children freedoms

Mine played out from about seven. I really can't see how 11 is the average tbh. By 11 they start to stop playing out and want to hang out with mates, sometimes in local parks but often more adventurous.

The thing you're missing is parental/judging gaze, it's that which is the independence that is talked about, not going off on adventures with randoms off the internet.

You still know where your child is, just like the police say, you just aren't watching, structuring and intervening in all their play. They're at the park etc.

The parents "having the eye" is exactly the opposite of independence.

Of course, yes, the article is crap in that it's about paranoid parents, rather than addressing the fears (and the cars taking over the streets and making them unsafe polluted messes is generally the most pressing and realistic one there). So yes address the fears, but no kids hiding from the judging gaze by retreating into solitary activities is not good either.

By 11 they start to stop playing out and want to hang out with mates

That is still playing out, some kids never have the phase of playing around the street/play-park playing hide and seek etc. and only progress to the hanging out with mates type after secondary school.

This is not as straightforward as the article suggests.

Not everyone lives in the same sort of area. Round here, 8/9yo walk to school alone or in groups and can play as this is a cul de sac and there are green areas where kids can play. If I lived on a busy road with no green areas then things would look very different. I wouldn't allow my child to play in parks where there might be syringes for example.

Independence is a massive confidence booster whether it's popping to the shop without a parent or making a sandwich on your own for lunch. It should be encouraged and good for mental health.

Tbh I'm surprised that the average is 11 as that means there are secondary school kids who aren't allowed to do that and that is extreme imo. There are children living in unsafe places where an adult needs to transport them by car but generally that's not the case in Britain imo.

I agree with the article that playgrounds aren't designed to challenge older kids - I'd say they were generally designed with under 7s in mind

11 definitely isn’t the average where I live.

Leaving independence too late risks safety too. A child who is more naive than their peers may be more susceptible to being conned which could be dangerous. Starting to practice independence skills in late primary school also has the benefit that they aren't know-it-all teenagers who think that they are too smart to be tricked or make mistakes.

[quote thespeckswings]To think the analysis referred to in this article is inadequate. It is true that freedoms for children are a thing of the past and that this is not great. But to think that we need to focus on the reasons why and do something about them and that should have been the focus of this research.

First sexual exploitation and manipulation and grooming of minors on the internet is a huge problem which needs to be sorted out and it is difficult to justify saying to a parent "just sent them out to have an adventure" when the problems are so stark. Secondly, teen gang violence in some areas nowadays is far beyond what it was when I was young. Thirdly the advice we get from police is to know where our dc are and what they are doing. And traffic.

And then the article makes a connection with mental health about children not getting outside enough. In my experience, the children not getting out are those who are gaming or watching tv or not doing other activities and not interracting with anyone including familiies. This is the core problem isn't it? If parents are taking dc out, dc get a lot of time outside but parents keep an eye, organiising social things and activities, where the children play freely but while still on the parents' radar, is this really going to definitely lead to MH problems just because the child isn't doing it on their own before the age of 11?

The children I know who had protective parents started to be very independent at around 14 and went on to be independent, happy, successful adults.

www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/20/gradual-lockdown-of-uk-children-as-age-for-solo-outdoor-play-rises[/quote]
This is a short article about a larger report on a survey. Read the report and you may find the issues you raise addressed.

I think there tends to be a very rosy tinted view about ‘playing out’, to be honest.

I’m sure that there are advantages but there is a dark side that shouldn’t (imo) be overlooked. I grew up with public service videos, some which were very dark and frightening, urging me to say No if a strange man invited me to see his kittens, to stay away from water, electricity pylons and railways, and never to play on farms. It was never hinted that it might be a good idea to supervise children for these very reasons.

And yes, traffic too. But moreover I think children need protecting from one another. Groups of very young children quickly become a bit lord of the flies without adult supervision and guidance.

After reading about a group of boys trying to set a 10 year old girl on fire in a park I'm taking my chances and keeping them in or going out with them myself! My eldest has autism and will probably be quite easily led. He will be 8 soon and won't be playing out on his own anytime soon

Ours had quite a lot of freedoms,, opportunities for risk taking and self determination but were never allowed to ‘hang out’ or ‘just chill’ in parks with gangs of teenagers or to play in the street as young children. I know very few of their friends who were allowed to.

Most have gone on to be very competent adults.

It makes sense to me that access to outdoor independent play is helpful for dc for a number of reasons, but the real issue is why so many people's living environment doesn't allow for it to happen safely. Parent's aren't keeping dc in for no reason.

I've let my dc play out since much younger than the ages given in the article, but I'm sure I wouldn't if we lived in a built up area with no safe space for kids.

I think people are well aware of the reasons that children play out less, it's just that some of them are bogus, and some are things that we could probably do something about, and people never seem to take seriously the risks of not allowing it.

Traffic - that is a real change in some areas and a real risk to kids of certain ages. So maybe this is something we could think about changing though it would take real effort.

Kidnapping and similar - those things are fairly rare, the biggest risks of that kind come from people you know or in your family.

The internet? That is a reason to send kids out rather than feeling complacent that they are safe at home.

The elephant in the room is that a heck of a lot of parents would like to send kids out but don't because they are worried about other people judging them, or calling the police or school, or they just aren't allowed. (As an example of the latter my son went to the local club pack when he was nine, located a few blocks from our house next to the duck pond he would play near every day. But he wasn't allowed to walk himself to and from the meeting even though he was perfectly capable, and his grandfather had walked the exact same walk to cubs when he was a boy. The scouting organisation would not allow it.)

UK society simply does not allow for he same independence in children that it used to in my opinion. I spent long summers as a child roaming around as one of the oldest of a little pack of children on a caravan site in a remote area of Ireland where much of my town relocated to in the summer. We just appeared back at the caravan for feeding 😂 I have wonderful memories of it and I was a very sensible child but I do wonder in this day and age if a child had for example slipped into the sea and was pulled under by the dangerous tides around there (which to be fair we were well aware of), how social services might have viewed it. Not least when for many families there is a critical divorced parent just looking for any excuse to criticise the parenting of the other parent...

I was a child in the 60s/70s I think we can have a very idealistic view of how freedom was for children then. We were always supervised. We never had that ...go out and not come back for hours thing. Speaking to a lot of my friends l realise l am one of the few who didn't have any incident of sexual abuse as child..from neighbours flashing to others dropping the hand to far more serious ongoing stuff. Also a lot, especially boys suffered huge ongoing bullying that no one ever knew about. I was brought up on a farm and we never got to walk to the shops as too far or roam the streets with friends but we all grew up very independent without the massive baggage some were carrying due to this ' wonderful freedom"
My own DC grew up in the 90s and l followed the same pattern and they also are independent, ready for most challenges in life. My advise from this stance in life is supervise your children while letting them have lots of fun.

I think that is quite accurate june

There is a very dark side to the ‘we left the house all day and didn’t go back until it was dark’ view.

I think abduction being dismissed as ‘rare’ misses the point.

There is a difference between the probability of something happening - how likely it is - and the risk factor, which is to do with the consequences of it happening.

So a lot of people like to tout the fact that traffic accidents are far more likely than abductions and yes, they are. So the probability of my children being involved in a traffic accident is high. But the chances of them surviving a traffic accident is extremely high so the risk is low.

However with abduction the probability is extremely low (though that’s partly because children are better supervised than they once were) but the risk is sky high.

The risk is that not only will you lose your child and that alone is a horrifying blood chilling prospect for most of us, but that you’d have to accept your child’s final moments were spent in agony, terror, humiliation and fear. You’d have to accept the media intrusion into your family’s life (remember Milly Dowler’s parents?) You might have to accept that you’d never know, you’d never have a body or a funeral and the rest of your life would be spent wondering if they were still kept somewhere, being hurt and harmed.

That risk is just too high for me no matter how low the probability of it happening is.

I think there's also a bit of misty-eyed nostalgia about what 'playing outside' actually involves nowadays. IME (from walking around our estate nearly every evening for years), a lot of the 'playing outside' is actually hanging out at the park on mobile phones... I'd rather a child was having supervised internet access with me at home, or supervised play at a park, than wholly unsupervised 'showing off' internet access round the back of the village hall. When I was their age (not that long ago ) mobile phones weren't as widespread and there was no 4G/5G so you did just play or chat.

There's a really good (old) thread on the feminist board on MN from a woman who is trying to set up more girl-friendly activities in parks and outdoors. Apparently psychologists have found that the activities put out (skate parks, football pitches etc.) tend to attract boys and aren't encouraging environments for girls, so they stay at home at a crucial age in development. I have to say I also see more boys playing outside than girls - on bikes, football, hanging out at the aforementioned village hall. The few girls that are out are either walking around in pairs, or sitting on benches watching the boys on their phones, not taking part. I saw two girls skateboarding the other day, which was striking in its how rare it was - it was great to see.