from Kingston Ontario, Canada writes: Hyperparenting, the term referred to in the article, would be better defined as 'status parenting'. Today's 'scheduled kids' activities' are more often than not part of the 'elitist status' role parents take on to ensure their kids get what the highest socio economic level parents provide for their kids, ie. expensive retail planned birthday parties; membeship & participation in 'status sport & artistic retail programs; playdates where parents strive to provide visiting playmates with a competitive agenda to impress their parents; etc. etc. etc. There are still kids who play 'free range' but they're the 'poor kids' whose parents can't afford all the elitist status quo events & activities richer parents are able to provide. Poor kids have to walk to school because parents haven't got the money to send them to before & after school supervised day care progrms. Poor kids get to play in groups of their own choosing because 'play dates' aren't something their families can afford. Hyperparenting will remain a volatile part of bringing up our affluent North American children until the socio economic culture is challenged. All the retailers who depend on parents buying their 'packaged play' aren't going to let their lucrative incomes slip away so childeren can play 'free range' like the 'poor kids' do.
  52. Hart Oldenburg from winnipeg, Canada writes: I have nothing to offer but applause!
  53. tori scott from Canada writes: tori scott - and is that a bad thing? Or will you brag about how how you parented that way "before it was cool"

    nope, just an observation that we're all about the catch phrases...I mean, "free range"??? It's parenting. Not helicopter parenting, not free range parenting...just parenting.

    As for the bragging, hardly. If it was all about the bragging, I would have felt a huge desire to sign my kids up in every conceivable program in order to keep up with the Jones'. Instead I wanted my kids to know how it felt to be bored and not have every second of their life scheduled to death.
  54. Tai Viinikka from Toronto, Canada writes: Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: I do not believe stranger-danger has been overblown. Predators are out there, and you cannot blame parents for trying to reduce even the SLIGHT chance their child will be victimized by one of them. But they were always out there. In 1959, Steven Truscott did not murder and rape Lynne Harper -- but someone did. Parents didn't always behave as if it were a terrifying (or even significant) danger. So something else has changed.
  55. J. T from Toronto, Canada writes: Excellent article - Thanks G&M. It reminds me of another similar and equally great article in MacLean's last year titled "Bubble Wrapped Kids" and to comment on an earlier post regarding suicides, the MacLean's article did have stats that suicides at the university level are up siting that these kids have not been given the empowerment or skills to cope with basic day to day life and cannot cope which is quite sad. We seem to be raising a society of kids who are being denied the opportunity to take risks and have no idea how to make simple decisions without their parents doing it for them. If your child climbs up a tree and falls off guess what? He/she may think twice about doing it again even if they did not break a bone and or may try it again and not fall the next time. Have all these parents forgotten how the fun of climbing trees, playing hide and seek after dinner or going off on your bike for an adventure with your friends? If we do not allow our kids the opportunity to take risks and have some freedom they will not know how to as adults. There is so much learning that happens with this freedom and kids are so insecure now. I truly beleive that there are as many pedophiles and "bad people" out there as there were when we were kids. It is just reported by the media far more than it ever was thus giving us the impression that it is worse. Awareness is much higher now but I truly believe that there is a greater risk of danger in having your children surf the internet while you are not watching than actually going outside to play and god forbid get some fresh air and exercise. Thanks again for an article that I think many have been waiting to see for some time!
  56. Child of the North in Canada from Canada writes: Della Baird: Shame on you, you made me cry!

    It is all about balance. I think most adults love the idea of coming home from work and just being able to relax. Why would we imagine it would be any different for our kids? After seven hours of structured time in school, I revelled in coming home and just 'having fun'. I think my boys did too. I took music lessons growing up; my boys took tennis, golf and skiing classes when they were older and able to decide if they wanted to attend.

    My boys grew up in the Elliot Lake area and were able to tear around the bush, swim in a lake just out their back yard and enjoy all the beauty and nature this lovely area of Canada has to offer. Would I have allowed them this freedom in a big city? Probably not. Geography does play a big part in this discussion.

    Another factor is who is minding the children when they get off the bus. I had the luxury of staying home until my boys were well into their school years. In many cases today, both parents have to work. I think parents feel guilty that they both work and somehow must compensate to their children by filling up every hour of their day with activities. I could be wrong, but it is just a thought.
  57. Billy Bob from Saskatchewan from Canada writes: We use the term free range children often in my area but not in a positive light. Yes let the kids run free and enjoy themselves but lets not forget that parenting comes with a responsibilty that does not involve watching Jerry Springer while ones 4 year old bikes into oncoming traffic or lights a dumpster on fire at 3 am. I agree that we should let kids be kids, go play outside enjoy their youth but remember we are raising children, not chicken.
  58. M M from West Coast, Canada writes: Gee, this sounds exactly like I grew up in the late 1950's and early 1960's. I guess my old, fuddy-duddy parents were trend-setters back then OR they just had a better common sense. I'm thinking it was the later!
  59. J S from Canada writes: tori - I apologize, that was slightly nasty of me, and I agree with you. All the buzz words annoy me as well.
  60. xxx xxxx from Canada writes: So, human freedom may yet reclaim it's deserved priority over industrial values? This story is a breath of fresh air.
    At worst free range youngsters will never have the income for car ownership, big living spaces, endless appliances... Big deal.
  61. Neil Fiertel from Edmonton, Canada writes: When I grew up in 1940s NYC, the Bronx, I would go out at age 6, run around alone or with friends up to a mile from my apartment. I walked across busy lighted intersections to attend grades Kindergarten and Grade 1. This was normalcy. What I see today is insanity, paranoia, over protective and frankly, anti male behaviour which implicates every stranger who most often is depicted as male is a child molester, kidnapper or murderer. In my experience, the only time I encountered questionable behaviour from adults was at day camp and summer camp where my parents sent me occasionally. I hated those activities both. Running around free, exploring and yes, sometimes getting into trouble, as young boys will do, such as shooting strangers with water guns for a lark or sneaking into construction sites to see what is happening is a part of being a young fellow. No doubt, the same holds true with young girls who might choose other activities or might in fact do much the same. Either we give our children a Pablum life or we give them...the chance to have a real life as I did with the trials and tribulations of childhood as a part of the growing up process. Only when there seems to be serious concerns such as the suspicion of drinking or drugs use, should the parent really set limits on the private lives of their kids. My parents worked 80 hours a week and thus, my childhood was naturally, less restricted than many of my cohort. I never went to jail, did not drop out of school, got a few bloody noses along the way and learned to live on my own, cook and survive very nicely. I grew up to be a university professor. Pandering to every whim of a teen is a disaster in my estimation. We were poor and with just my old rusty bike and a real Chemcraft Chemistry Set rather than those castrated ones sold today that are so safe as to be boring and useless, I explored my world..and the world of us all. Learn to trust our world which in Canada is safe and secure.
  62. Keitl Gilbert from Canada writes: My two children attend extra-curricular art and dance classes on the weekend, and they have homework. They are both under 12 and there is no way I would let them ride the Vancouver transit system alone...too many citizens just stand by when trouble comes.

    I am betting that, from their tone, many of the approving comments about a return to sanity in childrearing, and giving kids more freedom to play out of sight, come from people who have no children, or males who do not take charge of the kids when they are home.

    I am preparing my children to go it alone, to cook, to walk on the street safely, but I am not ready to let them walk through the woods to the park, or to bike on the street among the young men driving their 'personality disorder' cars. That can wait until they are teens.
  63. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: I just find that free range organic children taste so much better than the hyper-parented factory children. I could never go back.
  64. Steve Not an Alberta Redneck from Calgary, Canada writes: Maybe some of these kids can finally find the time to use the expensive playground equipment in the local parks.

    This might have the effect of convincing me that the playground speed zones are not just a way of increasing the property values of those luckly enough to live accross from a park.

    But probably not. The kids will likely just have more time for their TV and computer.
  65. Sam G from Toronto, Canada writes: Next thing to go? Bike helmet? Child seat? Or some other icon of overprotective insanity?

    And finally, what is this going to do to soccer mom industry? Fewer minivans on the road?
  66. Jack Rip from Vancouver, Canada writes: Geeeze ... you people need a newspaper recipe to affirm your childraising "skillz"? How about striking a balance sometime between responsibilities, boundaries and their expressed desires of that they themselves want? Newsflash: There is no "one perfect way" to raise all children.
  67. Wir sind das Volk from Canada writes: I think the angst surrounding modern parenting goes a long way to explaining why the birth rate is pretty close to zero these days. The notion of children who must be tended to every moment of every day and provided with the best of everything is enough to put any rational person off it. People want children, but they also want lives, or the ability to be able to continue as an independent person to some degree and we are tacitly told this isn't possible, or worse, that it is "neglect". Apparently even hiring a babysitter falls into this catagory these days before the age of 10. I don't think we are doing parents or children a service with this mentality - I think if society just chilled a bit on the child rearing front we'd have better rounded kids and probably more of them!
  68. K. Anderson from United States writes: Since moving to the States I have found that the parenting machine goes a little more into hyper drive here.
    Very few sports exist for "recreational" purposes. Even B or C level travel hockey has practice schedules that would be equal to an NHL schedule. We pulled our son from travel hockey after the practices became 6-7 night a week commitments, with dryland practices following the on ice ones. I pulled the plug when the coach wanted to add a dryland practice to the regular Sunday afternoon practice, essentially taking away the one dinner a week we could have as a family. I was astounded that all the other players parents thought this was OK.

    I have seen parents sign their kids up to a never ending string of seasonal, high commitment sports even when the kids said they didn't want to.

    I feel bad for the kids who never get a chance to know what it's like to just be a kid.
  69. J M from GTA, Canada writes: Knuckle head parents, weaving from trend to trend will never change, other than becoming more and more common. The sad reality is, as noted many times already in the comment section here is that kids are nothing more than a fashion accessory, something to be shown off by high income low-ego types, etc.
    (insert Hinterland Who's Who flute here)
    This flighty style adult, weened on CHiPs (TV show) and urea formaldehyde are one thing - the generation of messed up people their kids are fast becoming will be an entirely different matter.

    Has anyone else noticed that all humans have A.D.D.?

    We are a society of sucking blowfish, the ultimate sucker - proud to be ripped off of anything and everything we should hold in greater value. Two TV's & two Cadillacs does not equal one well adjusted family, contrary to popular belief.
  70. Evan Young from Winnipeg, Canada writes: As a Commissioner for Scouts Canada for many years I can see the other side of 'Hyper Parenting'; it isn't about the kids - it's about parents that enrol their kids in a dozen programs so that they can drop them off and go away.

    Scouting is about getting out, about learning by doing - kids can learn so much on a long-weekend canoe trip that they would never see at school. If they want to sleep in a tent they put it up, if they want to eat they cook it, if they want to fish they clean it, if they want a camp-fire they collect the wood and get it lit, in the best Scout groups the leaders are their as guide, mentor and safety officer not as warden and definitely not shushing them like their teachers do.

    But, I am constantly looking for parents to become leaders, to make a weekly commitment to their (and other) kids. If you like the idea of a 'Free Range' child then consider Scouting and if you want to really make a difference - be a leader.
  71. E Jensen from Canada writes: Free-range children? Like free-range chicken or cattle?! Let them fend for themselves? What is our goal of raising children? Is the goal to (cross your finger, say a little prayer) raise capable, independant, reliable, responsible adults? If so, our responsibility as parents is to provide an environment,"coach" and foster these lifelong skills. When the child is young these boundaries are mandatory, however, as the child gets older, restricting them is detrimental. Let your child ride on the subway alone? What steps did the parent do to prepare their child? When the requested activity was granted or denied, was there enough thought into the reasons why or why not? If my child were to ask me this question today, it would be an unequivocal "NO!"(she's 4). At the age of 9, I'd have to think about it. Things I might think about: 1. Is my child capable of handling crowds (ie. crowded store, mall, sporting event) 2. What's the source of this request (saw a kid on TV, friend, older cousin etc). 3. Is riding the subway a regular event with the parent? 4. How aware is the child of his/her own surroundings? 5. Is the child easily distracted? 6. Has the child gone on little trips before? Walk independantly to the store, run simple errands? 7. Does the child have other responsibilities within the family (that would demonstrate maturity and responsibility). 8. Does the child know his/her expectation? (ie. You are to call me as soon as you get off the subway train or you are to call me in 1 hr) 9. Will the child be alone or in a group? (nothing like peer pressure) 10. What is the parent's instinct? Parental instinct counts for something. You can't prepare your child for every single danger, or keep them safe from all the weirdo's out there. However, you can prepare them.
  72. Jane Doe from Canada writes: Why no one mentions that if you go free-range you can happily expect the child protection agency to knock on your door?
  73. Michael Leblanc from Toronto, Canada writes: "Where are you going Michael"

    "Out to play"
    "When will you be back?"
    "later on"
    "Make sure you're home before dark!"
    "I will Mom"

    - freedom is something adults babble on and on about, but only children (some) truly have.
  74. Luke P from Vancouver, Canada writes: Jane Doe from Canada writes: Why no one mentions that if you go free-range you can happily expect the child protection agency to knock on your door?

    There's a difference between "free-range" and "wild".
  75. J M from GTA, Canada writes: As long as this and every other media outlet can break down and classify kids, there's a dollar to be exploited somehow.
    "Order your Free Range Kid GPS Ear Tattoo for only $9.99"
  76. John Medrzycki from Vancouver, Canada writes: Just like most things in life - it's a question of moderation.

    The maximum number of things we have our 6-year old in is 2 - and that's if he likes it. He got bored with hockey (too many drills, not enough play), and didn't want to go anymore. After counting to 10 (and counting the amount of money I spent on hockey equipment!), I calmly asked him why he didn't want to go. When he told me (this takes a couple of hours), I told him that was fine. I don't have visions of him being the next Gretzky - if he's not having fun ... well, then, what's the point. He tried it - and he may go back to it.

    Structured events are a good vehicle to try unique things - but, there has to be 'your own time' and down-time.

    He loves gymnastics (has been in it for 4 years) and is quite intrigued with T-Ball (but doesn't like the practices!). Geez, he's 6! Imagine that?

    We've seen too many parents organizing every minute of every day for their kids - just don't understand it.
  77. stand up mimi from Vancouver, Canada writes: Unstructured play time is important. It's where kids learn to think for themselves, which fosters creativity and independence. If it's outdoors, they get some good exercise, too. Some structured activity can be a good thing (Scouts comes to mind), but I feel sorry for kids who are busy every night of the week, and kids whose parents can't leave them alone for five minutes.

    I was at the park recently and saw a group of 10-year-old Scouts going out on the lake in canoes. They were having a blast and learning a skill at the same time. But there on the dock was a group of moms, calling out to their kids and taking pictures. I don't doubt this was a big event for the moms (or maybe they were just afraid the kids would fall in and drown), but it struck me as clingy.
  78. Peter Cromerovich from Erehwon, Canada writes: I met one of these cotton wool hyper-nannies on a plane a while back. This mother having pre-boarded I found her sitting in my seat, claiming that she had to be across the aisle from her two 5 or 6 year olds so she could watch them and that I could have her seat behind them. I turfed her out and she switched with some others. During the entire flight no more than 10 seconds elapsed without some suggestion or direction to them. This kind of smothering is enough to drive anyone batty.
    At that age I used to ride my tricycle alone to meet my dad coming home from work. It was a distance of several kilometers and in a city of several million. It was no big deal since I and everyone else used to walk to school too. Hyper parents, hyper fear, hyper nanny societies and hyper media all designed to shape and mould you into that ideal fearful person. Excuse me while I gag.
  79. Fed Up And Had Enough from Toronto, Canada writes: I don't understand why some people equate children who are allowed to be children with unruly behaviour? If you are doing your job of parenting, your children will behave wherever they are and whatever they are doing. Just because you're allowed to run in the park doesn't mean you're an ill-mannered hooligan!
    And by the way, someone mentioned that Holly Jones' family knew her killer. That is not true. He lived in a rooming house on a street nearby, but she certainly didn't know him. He admitted that he had been watching porn on the internet before he went out and snatched her off the street.
  80. elizabeth vann from victoria, b.c., Canada writes: Della Baird: Kudos to you. Your post (07:07 a.m.) brought back many fond memories for me. Agree with all your post except for the outhouse.

    Generally, this article is a whole lot of common sense. I try to stay away from the hyper-parents. The din drives me nuts. Cannot image how a kid feels being driven here and there with frantic parents hovering about or whatever.

    Freedom to kids to be kids.
  81. Andrea C from Canada writes: The problem with these hyper-scheduled families is that it's impossible to get together with anyone if you're not in a program! People are busy every day of the week. If you want to socialize yourself and your children, you have to go to activities. It's crazy.

    I have my older child in a play-based preschool for 2 2-hour sessions a week -- and I'm present for about 45 minutes of each of those sessions. And we go