BB100

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This doc is not aimed at all children or all > families, No the document isn't so shouldn't be analysed for this discussion, however it is a useful reference by default as it does define the parental role, which was the objection, although not what was in dispute. However saying that it is Cameron's personal belief that gov. should intervene in parenting more: http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2010/01/David_Cameron_Supporting_parents.aspx DaveR rightly suggests a balance but what the state will and will not interfere in with parental responsibility is ill-defined and regularly inconsistent.

uppereastsider Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The state SHOULD NOT be able to define what a > parent's role is? I agree but it already has. Parental capacity is laid out in the Framework for Assessment of children in need and their families (2000) Parents often know what's best > for their children - the government of the day > shouldn't have a say in this (unless a child is > abused)... But at this rate there'll be a cap on > when men/women can be parents. Ridiculous - I say! As Keef has explained, the state needs to define it's role and responsibilities more clearly so parents are not left with threats of intervention (and social finger wagging) when they make, often subjective but with good intention, decisions about their children's welfare.

------------------------------------------------------- > Unfortunately it has everything to do with it. It > is the shifting sands of the responsibilities of > state and parents that makes parenting such an > uncertain activity. If responsibilities were > clearly defined we would not be having this > debate. > > > Marmora Man Wrote:Are you, BB100, really saying you want some kind > of state sponsored job description and / or > qualification for being a parent or child rearing? > If so, well words truly fail me. No, Marmora Man, I was referring to the boundaries between parental and state responsibilities needing to be more clearly defined.

Narnia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- The intervention or lackof by the state > in childrearing in neither here nor there. Unfortunately it has everything to do with it. It is the shifting sands of the responsibilities of state and parents that makes parenting such an uncertain activity. If responsibilities were clearly defined we would not be having this debate.

Hi Keef, It's not really about what I think. I was just illustrating the hypocrisy of taking the moral highground on parental responsibility when there are children taking very serious and significant responsibilities for others all around us and are largely ignored by wider society.

'Society doesn't seem to be making the same amount of fuss over the number of young children caring for their PARENTS in this country. [news.bbc.co.uk]' alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > yeah but that's not a situation they have > chosen.... > > You assume that all child carers are looking after physically ill or disabled parents. Actually many children have to look after their parents because they are alcholics, drug abusers or self-harmers. I worked with a 6 year old child recently who looked after her five year old sibling and her mother everytime she was intoxicated (3-4 times a week). She even did the shopping and the cooking. Social Services knew but they just had a meetings about it.

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I also feel that it is putting a lot of pressure > on the 8 year old. If something did happen, and > the 8 year old saw the 5 year old get hit by a > car. They are tyhen expected to keep calm, call > 999, administer first aid? Thety are 8, and should > not be burdened that way. trinity Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > In addition older children having responsibility > for their younger siblings in certain situations, > in this case the ride to school, would also have > been entirely normal and part of a healthy family > relationship. 'It is estimated that there are 175,000 young carers in the UK'. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6636585.stm Society doesn't seem to be making the same amount of fuss over the number of young children caring for their PARENTS in this country. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6122190.stm

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I suppose if we were having this conversation 100 > years ago we would be discussing the nuisance of > unsupervised children rather than their > vulnerability. > Yes, that view of the child as 'born sinful and in need of discipline' was more dominant then.

If they were like you Brendan then I would heavily supervise them for the rest of their lives. >:D

Gubodge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Presumably supervised, though! > More obsession with supervision.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- ???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All research? > > Anyway, good. Some of us have less faith in > academic research in many areas. I share your caution about research but then at least they have complied witten 'evidence' of their extensive experience which we can interrogate which is more difficult to do with opinion and conjecture.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > ...and that's meant to make me challenge my > structured, bourgeois thought processes? I'll > stick with commonsense and parental 'consensus' > rather than academics and theorists thank you. No, just suggesting your thinking is out of kilter with research

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > She expected my daughter to ride without > stabilisers, so she did. She expected my daughter > to take hot things out of an oven, so she did. > > I really had to bite my tongue and curb my > maternal instincts, but lo and behold, my daughter > was capable of so much more than I could have > imagined. > > Maybe it is a continental thing? A comparision of early years provision with Norway illustrates how restrictive our children's lives have become. Five year olds in Norwegian playgroups play with fire, use sharp knives and tools, climb rocks and trees, cook on open fires, whittle stick into knives........when compared with the Schonrock's wanting their child to ride a bike to school...........

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think 5 year olds are pretty incompetent at a > lot of things. The academics, theorists and professionals wouldn't necessarily agree with you. Yes children are vulnerable and need protection as a special group as children but our society is also positioning them as incompetant through restricting their development of life skills.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The root cause of the clash of > opinion..Is that many (most?) of those who > have regular contact with a reasonable sample of 5 > year olds find it very, very difficult to believe > that any 5 year old has sufficient cycling skills, > developed balance & coordination, road sense, > spatial awarness and experience to cycle to school > solely chaperoned by an 8 year old, we are joined > in this intolerance by both the Local Authority > and the national guidelines on cycling (sorry > don't know who they are by but posted earlier). No > we've not assessed the individual 5 year olds > capability (and the parents have, agreed) and our > sample of 5 year olds is relatively small but it > still feels pretty unlikely and I think that's > expressed in the doubt of even supporters on here. You illustrate the construction of the child as 'vulnerable and dependent' beautifully. It is suggested that if you treat and view a child as vulnerable and dependent then that is what they will be. Disempowered and incompetent.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- the question of why people are SO much > more cautious is interesting. To me anyway It can be explained through governmentality, individualism, globalisation and post-modernist perceptions of risk and risk-management - an ecological construction of risk society. I could go on but it gets boring.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh the terribly intolerant Brits...try being a bit > different in a small German town say? Or in > mainstream France? Or Italy.....liberal cultural > cringe strikes again Yes of course you are right but I wasn't comparing the UK's intolerance to any other country - merely trying to explain the intolerance of our own attitudes to differences in parenting styles. And these views of the child also compete within our culture not just across cultures.

Growlybear Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I apologise if I find it hard to > understand the vast differences in what parents > think is an acceptable way to get a five year old > child to infant school. It all comes down to differing views of the child. The child as 'vulnerable and dependent' has a stronger consensus in the UK than the child as 'capable and competent' or the child with 'rights'. It is these socially constructed views of the child that constantly compete in everyday discourses about children. Developmental psychology has also heavily influenced our ideas about what a child can do at a certain age and stage rather than looking at a child's unique abilities. We accept all children are different but we expect them all to behave the same at a certain ages. The Schonrock parents are German (or at least one of them is) which suggests a difference in cultural views of the child and their perception of risk are the root causes of this clash of opinion. The problem in the Uk is we don't like it when people dare live their lives differently to the rest of us.

Most schools stagger their lunch breaks so only half the school is outside at one time. And then it still wouldn't be that many as they also have clubs and children inside eating their lunch in the dinner hall!

'On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance...:"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required." 'Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004) And yes PeterW couldn't you hear the laughter across ED?

PeterW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I tell you who should be reported to the > authorities: people who drive their kids short > distances to and from school. They're the ones > creating the road danger people are so scared > about. And don't get me started on urban 4x4 > drivers. I was thinking that the extra traffic on the road during the school run probably makes them safer as you can barely do 5mph in the morning.

Growlybear Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The fact that, as far as we know, the children > have so far managed to get themselves to school > without coming to any harm doesn't mean that it is > right. It means that they have been lucky. Based on that assessment we are lucky everyday of our lives. There are risks to everything - even if it's just walking down the stairs. I walked down my stairs every day for 25 years and was lucky until I missed a step and broke my ankle. Inevitably harm may well come to you whatever you do in life. Just because society has a warped estimate of the probability of harm to these children (and possibly something may happen to them at some point because that is the nature of life and living)it doesn't mean we can force others to think and do the same.

CoD Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > There is not: There have been two incidents of > attempted abduction of girls walking through > Dulwich Village to school. One was about three > years ago, one was three months ago. Increasing police presence and use of CCTV are some of the alternative ways of making everyone safer. Just keeping young children under supervision doesn't tackle the causes, or protect older children - or even adults. Everytime my dad collects my kids from school different staff come out and ask him why he's waiting outside, or have called the police or parents report him to the school staff. He's just an old grandad that likes to turn up early and pace up and down but everyone is so hypervigilent and ready to scream pedo. No wonder that toddler drowned when she escaped from her nursery - a builder saw her walking down the street but was too frightened to help her in case he was accused of abducting her.

Fuschia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Much harder with 25% mobility and many pupils only > coming to the country in year 9 or 10... So it is more complex than just language & poverty. Why does the school have 25% mobility?

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A terrible accident? Leaving a three year old > alone night after night in an unlocked, dark and > unfamiliar apartment with two younger children? Not quite the same as allowing your school-aged children out in broad daylight in a very familiar place close to home, with lots of adults and children walking in the same direction........