Chicago Boyz

What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?

  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Saving (Restoring) Free-Range Childhood

    Posted by David Foster on April 24th, 2019 (All posts by )

    Kerry McDonald:  The Value of a Self-Directed Summer for Kids.

    Autonomy and choice are central to a self-directed summer, in contrast to the control and regimentation that define so many children’s days all year round. Parents from all socio-economic backgrounds face mounting pressure to have their children’s summer days filled with structured, and often expensive, enrichment activities; but poorer parents may confront the most coercion.

    RTWT.  See also my related post Six Hundred Million Years in K-12.

    The term “free-range kids” was originated, AFAIK, by Lenore Skenazy, who has a blog with that name.


    8 Responses to “Saving (Restoring) Free-Range Childhood”

    1. Assistant Village Idiot Says:

      Single-parent families, or those where both parents work outside the home find activities for others to mind their kids. We have moved about the country more than we did in previous generations, so grandparents and aunts are often not available either. I have not seen that academic camps are of much educational value for children, but it does give them fun doing intellect-based activities with others, which I suspect is good training for future careers. Music camps and athletic camps do provide advantage, and in families where everything is a competition (even if you aren’t going to get a lacrosse scholarship), that drives them to get their kids out there.

      So the pool of children who even might have self-directed summers is reduced. My parents were divorced, and I did not have a self-directed summer until she remarried, and I had jobs soon after. However, my other time was my own. I joined some activities, but those were my own choice.

    2. David Foster Says:

      Slightly related: school size and student suicides.

    3. Brian Says:

      In much of the country at this point if you let your kids roam free they’re likely to come home in a squad car with a referral to CPS. “Go out and play until sunset” is something from an entirely different world.

    4. raven Says:

      The change in England over three generations- with a cool map.

    5. Deep Lurker Says:

      “I have long held that there are two fundamental views of children: That they are pets who can talk, or that they are small people who do not yet know very much. The wrong one is winning.”
      – David Friedman

    6. David Foster Says:

      Jet engine pioneer Gerhard Neumann wrote about growing in Germany between the wars, in a home where the approach to child-raising was closer to stereotypically Prussian than to stereotypically Jewish: “You did exactly as you were told by your parents. There was no such thing as saying no to them!…You were not to have a hand in your pocket while talking to grown-ups…Showing any emotion in Prussia was considered sissyish. There was no kissing between parents and children–only a peck on the cheek before going upstairs punctually at nine o’clock; and there was absolutely no crying.”

      On the other hand, Neumann could do pretty much what he wanted with his spare time. At the age of 13, he bought a folding kayak and, with some camping gear and a 12-year-old friend, took long journeys on the Oder River, all the way to the Baltic Sea.

    7. Assistant Village Idiot Says:

      I think that the prosperity of being able to drive children places has changed our thinking about what is safe. I had to learn to cross busy streets in first grade, because there was no one to drive me to the library, to my grandmother’s for lunch, to the Y, or to choir practice – about a half-mile each in a mill city. Had there been a choice, my mother, who was quite protective, might have chosen differently. Children also worked at dangerous jobs – because there was little choice, not because we thought it was part of their development to work around dangerous machines. My great-grandfather went to sea at age 12 in Goteborg and went to Hong Kong and Rio before coming to America. That’s range. OTOH, once you are on board ship you aren’t walking about much, and your time is not unsupervised.

      We forget the stories of adventures that didn’t work out so well, of boys going through the ice, as I was just reminded of last month at an historical society lecture. There is a survivor bias to our tales.

      My grandparents and parents all had friends nearby and did not find the need to go far. I suppose they might have gone far at need, or for special adventure, but I never heard about it.

      We live in a closed neighborhood and my sons were allowed to go where they wished in it, but not outside it without permission. They have daughters, whose movements are even more circumscribed. Why encourage them to go out on busy roads unless they have a particular goal? I don’t have much use for the government involving itself unless there is serious neglect of children, but I don’t think it’s accurate to regard children’s freedoms as entirely a choice, nor always a positive one. The dangers were not entirely imaginary. Okay, my mother’s were largely imaginary, but that’s only part of the picture.

    8. raven Says:

      My upbringing was rural, a luscious mix of rolling hills, forest and pasture. We all ran pretty much wherever we wanted, or as far as we dared. Back then it seemed there were not many no trespassing signs, the farmers did not seem to mind too much about kids running about in the woods. I guess they were not worried about being sued. We dragged around fishing poles and .22’s,and nobody called the swat team.
      Later on when we discovered girls, motorcycles and alcohol life got dangerous.

    Leave a Reply

    Comments Policy:  By commenting here you acknowledge that you have read the Chicago Boyz blog Comments Policy, which is posted under the comment entry box below, and agree to its terms.

    A real-time preview of your comment will appear under the comment entry box below.

    Comments Policy

    Chicago Boyz values reader contributions and invites you to comment as long as you accept a few stipulations:

    1) Chicago Boyz authors tend to share a broad outlook on issues but there is no party or company line. Each of us decides what to write and how to respond to comments on his own posts. Occasionally one or another of us will delete a comment as off-topic, excessively rude or otherwise unproductive. You may think that we deleted your comment unjustly, and you may be right, but it is usually best if you can accept it and move on.

    2) If you post a comment and it doesn't show up it was probably blocked by our spam filter. We batch-delete spam comments, typically in the morning. If you email us promptly at we may be able to retrieve and publish your comment.

    3) You may use common HTML tags (italic, bold, etc.). Please use the "href" tag to post long URLs. The spam filter tends to block comments that contain multiple URLs. If you want to post multiple URLs you should either spread them across multiple comments or email us so that we can make sure that your comment gets posted.

    4) This blog is private property. The First Amendment does not apply. We have no obligation to publish your comments, follow your instructions or indulge your arguments. If you are unwilling to operate within these loose constraints you should probably start your own blog and leave us alone.

    5) Comments made on the Chicago Boyz blog are solely the responsibility of the commenter. No comment on any post on Chicago Boyz is to be taken as a statement from or by any contributor to Chicago Boyz, the Chicago Boyz blog, its administrators or owners. Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners, by permitting comments, do not thereby endorse any claim or opinion or statement made by any commenter, nor do they represent that any claim or statement made in any comment is true. Further, Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners expressly reject and disclaim any association with any comment which suggests any threat of bodily harm to any person, including without limitation any elected official.

    6) Commenters may not post content that infringes intellectual property rights. Comments that violate this rule are subject to deletion or editing to remove the infringing content. Commenters who repeatedly violate this rule may be banned from further commenting on Chicago Boyz. See our DMCA policy for more information.