
The Latest Battle Over When and Where Kids Can Walk to School - jcater
http://www.citylab.com/navigator/2016/01/kids-independence-free-range-parenting/423168/
======
Afton
The closing of this article is actually the key for me. I've been trying to
teach my kids that if they have a problem, and I'm not around, they should
pick an adult and ask for help. The odds that they will pick an adult that has
malicious intention is astronomically small. The odds that things will get
worse because they can't bring themselves to ask someone for help seem much
higher.

~~~
Someone1234
Exactly.

"Stranger kidnappings" (where someone the child doesn't know kidnaps them) are
incredibly rare, a child is at much more risk from traffic, guns, cancer, or
swimming pools.

The reason why child kidnappings (non-stranger) are seemingly common is
because the vast majority of these are by family members (e.g. parents during
a custody dispute, grandparents, etc).

Child molesters are also very rare (although you can make them seem more
common by massaging the statistics, as some charities/politicians/media like
to do), and on average in a large retailer there won't even be a single one.

There are stories where kids have literally died both because they were scared
to approach a stranger, or a stranger was scared to approach them.

I have a kid. I am going to teach them to approach any adult, with a slight
bias towards people who work there (simply because they are more likely to
know the procedure for lost child, not because they're inherently safer/less
safe).

~~~
rdtsc
> "Stranger kidnappings" (where someone the child doesn't know kidnaps them)
> are incredibly rare, a child is at much more risk from traffic, guns,
> cancer, or swimming pools.

Agreed, I am a parent as well. But a word of warning, you'll get mean looks
and talk behind your back from playground parents if you take that attitude.

I've seen moms and dads on playground who are way out there in assessing what
is threatening and what is not. They'd see a man walking by the playground
going by their business and start calling their children closer to them acting
all scared. Or make comments about "hmm what are they doing, we haven't seen
this person before". Mind you we were not in a crime ridden neighborhood, this
is a quiet suburban area. Was going to say "lay of the news people, take it
easy" but of course couldn't they'd think I am crazy.

Oh and co-worker's neighbor called CPS (child protective services) on them
because they were playing by themselves in the cul-de-sac while the parents
watched from inside the house. They of course don't know who did it, and even
if they knew there no repercussion they could take against that person. They
can always claim "they thought of the children", nobody can argue with that...

~~~
lotharbot
> _" I've seen moms and dads on playground who are way out there in assessing
> what is threatening and what is not. They'd see a man walking by the
> playground going by their business and start calling their children closer
> to them acting all scared."_

This happens to me all the time in the grocery store. In the past I was a
teacher, and now I'm a stay-at-home dad. If I have my son with me, everyone
thinks I'm awesome for being a man who takes responsibility for his kid; if
he's at school and I'm at the store and happen to be within half a mile of a
kid, people look at me like I'm a creeper.

~~~
mgkimsal
Hrmm... maybe you are doing something you're not aware of? I go in to grocery
stores all the time by myself and never get weird looks. Really, I'm pretty
sure I'd notice after 20+ years of being an adult male in grocery stores
(nearly all the time by myself).

~~~
spacehome
Something is missing from lotharbot's story. Single men pretty regularly go
grocery shopping without reproach.

~~~
edraferi
Yes, but _solitary men are mistrusted around children in public_

Example: your at the grocery store when a young child wanders around the
corner and starts pulling items off the shelf onto the floor right in front of
you. A woman could stop the child, ask "where are your parents?" and carry the
child to fjnd the parents. A man better back away and ignore the child lest
somebody call the cops.

------
kogus
This article (from 2007) has a map that stuck with me. It shows the decreasing
range of permissible movement over the past century in Sheffield, England.

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-462091/How-
children-...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-462091/How-children-
lost-right-roam-generations.html)

It would be very interesting to have a similar map across different countries
and compare.

The thing is, most parents I know would agree this is troubling, but few of
them actually allow their children to roam with anything close to actual
freedom until high school age.

------
jrcii
This is a very interesting article that relates to this topic:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_childhood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_childhood)

Remarkably, "During the 1600s, a shift in philosophical and social attitudes
toward children and the notion of 'childhood' began in Europe." This seems to
imply that the notion of childhood didn't even exist. Prior to this it
explains that, "Children were often temporarily sent off as servants to
relatives in need of help."

I know in my own family, my great-grandfather's many sisters and brothers (13
in total) had tremendous work responsibilities as children. We appear to have
gone from one extreme to the other.

~~~
david-given
Don't forget that a couple of hundred years later, the teenager was invented.
Prior to that, then pretty much at puberty you were deemed to be an adult, and
you'd go off to work/marriage/both. (But it's important to remember that
puberty now is way earlier than it was then, mostly due to better health and
diet, IIRC.)

I do find myself wondering what the next social step will be, as social
maturity diverges even further from physical maturity...

~~~
e40
My understanding is that puberty is earlier due to additives in food. Tofu,
for example, has compounds that mimic female hormones. Compounds in soft
plastics are thought to disrupt the hormones of young children, too.

~~~
stvswn
As long as we're throwing out unproven but provocative theories along these
lines -- I think I read something about how residual compounds from birth
control passes through to urine and then into our water supply in trace
amounts, triggering hormonal changes that lead to earlier puberty. I like that
one, it has a lot of things going for it: tainted water supply, culpability of
drug companies, punishment for our hubris in thinking we could control
reproduction, etc.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Don't forget that it would probably be a stronger effect in more populated
areas, so on the surface you'd expect it to hit inner cities more.

------
kqr2
In Japan, kids are quite independent. It's a bigger issue in the US because of
the lack of social trust.

[http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/09/why-are-little-
kids-i...](http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/09/why-are-little-kids-in-
japan-so-independent/407590/)

------
tn13
I feel that the battle is kind of lost when you have ventured into this level
of detail. If you have to discuss "legitimate way to give permission" to a
child it has reached outside the realms of parenting common sense.

I think lot of these issues tie-in very closely to the fact that government is
trying to control our lives with the assumption that government knows better
than us. As an Indian immigrant to India I am extremely concerned to about my
child here because I simply can not exercise my inherited parenting judgement
anymore.

One thing liberty loving individuals could do here is learn a thing or two
from NRA and completely deny any legislative space to the law makers on this
issue. These small bills will not deter the government from what they are
already doing.

------
rayiner
I hate people calling normal parenting a "free range parenting movement." It's
not. When I was a little kid in the early 1990's, even my overprotective asian
parents let me walk to and from school. And I think even today the majority of
parents would think nothing of it. Legislation like this is a response to a
vocal minority of psychotic millenials. Because few of their peers have kids,
and they've moved far from home in pursuit of their careers, they have no
frame of reference for normal parenting.

~~~
asift
Norms are not static and based on your experiences as a child. It's labeled
"free range parenting" because it is no longer the norm.

Edit: I should have been more careful in my wording. Whether it is "the norm"
is obviously very location dependent. The US is a large country with all sorts
of different norms at the community level.

I happen to have grown up in a suburban Midwest community (incredibly safe)
with large residential areas directly across the street from many schools.
However, walking to school was prohibited. Any students caught walking were
subject to suspension and the school threatened to report parents to law
enforcement. Obviously my particular anecdote doesn't apply to everyone, but
there are some communities with insane policies in the US.

~~~
jandrese
In an affluent Maryland suburb? That should be the norm.

If you live east of the Anacostia in DC then yeah, the kids aren't as safe
outside on their own, but that's more from a gang recruitment angle than a
traditional "stranger danger".

Obviously people who live in crime ridden ghettos can't be quite as free as
people who live in safe neighborhoods, and it's something we should fix in the
long term, but it doesn't mean we should punish those people who live in safe
areas with overly restrictive laws that hurt their children's development.

It's kind of sad that the kids who are already disadvantaged by being poor,
having failing schools, and likely only a single parent are also the ones who
don't get to be free and learn independence as children. It's yet another cog
on the cycle of poverty.

~~~
asift
I mentioned it in my edit above, but I grew up in an affluent Midwest suburb
where parents were threatened with criminal action if they let their kids walk
to school. Even high school aged students were threatened with suspensions for
walking. Whether this is the "norm" will depend on where you live, but there
are certainly entire communities where letting kids walk to school is not the
norm.

~~~
mixmastamyk
And why didn't anyone sue for their right to walk?

~~~
gknoy
Initiating a legal battle is not for the faint of heart. Few want to tangle
with authority, and the kind of people that would implement + enforce such a
thing (e.g. school administrators) are notorious for being petty and
inflexible. Moreover, they often have lots of legal backing for their actions
(due to "in loco parentis" status) that are hard to pin down.

Most parents don't have the resources for such a suit (or defense), and most
students probably don't want to risk getting suspended/expelled or sent to a
different school for being the one who sticks up for their rights.

~~~
mixmastamyk
No "tangling" is needed, just someone to file the suit. I would be surprised
if there was not a lawyer in the whole state interested in working on it at a
reduced cost due to the subject. The local ACLU chapter would be a good place
to look.

------
dahart
My first gut reaction was, like many, that policing whether children can walk
to school is effing retarded.

But, I remember when we had no seat belt laws or child seats, and that was a
dumb idea, and got solved by government intrusion. My parents moved me and my
siblings to Mexico for a year, and used to send us walking through the city on
own. I was the oldest, at 7, my sister was 6, my brother 4. One time my
brother was kicked in the head by a horse while we were wandering in a field
petting the horses. In retrospect, my parents were lucky he lived, and a
little more supervision may have been called for.

I have children, and usually encourage them to walk to school, a little under
a mile. But, I'd never let them loose on their own in a foreign country.

I'm also white and have lived only in at least middle class, ridiculously safe
neighborhoods, except for my year in Mexico, my whole life. I realize I've
been really lucky, and that there are a wide variety of people and places and
standards and ways kids can and do get hurt. So, who am I to judge?

I think I could accept policing being reasonable, if it turned out that it did
on average prevent injuries or deaths, and that my feelings about what's too
intrusive might be irrelevant, biased, or lacking data.

~~~
jim-greer
> I remember when we had no seat belt laws or child seats

There's really no downside to putting on a seat belt, or using a child seat.
There's a big downside for being overly protective of children - both for
their development and for busy parents.

~~~
dahart
I'd wager my personal preferences align with yours, but I'm playing devil's
advocate as an exercise in trying to be open minded before deciding what I
think about the new laws.

There was a lot of uproar about the downsides of seat belt laws when they were
proposed. It took government action in the face of industry and some public
opposition to make it happen. It doesn't seem like there are downsides now,
but in fact there was a fight, and hindsight is 20/20.

Do we have proof and data that being over-protective has big downsides? Do we
have proof that driving kids to school amounts to being overly protective? Is
it really clear cut? Is it possible to be protective about physical safety and
lax about social development? I don't know that, even if I suspect it.

I'm personally afraid of being over-protective of my children. And, like I
said, I send my kids to school on foot. But I might be able to withhold my own
incredulity toward the idea of this kind of policing until more evidence has
stacked up. ;)

------
xyzzy4
Preventing kids from walking down a public street is nearly as stupid as
preventing mature women from doing so. Reminds me of Afghanistan and Saudi
Arabia.

~~~
dudul
I'm a strong proponent of what is now called 'free-range' parenting (I just
call it "normal parenting"), and think that kids should be allowed to walk
around. But your comparison is ludicrous.

~~~
x1798DE
Both are oppressive, both are ostensibly done to protect the oppressed target
(from rape and violence), both undercut the decisions of mature adults (women,
parents). Seems like it's valid on at least a few dimensions.

The major difference is that children grow up to be adults and are freed from
the restrictions. If that is the most salient issue, then it's a bad analogy,
but I don't think it's a "ludicrous" comparison.

~~~
dudul
The problem is mature women do not compare to children. It's like saying
"forbidding children to vote is as stupid as forbidding women to vote".

Children do _not_ have the same legal status as grown ups. They can't drive,
should they drive because mature women can drive? They can't watch porn,
should they be allowed to watch porn because mature women can?

Yes, kids not being allowed to walk down the street is stupid, but using the
argument that mature women can do it so kids should be allowed to do it is not
valid.

------
ilyaeck
There mere fact that there are legal battles around this issue in a country
that calls itself "free" is mind-boggling and unsettling. More like, police
state cum Idiocracy, with some avenues from venting.

------
JustSomeNobody
My parents, and those of all my friends growing up, must have been complete
and utter failures as parents because the ONLY restriction of our travels was
be home before the streetlights came on.

~~~
duderific
Yep, that's how it was in the 70's. At 9 or 10 years old I was roaming the
city on my BMX bike without a care in the world. No helmets of course. My mom
would come out and yell for us when it was time for dinner.

------
FussyZeus
I was a latchkey kid for most of school post 6th grade or so because both
parents needed to work to keep us fed. I regularly made my own dinners (boxed
macaroni, but still) and had to help out around the house too.

I credit this for giving me a solid work ethic and my self-reliance. I don't
know what I would've turned out as without a lot of responsibilities as a kid
(A lot by american kid standards anyways.)

~~~
tn13
I was raised in India. I walked half a mile till 4th grade and 2 miles from
5th grade to 10th grade. I remember I had to deal with a madman on the way who
would keep running after the kids and throw stones on them. I remember once I
slipped and fell into a small ravine where there was this huge f __ __python
(goosebumps on my hand right now just remembering that incident), once I was
chased by a fox.

I never even bothered complaining to my parents because in one way it was fun.
We ventured deep into woods, caught crabs, put traps for birds and squirrels
etc. etc.

It was a wonderful part of my childhood, my kids may not experience the same
but I dont want the government to restrict their experience either.

------
cafard
About 1967 I was one of seven or eight cousins in a Midwestern suburban park
when one of the younger ones tripped and hit her head against a bench. She was
not gravely hurt, but it tore the skin on her temple, and it bled a lot. A
couple of utter strangers, a man and a women of probably 45 to 50, drove her
and an older sister to the emergency room while the rest of us waited for my
mother to get us.

It all worked out. We rounded up the cousins at the ER. The one who fell had
no visible scar.

Sometimes I think about this and how odd it seems in the context of the last
25 years. If my wife and I showed up at the ER with two girls from a town 200
miles away I think that the staff would call the police. I also wonder what
would be required in the way of release forms, payment assurance, and so on.

------
ps4fanboy
I am 14 years older than my sister, when I was in grade 3 I was walking myself
to school, however as my parents got older and had my sister they became
incredibly paranoid and she wasnt allowed to walk to school ever.

~~~
duderific
It all shifted in the 80's due to the kidnapped children on the milk cartons,
among other things. I wonder did your 14 year difference span the 80's?

