Schonrock kids and unchaperoned "school run"

[DaveR]

One interesting thing that has come out of this thread is that quite a number of people have said "don't give me statistics/research, I'll trust my own common sense". I must admit I generally read that as "don't give me facts, I'll trust my own prejudices/imagination/whatever", which I find a bit odd. I'm not for one minute saying that people should always defer to stats, but wouldn't you want to think about it, at least? It's hard to genuinely critically examine your own position on an issue (and even harder to conclude that it is completely irrational) but its worth a go, surely.

[Narnia]

Someone is going to tell me this is why England didn't do well in the WC in a minute..............

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I think you'll find Dazie's pretty good in the WC.

[pk]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> One interesting thing that has come out of this

> thread is that quite a number of people have said

> "don't give me statistics/research, I'll trust my

> own common sense". I must admit I generally read

> that as "don't give me facts, I'll trust my own

> prejudices/imagination/whatever", which I find a

> bit odd. I'm not for one minute saying that

> people should always defer to stats, but wouldn't

> you want to think about it, at least? It's hard

> to genuinely critically examine your own position

> on an issue (and even harder to conclude that it

> is completely irrational) but its worth a go,

> surely.

but where are there relevant stats here? - i haven't seen any that suggest that riding a bike to school at 5 accompanied by an 8 year old has any positive impact on anything (or that riding a bike at 5 accompanied by an adult has a negative impact) - so surely both 'sides' of the 'argument' are relying on their own 'common sense'?

[BB100]

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.

[trinity]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But can we agree that somewhere in the last what?

> 50 years?... parents have become much more

> cautious with children?

>

> Not entirely a bad thing perhaps but many people

> seem to hanker after the freedom of their own

> youth whilst not permitting it to their own

> children. And some will argue the world is a

> scarier place (I don?t agree entirely) and that is

> entirely their perogative to raise kids as the see

> fit but the question of why people are SO much

> more cautious is interesting. To me anyway

I find this perplexing also.

Thirty years ago I was walked to school as a 4 year old by my 6 year old sister. All my class mates also walked to school regardless of age. This was in the mid seventies in East Belfast at the height of the Troubles. Our route took us along the peaceline, along rubble strewn roads and past barbed-wire barricades. What risks did we all face?

I can see that traffic now is much worse. That is a greater risk than before and is the reason why my children do not walk to school unaccompanied. The Schonrocks have considered their route and their children's abilities and believe that it is safe for them.

Other risks to children, particularly walking through Dulwich Village, would be, I think substanially smaller, than those faced by me and my classmates. So I just don't get why so great an uproar about something that was the norm only 30 years ago.

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.

[BB100]

???? 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.

[????]

I think 5 year olds are pretty incompetent at a lot of things.

[????]

But i'm just stopping themselves from being themselves, as that mum in Goa leaving her 15 year old with a load of druugies in Goa would have said...

[BB100]

???? 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.

[????]

...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.

[Brendan]

I don?t remember feeling patronised by the intrinsic prejudices within our society when I was 5 years old.

I do now but not then.

I mostly remember sandpits and dipping biscuits into orange squash.

[BB100]

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...........

[DaveR]

"but where are there relevant stats here? - i haven't seen any that suggest that riding a bike to school at 5 accompanied by an 8 year old has any positive impact on anything (or that riding a bike at 5 accompanied by an adult has a negative impact) - so surely both 'sides' of the 'argument' are relying on their own 'common sense'?"

there are lots of relevant stats/research, and quite a few references to them on this thread. They include the statistical risk of child abduction, absolute and relative risk of road trafic accidents (including comparing the idyllic 70s when most of us walked or cycled to school unaccompanied with the present), and research regarding the positive benefits of exercise and exposure to risk for children. The parents' statement suggests that they have considered the true risk as opposed to the perceived risk.

I suspect that letting these kids ride to school like this for a year is no more risky than them going horse-riding once a week for a year. That doesn't mean that any individual decision to let kids ride horses it right or wrong, but is it relevant? If the 'common sense' answer is that riding is safe or safer, is it rational to ignore the stats?

[BB100]

???? 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

[????]

All research?

Anyway, good. Some of us have less faith in academic research in many areas. Look at academic researches' general view and belief on the 'Family' in say 1972 if you want to see a load of politically driven codswallop for instance. I'll stick with my own path, cheers.

[Alex K]

Odd, isn't it... When I was six I was given my first pocketknife. A boy needed one. Why? To cut things with.

And to play mumbly-peg, in which the game consisted of throwing your knife to stick upright in the ground closer to your mate's foot than he could throw his to stick near yours. And to practise all the tricks of flipping an open knife from hand to knee to hand to knee to hand, for the bravado and prestige.

Lost arts.

[Keef]

In my opinion. The root cause of the clash of opinion asides from the theoretical asides and the perv-paranoia. 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.

Word!

I have worked in a number of schools with visually impaired kids doing orientation & mobility, mental mapping and spacial awareness. As part of this, I have also involved their sighted peeers, and to be honest, the sighted kids are not much better (and in some ways worse) than the blind ones!

[Gubodge]

BB100 Wrote:

>

> 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

Presumably supervised, though!

My five year old is an excellent cyclist and eminently sensible. I'd be very happy for her to walk alone to school, although she would be horrified by the idea. I would not be happy for her to cycle to school as it adds more variables into the system, (I'm a pretty good cylist myself, but have still had my commute to work buggered up by falls, close collisions and punctures.) and I think it selfish to have bikes on the already crowded pavement at school run time. (Just as I don't allow them to cycle on the pavements on Lordship Lane. There's no point as you can't travel at more than walking pace without clipping peoples ankles.)

I have a younger daughter who is less sensible and I can imagine that when she is 5 that I would be unwilling to let the her make her way to school on her own. She will not be going with her big sister, unaccompanied by adults either as I think it unfair and unreasonable for the elder to be in loco parentis for a child not capable of making the journey on her own.

So my questions for the Schonrocks would be:

Can your 8 year old change a puncture and has he/she the tools to do it?

Do you let your 5 year old ride to school on his/her own if the 8 year old is not at school?

If the answers to both those are yes, then I have no problem with what you are doing. If the answer to either is no then I think you are irresponsible.

[BB100]

???? 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.

[Brendan]

What about the undocumented but very real evidence that if I have a child who is anything like me when I was 7 and first allowed to ride my bike to school on my own they will take the first opportunity to cut through a vacant lot to use the pile of builder?s sand as a jump ramp, get to school covered in mud and with a buckled wheel and then stop on the way home to have a fight on the side of the road?

[BB100]

Gubodge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Presumably supervised, though!

>

More obsession with supervision.

[BB100]

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

[Keef]

With regards supervision and wrapping in cotton wool, I agree completely that lots of parents are OTT. In Wells Park a while back, I saw a couple totally freak because their daughter (who looked 4-5) was standing on a wall that can't have been more than 10" tall. Even had she fallen off it, I very much doubt that she could have done any damage.

This is obviously going a bit OTT.

However, I still believe that a 5 year old (whether with an 8 year old or not) should not be cycling to school.

I was given quite a long leash by my parents when I was a kid, I walked to school from about 7 (only a 5-10 minute walk), I played out on my bike / skateboard with other local kids, and never had any complaints about my mum not letting me do stuff. However, I am bloody sure that I would have cycled to school aged 5 over my mum's dead body!

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.

That is basically my opinion in the cold light of a calmer day.

[Brendan]

I suppose if we were having this conversation 100 years ago we would be discussing the nuisance of unsupervised children rather than their vulnerability.

It would also take a while for all the messages to be delivered by post.