Will you watch "A Revolution in Childhood" and then come and discuss it

[Twiglett]

it's 90 mins long www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/page/item/b00byhz2.shtml?src=ip_potpw

fascinating so far

"Following 48 hours in the lives of 22 British children to see what they get up to, as a panel of childhood experts try to determine if childhood in Britain really is in crisis."

with Queen Tanya Byron and other experts

it's about looking after your children too closely, and worrying about them too much .. I'm guilty .. I'll bet you are too

Ooh, I haven't seen this yet, but my DH watched it the other night and found it fascinating and has been on at me since to watch it.

I watched large parts of it.

I find it fascinating that they say 75 % of communication between parents and children is directive. It would be really interesting to be observed on a typical day to see if it's true in this house.

sounds interesting. I think I'm in the minority as I don't look after my DS too closely or worry about him too much, but sometimes other parents make me feel guilty, like I really should be mollycoddling him more. Iprefer to teach him to be independant and trust that he willknow his own limits and look after himself.

Ok I watched it. Found it very interesting actually.

I felt the American guy in particular made some very very good points.

The phrase 'captive childhood' was used to describe how little freedom out children are given to roam and take risks and lern stuff on their own. That hit home and I felt was very true and a good way of describing how we are bringing up our kids.

I wash surprised at how little 'play' a lot of the children did, but it was also quite refreshing and comforting that none of the panelists claimed tv or computers and games consoles to be inherantly 'bad' or 'dangerous' to our children's developments, that is was more abou t making sure it doesn't take over children's lives to the neglect of other experiences.

'Helicopter parenting' was a phrase I liked, definately suits the hovering interfering supervising parent you see so much of these days and I'm determined not to be.

Personally I think parents don't allow their children to take any risks of their own in life, and 'protect' their children even from 'normal childhood accidents' like bumps, bruises, falling, and basically pushing their own physical limits to the limit (when they get hurt). I'm not sure why so many parents are afraid even of their children falling and bumping their heads (something that baffled me on the trampoline without a net thread a few weaks ago).

I woudl like to see more parents letitng their children take greater risks, even if it means a few more accidents and broken bones, as they mostly won't do the child any lasting damage and will hopefully allow a child to learn their own limits and be able to self-regulate and self-protect from future accidents and keep themselves safer as adults.

Why do you never see kids climbing trees any more?

Why are parents always hovering around climbing frames?

Let's cut our kids some slack and leave them be to learn for themselveshow to play adventurously without hurting themselves too much, or discovering that even if they do hurt themselves, it's not the end of the world and they soon recover.

My kids climb trees and stuff, the only difference is I'm always there... I loved the idyllic scottish kid running around fields with the village children, just not an option here ..

I am making a concerted effort to reduce control today, we've had a lovely day so far

Was it a broadcast programme originally? If so, when was it on?

yes on BBC4, not sure when it was on, there's about 4 days left on iplayer so assume a few days ago

And will there be more episodes or was it a one-off? (am planning on watching it later by the way)

the problem with letting them play adventurously without getting hurt is surely that risk-taking involves the possibility of getting hurt: from minor injuries to a major injury and it is natural to want to protect your child

I suppose this is where many of us, me included, risk getting it wrong .. I want my children to have freedom and the opportunity to be unsupervised but I just can't see how .. apart from the fact the 7 year old is allowed to cycle and scoot round the block on his own (so out of sight for a few minutes)

I farkin' love Tanya Byron

just done my nvq in playwork so know all about free play, it's not tanya's idea!

How old are your children Twiglett?

I watched it when it was on, and it was quite shocking! I'm a fairly relaxed parent in many ways, and my boys have quite a lot of freedom and independence, and that is very important to me. They started doing little trips (bread, milk, paper, library, letterbox, etc.) on their own from the age of 5. But their "radius from home" is smaller than mine was at that age.

Some of the parents on there were clearly being a very destructive influence on their children's lives IMO.

My boys are 9 and 10. Today, for instance, they walked down to the main town library. There can be all sorts of undesirables in there, but it's staffed and my boys know how to look after themselves. They exchanged some books and had 1 hour on the library computers (ours is very dodgy atm!) Then they walked into town and bought themselves ice-creams, and then walked home eating them. Both of them are happy to do this trip (and others) individually and do so frequently. The distance is about 0.6 mile, so with library time and shopping on the way back, it takes up to 2 hours.

no of course not, she's not saying it is and it really isn't about free play really .. you should watch it SEA, be good to hear more opinions on whether it's resonant and whether it will change

7 & 4 roisin

yes i'll have to watch it, really for us though (that run playschemes) it's about letting the children choose what they want to do and provide the relevant materials.

it's quite a change for us, as our schemes were quite controlled.

it's great though, but we're told not to get involved unless we're asked by the children.

they schemes are more relaxed and fun and there are more accidents, but we just make sure they children are in a safe environment but able to play alone iykwim!

ds1 was reluctant to go further than 5 mins on his own, because he has an appalling sense of direction! And actually only started doing bigger trips in the past year when ds2 (8) started. It has been striking to see the change in him and the confidence it has given him to be more independent.

Everything depends on your circumstances though. Where you live, what the traffic is like, what the general populace are like. There is risk in everything, and that risk does need to be assessed and considered and if possible prepared for. But it doesn't mean you don't then go ahead.

This was a great prog. my dh and I just sat there going 'yes, yes,yes...mm, yes....'!!

We had a lovely weekend - able to run free on a beach. Heavenly.

Trying to distract ds from mischief alot though. Lots of directive talk, but him too "Stop it..That way!!..NOW"

To me this is one of the most interesting issues of parenthood. The "Daily Mail mentality" that every accident has to be someone's fault, is causing problems I think.

Of course it's an automatic parental reaction to be protective. My boys recently have had some physical and verbal abuse from a child whilst walking home from school, which they have been unable to successfully deal with on their own. My instant reaction is to arrange for them to be picked up again, and thus remove the problem. But I know that in the longrun it will be much better for us together to work for a solution that doesn't need an adult to step in so completely, even though adults will need to be involved.

I still think, maybe mistakenly, that they are a little bit too young for outings alone ... and we do in live in London so slightly different I suppose

I am hoping to work up to a point where I am happy for them to run off in the park and not return / be in sight for half hour or so without me getting palpitations (7 yr old not 4 yr old)

by twiglett 'the problem with letting them play adventurously without getting hurt is surely that risk-taking involves the possibility of getting hurt: from minor injuries to a major injury and it is natural to want to protect your child'

The way I understand it Twiglett is that we are not willing to let our children get hurt, when actually it is not such a bad thing and not the end of the world if they do. If we protect them from ever getting hurt how are they going to cope with pain when they inevitably do have an accident, even if it's not till they are an adult?

I don't want to stop DS having adventures or playing in certain ways because of the risk of getting hurt, even the risk of breaking a bone, most broken bones aren't the end of the world after all are they? Maybe I'm lacking some inate parental control others have, I don't know, but I don't feel panicky at the sight of DS at the top of a climbing frame or in situations where he could fall and have a mild accident.

I did wonder about why they picked up on the 'directed talk' thing- 2/3 directed talk, 1/3 open-ended.... because surely you do need to direct children a lot of the time?
As the American guy (tm) said- we are their parents not their friends- so we need to give them instruction and guidance- quite a lot of the time in fact.

OMDB.. the problem is when your head thinks the bone that breaks will be a neck bone

that's why it's nice if you can let them attend good playschemes when they're younger, it gives them a chance to just be children but in a safe place.