This was my plan for parenting going in, and I stuck to it. And I'm still sticking to it now that my daughter is a fifth grader, so I can say from experience that this is nonsense:
> Unscheduled time gives kids a chance to venture outside, find playmates...
No, it doesn't, because there are no playmates to find. My daughter has plenty of downtime, I'm not afraid of boredom, I decline plenty of requests to play, and I encourage independence. Result: my only child spends tons of time alone, bored, because other families don't do any of these things. If I limit her screen time (which I do), she is further isolated, because all of her friends communicate via Facetime.
To make sure she sees friends, I have to arrange "play dates," which is itself an endless undertaking. And yes, now that she's old enough to text with her friends (via computer, she doesn't have a phone), I have encouraged her to make plans herself. She tries. It doesn't work.
Please don't tell me to set up a "playborhood," because, guess what, that's a massive project and also is not going to work.
Sorry to sound so sour, but I'm tired of chirpy parenting advice that implies there's some simple fix to modern childhood. To be clear, I think the advice in this column is sound -- parents should do less, because the alternative is worse. But don't expect magic to result. Expect frustration because you're the one parent in your kids' school who seems willing to let their kid have a vaguely normal childhood.
I also want to repost a comment from Lenore Skenazy which is relevant here. I would love to hear what people think about this approach/solution:
FROM LENORE:
"This is exactly the problem Let Grow (the nonprofit I co-founded with Jon) exists to address! A collective problem -- no kids to play with, no kids outside -- needs a collective solution: Renormalize kids out and about.
How? With our two **FREE** programs!
1 - The Let Grow Experience. This homework assignment tells kids, “Go home and do something new, on your own.” It PUSHES parents to let go and let their kids be part of the world: run an errand, ride their bikes, walk to school. That's the only way for parents to see FOR THEMSELVES that it's not so scary, not so hard. And in fact, it makes them PROUD of their blossoming children. So the cycle of "I'd like to let them walk to school, but if something bad happened, I couldn't live with myself, so no -- I can't let them" is broken BY THE KIDS THEMSELVES. That's the ONLY THING that actually rewires parents: Seeing their kids be competent. Letting go goes from hard, to fine, to great.
2 - Then keep the schools open for loose-parts (balls, chalk, boxes) no-phones, all-ages-together, play time with other kids. We call it a Let Grow Play Club. I agree: It is hard to organize these things on your own! Which is why we work so hard to get schools on board. Having the school stay open for free play -- preferably several days a week -- guarantees PLAY TIME WITHOUT PLAYDATES! Guarantees free time without an adult telling the kids what to do. Guarantees a critical mass of other kids around. It's a "Playborhood" on the playground. Kids don't even need transportation -- they're already on the premises! To ease parents' minds, there’s an adult present, but like a LIFEGUARD. They don’t organize the games or solve the spats. It's as close as you can get to hanging out in the neighborhood and making your own fun.
I am so on board with everything in Katherine's essay AND the readers' laments. That's why we need more schools doing our FREE programs. They solve some thorny problems! Go to LetGrow.org and click on SCHOOL PROGRAMS"
I think it would be amazing if more schools began to have Let Grow clubs. It would help families tremendously. Additionally I believe it would be highly valuable for schools to offer parent workshops to families of young pre-school and kindergarten children, with information from Anxious Generation or https://screenstrong.org/ . Informing and empowering parents while their children are still young would make it much easier for change to happen at a larger level. It is much easier to start out informed, than to change course.
This is fine, so far as it goes, but as with all parenting advice, it somewhat crashes into the reality that all kids (and their situations) are different. When my child was a bored third grader, I would point to the front door and tell her she could go outside and find something to do. She thought I was insane. She didn't want to go out by herself. This wasn't an appealing notion to a very shy only child who lives on an urban block surrounded by somewhat busy streets. If there were a pack of kids to go out with, sure. By herself? Not a chance.
She's a bit older now and she is much more willing to explore (particularly if Starbucks is involved). But she still has the problem that her school isn't actually in our neighborhood, and her friends aren't nearby. She has a playmate who lives in our building, but the playmate isn't allowed to set foot outside by herself.
There just isn't a solution to this problem, because I can't change the culture by myself. I'm assuming things will continue to improve as she gets older. But honestly, it feels like the damage is already done.
It took 20 years to build the current "culture" and a lot of adults and Institutions complacency or belief of this toxicity being inevitable, dismantling will take a bit but at least we started. And we are determined. You are way ahead, here in Italy It took prof Haidt book to launch the First appeal to protect children childhood!
I think this is becoming a blind spot for this blog where the main authors increasingly seem to be moving to religious communities where that mythical 1950s level of social cohesion comes naturally. For those of us still trying to make it work in the atomized, inhuman world of modern suburbia and cities where everyone interacts online and every vestige of traditional community is long gone, what do we do?
Maybe there is no solution, no saving what society has become, and the Benedict Option is really the only way out here. Intentional communities, built around some shared, serious commitment and ties, that allow the level of community trust required to let kids just go outside and play and not rot online. Religion is the most obvious path to this but you could imagine others too.
No need to look back to the 50s. It was still happening in the 1980s. Perhaps that seems like a uselessly small point. Perhaps it is. But: there are still people in the world who remember clearly what it was like. They’re not doddering yet, either.
Totally. As this blog makes clear, the play-based free childhoods ended in the 1990s (I was born 1984 so I was a child during that transition! Saw it firsthand).
My point was mainly about what one can realistically do now to bring back the 1980s. The only success stories seem to be religious communities, because it’s the strong social ties that allow for it.
My neighbourhood, a fairly multicultural one in Toronto, certainly bears this out. The practicing Christians and Muslims, even the low-income ones, seem to have it much more figured out than us high-strung professional-class atomized nonreligious types.
That’s interesting. I mean your neighborhood is multi cultural so the lack of neuroticism isn’t predicated on a homogeneous setting. So what is it then… ? Lots has been written about the modern loss of faith. I wouldn’t have thought that’s a bad thing. But is faith, whatever it is, serve as some location in which to dump fears about the world, or perhaps does some belief in a higher power give people that feeling of being taken care of in a parental way, so that they don’t feel as exposed to the random dangers of the world? I mean, I’ve read that when one’s parents are both dead and one’s the oldest generation still alive in one’s family, one feels exposed to death in a way that’s different from how it feels to have one’s parents between oneself and the end.
I’m just free associating, way out in the leaf tips of the branches. Maybe you’ve seen more about how it’s working for these people and can say what might be going on with them?
It’s way simpler than that: their kids are free to play with other kids *from the local church* (or mosque). They trust the other parents, and they trust those kids. Their kids just run over to each others houses and come home for dinner. And because they have that 1950s-1980s culture, they don’t need to do as many over-scheduled activities etc.
It’s all about trust that their kids won’t get hurt or see things they shouldn’t.
There are those of us who have that trust even without having a church community, but the root of this thread is that it doesn’t work when it’s only YOUR kids. You need a critical mass of them around. The religious community provides that readymade.
Ah, I was imagining a multicultural free play environment but I’m understanding that it’s more of a multiplicity of insular groups? Or that parents who think well of neighbors’ religions (perhaps on grounds of similar levels of conservatism?) might be ok with their kids having playground friendships perhaps? I’ll hope for at least that.
I guess it’s clear, the world of dedicated religious community isn’t known to me. This even though my parents went deeper into standard American evangelicalism with the years; that’s not who my neighbors were and we played in the park until way after dark. The riskiest thing around was playing touch football in the gloom, on a regular grass park center with all its gopher holes. The only thing the community needed for that to happen was masses of single family homes around a big neighborhood park, not the only one in town, with the neighborhood affordable by young parents, and I don’t think there was a single family with only one child.
I was freely playing in my neighborhood at 5y in the 1990s. It’s heartbreaking to see that my kids can’t just “come home with the street lamps come on” like I did. There are no other playmates and the adults will approach them and act like they are committing a crime by not being on a leash.
The issue is not just other adults being judgmental of parenting choices, it's high speed cars not being watchful of pedestrians, especially children. Look up the pedestrian death rates in the 2020s. It's horrible.
This is exactly it. Last summer when it is still light at 8pm I let my 8 year old hang out with her friends in a nearby cul de sac for hours in the evening. Limited traffic and the cars that are there move slowly because they know there are kids about so they were able to zoom about on their bikes unimpeded. I walk her there and back though because she has to cross a really busy road with idiotic drivers doing rally car speeds.
>the adults will approach them and act like they are committing a crime
It’s true, and it’s not just kids playing it’s a broader reaction to “decides for themselves” or “isn’t primarily concerned with seeking rules in advance of doing anything”. I mean I’ve received actual goggle-eyed emoji “appalled” faces for basically an adult version of free play, such as: suggesting leadership could address some clear failures or suggesting there are alternatives, or assuming that a group project is supposed to discuss things before deciding, or not conforming to a cliche—a new cliche furthermore, or a revival of an old one that had been rejected.
So what happened to them? And can it be fixed? Do they need to be given a new set of rules about letting kids have free play, and just write these adults off as a lost cause?
I mean where did they even get these fearful ideas anyway? Was it 9/11 and the rise of fear meter ratings for daily life?
This is something I value so much in my own church community. We see each other once or twice a week and cultivate this kind of freedom for our children — it’s not daily, but it gives everyone a taste.
Thank you Amy, "it's not daily" made think to another colossal change we need to work on. Social media and smartphone infantilized us trasforming (many of) us from social animals to permanent entertainment-attention-seeking infants while ignoring the cost.
I recently attended a spiritual retreat seeking space and true connection so I was disappointed that 90% were using the smartphone to read prayers while receiving notifications popsup (99% I Imagine not urgent/requiring immediate action). They seem to be ignoring that they were sabotaging the very essence and purpose of prayers thus depowering its effect.
I call It the normalization of interruptions even where they are counterproductive. A kind of self-harm little examined.
You can't be talking to God or seeking a connection with a Higher Power while staying available to the rest of the World. Spiritual Space becomes obstructed and depowered this way. The same happens to our ability to fully be present for the people around us, thus also sabotaging the depth of experiencing the other next to us also when not entertaining or with different views .
Prof David Greenfield provides a biological explanation for this. I encourage to explore his work. He is the most neglected world top expert on tech addictions.
After the retreat I was asked to join a whatsapp group so we could be in touch "Daily". I almost fainted. "Why?" I thought "We are meeting next month!" I kindly declined but It helped me understand how normal It got to constantly be "accompanied" that people don't even stop and think "what does it really mean to ask to be around "Daily" unless it's a family member or a close friend? Doesn't being a grown up entails not requiring the permanent illusion of company or seeking attention and entertainment ? It's ok to be accessibile but maybe not to be available to all, all the time, without discernment.
We're in the exact same boat, they log off from their allotted hour of screen time, but all their friends are still playing. I send my 10 year old to hist first sleepover, and the mother assures me they will go to bed at a reasonable time, and I find out they managed to all stay up until 5am playing fortnite. The venn diagram of kids whose parents have the same philosophy does not overlap with the kids my kid wants to be friends with.
This is such a good point. I have free-ranged my kids as much as possible, but our age range and gender distribution have made it so I don’t have a “pack” of kids who can play together, I have 3 kids who all want to do their own thing. In addition, there aren’t any kids in our neighborhood and even if there were, we are trying so hard to make countercultural choices for our family that I’m not willing to, as I think Jon says in his book, underprotect my kids online by allowing their exposure to other kids whose parents are too permissive.
My husband tends to think that the struggles we have now are similar to what our parents must have navigated in the 80s and 90s. I disagree. I think we have lost so much shared culture that we can’t turn back the clock and just start parenting like it’s the 1970s again. We have to find new solutions and recognize the tradeoffs.
Came here to say the same thing. We have an only child, intentionally moved to a neighborhood chock full of children. Guess what: most are shuttled around to activities 7 days/week. Granted, this community is very permissible with letting kids run around on scooters without parental supervision—too permissive, if you follow the Facebook group complaints lol. Either way, my kid is perfectly content to have downtime on her own, but sending her outside is pointless, bc most of her friends are occupied with sports and music lessons.
Editing to say that my kid isn’t one of those who loves to ride bikes and scooters. We are very comfortable with her walking to friends’ houses, and it’s refreshing to live where busy-bodies don’t chide parents for letting kids be outside independently. But the free-range option only extends in that aspect. Most kids’ schedules are very overbooked.
I certainly wouldn't call it nonsense, but this advice certainly falls under the category of "easier said than done." We're about to move right next to family in the hopes of facilitating this kind of parenting approach, and I'm still somewhat optimistic lol.
While my kids are in their mid-20s and things have no doubt gotten worse, I had the same experience - until about age 10, at which point, they were in fact able to handle their own social lives more independently and wanted to. So - it may change. Also worth pointing out though that, at least in my opinion, there’s a different level of anxiety around having more free-range boys (particularly strong, athletic ones) and girls. I had boys who fit that description and would have been more worried about girls being harassed or targeted by predators. Not to go all feminist hysteria on anyone, but I think it’s simply a fact of life that girls and women need to be a bit more careful navigating public space. Nonetheless, that too can certainly be managed - I myself basically had free-range from age two onwards, although it was an entirely different era. Still, the 1970s were not exactly safe in a big city, so, it can be done. But you are swimming against the tide. Still, it’s worth trying. In other words - don’t give up yet and good luck.
Swimming against the tide Is what our ancestors have done tons of times, to get Better societies and lives. It takes altruism, longterm thinking, determination to prepare a better future. These are elements eroded by social media shaping our minds but are essential to turn things around. You, we, all, are trying to save not Just our Kids and the Kids to come but our species.
I really do get this sentiment and it is very frustrating - whether one is rural or urban dwelling.
Many of us see glaring problems with the way our culture has become. People are stifled by their schedules, including the children and we are by and large a pretty tired population. The change starts with us- which you are already doing. I have one almost 5 year old currently and we live rurally and down the street from my best friend and her kids and lots of community nearby. It occurs to me that this lifestyle requires prioritization. Perhaps it’s not feasible for you to move and perhaps the critical moment has passed with your daughter but for me, decisions pass through the question “is this going to put us closer to the life we want?” Decisions about jobs, moves, investments and schooling come through this framework.
We cannot expect to shift the status quo while still mostly engaging in the status quo. There are communities where it is very normal for kids to have very little to no screen time at all and for them to be out of the house exploring most of the day. I think it’s on us to found or find and expand these pockets of sanity.
I empathize and I am filled with admiration that you tried. You are not alone, I know many parents who went ahead like you regardless aiming at minimizing harm as much as possible. That's why collective action is vital as proposed by Prof Haidt and, Just as vital in parallel, to call the Governments to their responsibility to rein in a tech-industry built to delete childhood and all its fundamental learnings.
Interesting stuff. I've got a copy of Hodgkinson's book around but ironically I haven't reread it since becoming a father.
I'm very much in favour of not taking on too much and overfilling your children's time. BUT as the father of three boys aged 6 and under (soon to be four) what strikes me again and again is how much direct supervision and crowd control is needed to avoid absolute chaos, especially if you haven't got much space. They can't just co-exist in the house, each doing their own thing, because they all conflict with each other and get in each other's way so much. A quiet day at home really is a day of near-continuous boy management.
For that reason I actually find it calmer for us all to be out and about doing things rather than spending time at home. The three of them can co-exist more happily at a playground or walking through the woods than they can at home, and there's less scope for them to break things. I used to be interested in homeschooling but it's now clear to me than young children need to be out and about for a good chunk of the day in order to preserve everyone's sanity.
I had the same realization about homeschooling for my kids. The families that seem to do best with it, I think, fall into 2 camps — one, where there’s a big pack of kids (4+) and lots of outdoor space, or two, families with kids who are temperamentally calm and content at home.
This is exactly the problem Let Grow (the nonprofit I co-founded with Jon) exists to address! A collective problem -- no kids to play with, no kids outside -- needs a collective solution: Renormalize kids out and about.
How? With our two **FREE** programs!
1 - The Let Grow Experience. This homework assignment tells kids, “Go home and do something new, on your own.” It PUSHES parents to let go and let their kids be part of the world: run an errand, ride their bikes, walk to school. That's the only way for parents to see FOR THEMSELVES that it's not so scary, not so hard. And in fact, it makes them PROUD of their blossoming children. So the cycle of "I'd like to let them walk to school, but if something bad happened, I couldn't live with myself, so no -- I can't let them" is broken BY THE KIDS THEMSELVES. That's the ONLY THING that actually rewires parents: Seeing their kids be competent. Letting go goes from hard, to fine, to great.
2 - Then keep the schools open for loose-parts (balls, chalk, boxes) no-phones, all-ages-together, play time with other kids. We call it a Let Grow Play Club. I agree: It is hard to organize these things on your own! Which is why we work so hard to get schools on board. Having the school stay open for free play -- preferably several days a week -- guarantees PLAY TIME WITHOUT PLAYDATES! Guarantees free time without an adult telling the kids what to do. Guarantees a critical mass of other kids around. It's a "Playborhood" on the playground. Kids don't even need transportation -- they're already on the premises! To ease parents' minds, there’s an adult present, but like a LIFEGUARD. They don’t organize the games or solve the spats. It's as close as you can get to hanging out in the neighborhood and making your own fun.
I am so on board with everything in Katherine's essay AND the readers' laments. That's why we need more schools doing our FREE programs. They solve some thorny problems! Go to LetGrow.org and click on SCHOOL PROGRAMS.
A neighborhood needs a critical mass of children of the same age/gender who do not have after-school activities that require driving and the kids want to play together outside.
Without that an individual parent has a really hard time with this strategy. And, unfortunately, not many neighborhoods today meet this criteria.
I am not sure what the answer is, but I think this problem needs to be acknowledged by experts who give parenting advice.
My son has only a few boys his age within walking distance. Trying to set up free-range outdoor play was impossible as they all had conflicting schedules and some did not like each other much.
The Boy Scouts worked much better as they already had a pre-established schedule of outdoor activities with boys his age. Without them, it would be all school and video games.
I’m all for boredom at my house, but my kids know they can go over to friends’ houses and play video games. Hard to cut back on screen time when it’s always available close by
Outstanding article. Big "yes." And yet it's not about less parenting. It's about less controlling. Kids needs more true parenting, which is about loving them unconditionally---with no anger or disappointment---and teaching them. Learn how at RealLoveParents.com
No offense but I find that sentiment ridiculous. Anger and disappointment are natural parts of the human experience. Why would it benefit them not to experience the natural range of human emotion?
We can start by opting out of all the crazy parenting "traditions" like over the top birthday parties, Elf on a shelf, baby sprinkles.... All these insane and expensive activities parents do "for" their kids so they can post perfect pictures on social media to validate how wonderful parents they are. vomit.
My daughter claims "We're the only family in her class who doesn't do Elf on the Shelf." For generations, the myth of an omniscient Santa was good enough...why add the extra pressure of the stupid Elf?
I told her that I felt bad for those kids because I knew for a fact that Santa watches her directly and hasn't outsourced the job to an Elf.
I feel this. My son is four. So far, we have done family only parties for his birthday. It hasn't been an issue for him because he has five cousins in the area. Recently, he (completely unprompted) asked if he could have a "bear room party" (his preschool class is called the bear room) for his birthday this year. It's really tough to say no to such an innocent and understandable request. We go to all his friends' parties, why shouldn't he have one? It's really tough to be one to have to figure out what/how much to opt out of or tone down.
My son is 11. We have yet to do a big class party or anything specifically for him and I don't plan on it either. We do lots of multiple family-only celebrations - w/ his Great grandma, then w/ my in-laws, then w/ my family and nieces and nephew - all require some travel. And he shares a bday month with extended family members, so he is never solely celebrated. But it's good for him to learn that the world doesn't revolve around him. And some years, his bday falls around Easter too. IMO, I think it's good for him to be used to doing things differently and not caving into societal pressure.
I tried to raise my 3 kids, now in their 40's, to be independent and creative. Boredom was the best thing for that. I hadn't realized that the best neighborhoods were those with small yards, parks, and lots of kids, rather than one-acre properties, would have done that differently. One caution-parents do need to spend time showing love and interest in their children, which also makes them resilient and confident. Other than shared dinners my father spent no time with his big brood and my mother a few hours a week. Not good. Remember that the children you raise will probably be the ones caring for you in your old age.
This is 100% on target. One of the problems with extracurricular programs like sports and music is that they are not designed to be what used to be called "pastimes" - a modest part of a child's life. Instead, they are designed to be the main thing the child does, usually with an emphasis on a serious commitment to preparing for competitions (each of which often involves travel, additional expense, or at least an entire day at an event). This puts parents in an all-or-nothing position when it comes to "enrichment activities," which increases pressure on both parents and kids.
“Fun morality” is an interesting term. Society and morality have become so much less structured around religion since the time when parents didn’t play with kids. Play is the moral language of children, and if you get down on the floor or at the playground to engage with them in it, you can impart core values that way (if you have them). Refusing imparts its own messages, only one of which is “we value independence.”
I think family size is also a factor, as parents are often doing substitute work for older siblings who don’t exist. The article’s solution of a neighbor family that happens to have the same values sure sounds like surrogate siblings as well.
Just for myself, I wish I’d gotten the message (and understood the biological math) about having more kids earlier. It wouldn’t reduce my overall parenting time — for what, adult screen time? — but it could make for a better ratio of parent and sibling time for each kid.
Yes, we are hoping that having 3 (likely eventually 4) kids will mean a lifetime of close friendships, even when other friends can be hard to find (although making neighborhood friends is a big wish too, and one main reason we send our kids to public school).
One of our solutions to the “no kids free playing in the neighborhood” issue is that we bought a minivan so I can cart as many extras back to my house (no bus option). We live in a neighborhood where other parents are okay letting their kids roam free. So they use my house as a landing place, and can walk to cafes, the ymca, parks, playing fields. Between my two kids - 7 boy and 11 girl - they get multi-age mixed play independently. And there are a few neighbor kids who sometimes join in as well.
I love the idea of having your house as a landing place! I think it's so important for kids to have a spot where they know they can gather and do kid things. My oldest is in 1st grade and we organized a rotating playdate with 3 other kids who live within walking distance. By the 3rd playdate we had older siblings walking younger siblings and even one kiddo who walked all the way home. It's so important to build in that autonomy from an early age, especially kids who grow up in suburbia vs. an urban setting.
My grandmother was remembering how in the 30s they just used to be thrown out of the house to roam and play, which sounds idyllic. But there was a lot less road traffic then, so it was much safer for them to do that
What is the compulsion to endlessly make the case that child rearing is easy, cheap, like some MLM or turn-key operation? It’s obviously stupid. Sure, don’t parent—you go first! I’ll watch.
Makes sense. I walked to school age five in 1950. Before that I played outside with neighbor children. That was in Grand Rapids, MI, population about 200,000. My family relocated to Leslie County KY in 1952, population less than 20,000, as rural as it gets. There were about thirty kids in my grade school, a one room school with one teacher for all eight grades. I played alone or with three to five other kids my age, fishing or swimming in the creek or climbing the hills, with no adult supervision. I usually breakfasted with my parents, them most days didn't see them until near bedtime. That was the way childhood should be.
These ideas are great for today’s parents. I always maintained, when I raised my own 3, that a certain amount of boredom was necessary for children to endure. I do see today’s parents getting their children involved too early in structured activities, as they mis-remember the ages they were when involved in activities; parents were older when they participated in certain activities but they think they were younger, so they start their kids in the same activities at younger ages.
My daughter has tried to have her 3 boys do independent things, but finds children in her community aren’t allowed to do some things, like walk or bike to school; school won’t allow it. She is also concerned about someone reporting her for allowing her boys to be independent, and she doesn’t live in a so-called “blue” state.
This was my plan for parenting going in, and I stuck to it. And I'm still sticking to it now that my daughter is a fifth grader, so I can say from experience that this is nonsense:
> Unscheduled time gives kids a chance to venture outside, find playmates...
No, it doesn't, because there are no playmates to find. My daughter has plenty of downtime, I'm not afraid of boredom, I decline plenty of requests to play, and I encourage independence. Result: my only child spends tons of time alone, bored, because other families don't do any of these things. If I limit her screen time (which I do), she is further isolated, because all of her friends communicate via Facetime.
To make sure she sees friends, I have to arrange "play dates," which is itself an endless undertaking. And yes, now that she's old enough to text with her friends (via computer, she doesn't have a phone), I have encouraged her to make plans herself. She tries. It doesn't work.
Please don't tell me to set up a "playborhood," because, guess what, that's a massive project and also is not going to work.
Sorry to sound so sour, but I'm tired of chirpy parenting advice that implies there's some simple fix to modern childhood. To be clear, I think the advice in this column is sound -- parents should do less, because the alternative is worse. But don't expect magic to result. Expect frustration because you're the one parent in your kids' school who seems willing to let their kid have a vaguely normal childhood.
Thank you for this feedback. It is very helpful to hear
I also want to repost a comment from Lenore Skenazy which is relevant here. I would love to hear what people think about this approach/solution:
FROM LENORE:
"This is exactly the problem Let Grow (the nonprofit I co-founded with Jon) exists to address! A collective problem -- no kids to play with, no kids outside -- needs a collective solution: Renormalize kids out and about.
How? With our two **FREE** programs!
1 - The Let Grow Experience. This homework assignment tells kids, “Go home and do something new, on your own.” It PUSHES parents to let go and let their kids be part of the world: run an errand, ride their bikes, walk to school. That's the only way for parents to see FOR THEMSELVES that it's not so scary, not so hard. And in fact, it makes them PROUD of their blossoming children. So the cycle of "I'd like to let them walk to school, but if something bad happened, I couldn't live with myself, so no -- I can't let them" is broken BY THE KIDS THEMSELVES. That's the ONLY THING that actually rewires parents: Seeing their kids be competent. Letting go goes from hard, to fine, to great.
2 - Then keep the schools open for loose-parts (balls, chalk, boxes) no-phones, all-ages-together, play time with other kids. We call it a Let Grow Play Club. I agree: It is hard to organize these things on your own! Which is why we work so hard to get schools on board. Having the school stay open for free play -- preferably several days a week -- guarantees PLAY TIME WITHOUT PLAYDATES! Guarantees free time without an adult telling the kids what to do. Guarantees a critical mass of other kids around. It's a "Playborhood" on the playground. Kids don't even need transportation -- they're already on the premises! To ease parents' minds, there’s an adult present, but like a LIFEGUARD. They don’t organize the games or solve the spats. It's as close as you can get to hanging out in the neighborhood and making your own fun.
I am so on board with everything in Katherine's essay AND the readers' laments. That's why we need more schools doing our FREE programs. They solve some thorny problems! Go to LetGrow.org and click on SCHOOL PROGRAMS"
I think it would be amazing if more schools began to have Let Grow clubs. It would help families tremendously. Additionally I believe it would be highly valuable for schools to offer parent workshops to families of young pre-school and kindergarten children, with information from Anxious Generation or https://screenstrong.org/ . Informing and empowering parents while their children are still young would make it much easier for change to happen at a larger level. It is much easier to start out informed, than to change course.
This is fine, so far as it goes, but as with all parenting advice, it somewhat crashes into the reality that all kids (and their situations) are different. When my child was a bored third grader, I would point to the front door and tell her she could go outside and find something to do. She thought I was insane. She didn't want to go out by herself. This wasn't an appealing notion to a very shy only child who lives on an urban block surrounded by somewhat busy streets. If there were a pack of kids to go out with, sure. By herself? Not a chance.
She's a bit older now and she is much more willing to explore (particularly if Starbucks is involved). But she still has the problem that her school isn't actually in our neighborhood, and her friends aren't nearby. She has a playmate who lives in our building, but the playmate isn't allowed to set foot outside by herself.
There just isn't a solution to this problem, because I can't change the culture by myself. I'm assuming things will continue to improve as she gets older. But honestly, it feels like the damage is already done.
Remember Rome wasn't built in a day!
It took 20 years to build the current "culture" and a lot of adults and Institutions complacency or belief of this toxicity being inevitable, dismantling will take a bit but at least we started. And we are determined. You are way ahead, here in Italy It took prof Haidt book to launch the First appeal to protect children childhood!
I think this is becoming a blind spot for this blog where the main authors increasingly seem to be moving to religious communities where that mythical 1950s level of social cohesion comes naturally. For those of us still trying to make it work in the atomized, inhuman world of modern suburbia and cities where everyone interacts online and every vestige of traditional community is long gone, what do we do?
Maybe there is no solution, no saving what society has become, and the Benedict Option is really the only way out here. Intentional communities, built around some shared, serious commitment and ties, that allow the level of community trust required to let kids just go outside and play and not rot online. Religion is the most obvious path to this but you could imagine others too.
No need to look back to the 50s. It was still happening in the 1980s. Perhaps that seems like a uselessly small point. Perhaps it is. But: there are still people in the world who remember clearly what it was like. They’re not doddering yet, either.
Totally. As this blog makes clear, the play-based free childhoods ended in the 1990s (I was born 1984 so I was a child during that transition! Saw it firsthand).
My point was mainly about what one can realistically do now to bring back the 1980s. The only success stories seem to be religious communities, because it’s the strong social ties that allow for it.
My neighbourhood, a fairly multicultural one in Toronto, certainly bears this out. The practicing Christians and Muslims, even the low-income ones, seem to have it much more figured out than us high-strung professional-class atomized nonreligious types.
That’s interesting. I mean your neighborhood is multi cultural so the lack of neuroticism isn’t predicated on a homogeneous setting. So what is it then… ? Lots has been written about the modern loss of faith. I wouldn’t have thought that’s a bad thing. But is faith, whatever it is, serve as some location in which to dump fears about the world, or perhaps does some belief in a higher power give people that feeling of being taken care of in a parental way, so that they don’t feel as exposed to the random dangers of the world? I mean, I’ve read that when one’s parents are both dead and one’s the oldest generation still alive in one’s family, one feels exposed to death in a way that’s different from how it feels to have one’s parents between oneself and the end.
I’m just free associating, way out in the leaf tips of the branches. Maybe you’ve seen more about how it’s working for these people and can say what might be going on with them?
It’s way simpler than that: their kids are free to play with other kids *from the local church* (or mosque). They trust the other parents, and they trust those kids. Their kids just run over to each others houses and come home for dinner. And because they have that 1950s-1980s culture, they don’t need to do as many over-scheduled activities etc.
It’s all about trust that their kids won’t get hurt or see things they shouldn’t.
There are those of us who have that trust even without having a church community, but the root of this thread is that it doesn’t work when it’s only YOUR kids. You need a critical mass of them around. The religious community provides that readymade.
Ah, I was imagining a multicultural free play environment but I’m understanding that it’s more of a multiplicity of insular groups? Or that parents who think well of neighbors’ religions (perhaps on grounds of similar levels of conservatism?) might be ok with their kids having playground friendships perhaps? I’ll hope for at least that.
I guess it’s clear, the world of dedicated religious community isn’t known to me. This even though my parents went deeper into standard American evangelicalism with the years; that’s not who my neighbors were and we played in the park until way after dark. The riskiest thing around was playing touch football in the gloom, on a regular grass park center with all its gopher holes. The only thing the community needed for that to happen was masses of single family homes around a big neighborhood park, not the only one in town, with the neighborhood affordable by young parents, and I don’t think there was a single family with only one child.
I was freely playing in my neighborhood at 5y in the 1990s. It’s heartbreaking to see that my kids can’t just “come home with the street lamps come on” like I did. There are no other playmates and the adults will approach them and act like they are committing a crime by not being on a leash.
The issue is not just other adults being judgmental of parenting choices, it's high speed cars not being watchful of pedestrians, especially children. Look up the pedestrian death rates in the 2020s. It's horrible.
This is exactly it. Last summer when it is still light at 8pm I let my 8 year old hang out with her friends in a nearby cul de sac for hours in the evening. Limited traffic and the cars that are there move slowly because they know there are kids about so they were able to zoom about on their bikes unimpeded. I walk her there and back though because she has to cross a really busy road with idiotic drivers doing rally car speeds.
>the adults will approach them and act like they are committing a crime
It’s true, and it’s not just kids playing it’s a broader reaction to “decides for themselves” or “isn’t primarily concerned with seeking rules in advance of doing anything”. I mean I’ve received actual goggle-eyed emoji “appalled” faces for basically an adult version of free play, such as: suggesting leadership could address some clear failures or suggesting there are alternatives, or assuming that a group project is supposed to discuss things before deciding, or not conforming to a cliche—a new cliche furthermore, or a revival of an old one that had been rejected.
So what happened to them? And can it be fixed? Do they need to be given a new set of rules about letting kids have free play, and just write these adults off as a lost cause?
I mean where did they even get these fearful ideas anyway? Was it 9/11 and the rise of fear meter ratings for daily life?
This is something I value so much in my own church community. We see each other once or twice a week and cultivate this kind of freedom for our children — it’s not daily, but it gives everyone a taste.
Thank you Amy, "it's not daily" made think to another colossal change we need to work on. Social media and smartphone infantilized us trasforming (many of) us from social animals to permanent entertainment-attention-seeking infants while ignoring the cost.
I recently attended a spiritual retreat seeking space and true connection so I was disappointed that 90% were using the smartphone to read prayers while receiving notifications popsup (99% I Imagine not urgent/requiring immediate action). They seem to be ignoring that they were sabotaging the very essence and purpose of prayers thus depowering its effect.
I call It the normalization of interruptions even where they are counterproductive. A kind of self-harm little examined.
You can't be talking to God or seeking a connection with a Higher Power while staying available to the rest of the World. Spiritual Space becomes obstructed and depowered this way. The same happens to our ability to fully be present for the people around us, thus also sabotaging the depth of experiencing the other next to us also when not entertaining or with different views .
Prof David Greenfield provides a biological explanation for this. I encourage to explore his work. He is the most neglected world top expert on tech addictions.
After the retreat I was asked to join a whatsapp group so we could be in touch "Daily". I almost fainted. "Why?" I thought "We are meeting next month!" I kindly declined but It helped me understand how normal It got to constantly be "accompanied" that people don't even stop and think "what does it really mean to ask to be around "Daily" unless it's a family member or a close friend? Doesn't being a grown up entails not requiring the permanent illusion of company or seeking attention and entertainment ? It's ok to be accessibile but maybe not to be available to all, all the time, without discernment.
We're in the exact same boat, they log off from their allotted hour of screen time, but all their friends are still playing. I send my 10 year old to hist first sleepover, and the mother assures me they will go to bed at a reasonable time, and I find out they managed to all stay up until 5am playing fortnite. The venn diagram of kids whose parents have the same philosophy does not overlap with the kids my kid wants to be friends with.
This is such a good point. I have free-ranged my kids as much as possible, but our age range and gender distribution have made it so I don’t have a “pack” of kids who can play together, I have 3 kids who all want to do their own thing. In addition, there aren’t any kids in our neighborhood and even if there were, we are trying so hard to make countercultural choices for our family that I’m not willing to, as I think Jon says in his book, underprotect my kids online by allowing their exposure to other kids whose parents are too permissive.
My husband tends to think that the struggles we have now are similar to what our parents must have navigated in the 80s and 90s. I disagree. I think we have lost so much shared culture that we can’t turn back the clock and just start parenting like it’s the 1970s again. We have to find new solutions and recognize the tradeoffs.
Came here to say the same thing. We have an only child, intentionally moved to a neighborhood chock full of children. Guess what: most are shuttled around to activities 7 days/week. Granted, this community is very permissible with letting kids run around on scooters without parental supervision—too permissive, if you follow the Facebook group complaints lol. Either way, my kid is perfectly content to have downtime on her own, but sending her outside is pointless, bc most of her friends are occupied with sports and music lessons.
Editing to say that my kid isn’t one of those who loves to ride bikes and scooters. We are very comfortable with her walking to friends’ houses, and it’s refreshing to live where busy-bodies don’t chide parents for letting kids be outside independently. But the free-range option only extends in that aspect. Most kids’ schedules are very overbooked.
I certainly wouldn't call it nonsense, but this advice certainly falls under the category of "easier said than done." We're about to move right next to family in the hopes of facilitating this kind of parenting approach, and I'm still somewhat optimistic lol.
While my kids are in their mid-20s and things have no doubt gotten worse, I had the same experience - until about age 10, at which point, they were in fact able to handle their own social lives more independently and wanted to. So - it may change. Also worth pointing out though that, at least in my opinion, there’s a different level of anxiety around having more free-range boys (particularly strong, athletic ones) and girls. I had boys who fit that description and would have been more worried about girls being harassed or targeted by predators. Not to go all feminist hysteria on anyone, but I think it’s simply a fact of life that girls and women need to be a bit more careful navigating public space. Nonetheless, that too can certainly be managed - I myself basically had free-range from age two onwards, although it was an entirely different era. Still, the 1970s were not exactly safe in a big city, so, it can be done. But you are swimming against the tide. Still, it’s worth trying. In other words - don’t give up yet and good luck.
Swimming against the tide Is what our ancestors have done tons of times, to get Better societies and lives. It takes altruism, longterm thinking, determination to prepare a better future. These are elements eroded by social media shaping our minds but are essential to turn things around. You, we, all, are trying to save not Just our Kids and the Kids to come but our species.
I really do get this sentiment and it is very frustrating - whether one is rural or urban dwelling.
Many of us see glaring problems with the way our culture has become. People are stifled by their schedules, including the children and we are by and large a pretty tired population. The change starts with us- which you are already doing. I have one almost 5 year old currently and we live rurally and down the street from my best friend and her kids and lots of community nearby. It occurs to me that this lifestyle requires prioritization. Perhaps it’s not feasible for you to move and perhaps the critical moment has passed with your daughter but for me, decisions pass through the question “is this going to put us closer to the life we want?” Decisions about jobs, moves, investments and schooling come through this framework.
We cannot expect to shift the status quo while still mostly engaging in the status quo. There are communities where it is very normal for kids to have very little to no screen time at all and for them to be out of the house exploring most of the day. I think it’s on us to found or find and expand these pockets of sanity.
Best to you.
I empathize and I am filled with admiration that you tried. You are not alone, I know many parents who went ahead like you regardless aiming at minimizing harm as much as possible. That's why collective action is vital as proposed by Prof Haidt and, Just as vital in parallel, to call the Governments to their responsibility to rein in a tech-industry built to delete childhood and all its fundamental learnings.
Interesting stuff. I've got a copy of Hodgkinson's book around but ironically I haven't reread it since becoming a father.
I'm very much in favour of not taking on too much and overfilling your children's time. BUT as the father of three boys aged 6 and under (soon to be four) what strikes me again and again is how much direct supervision and crowd control is needed to avoid absolute chaos, especially if you haven't got much space. They can't just co-exist in the house, each doing their own thing, because they all conflict with each other and get in each other's way so much. A quiet day at home really is a day of near-continuous boy management.
For that reason I actually find it calmer for us all to be out and about doing things rather than spending time at home. The three of them can co-exist more happily at a playground or walking through the woods than they can at home, and there's less scope for them to break things. I used to be interested in homeschooling but it's now clear to me than young children need to be out and about for a good chunk of the day in order to preserve everyone's sanity.
I had the same realization about homeschooling for my kids. The families that seem to do best with it, I think, fall into 2 camps — one, where there’s a big pack of kids (4+) and lots of outdoor space, or two, families with kids who are temperamentally calm and content at home.
This is exactly the problem Let Grow (the nonprofit I co-founded with Jon) exists to address! A collective problem -- no kids to play with, no kids outside -- needs a collective solution: Renormalize kids out and about.
How? With our two **FREE** programs!
1 - The Let Grow Experience. This homework assignment tells kids, “Go home and do something new, on your own.” It PUSHES parents to let go and let their kids be part of the world: run an errand, ride their bikes, walk to school. That's the only way for parents to see FOR THEMSELVES that it's not so scary, not so hard. And in fact, it makes them PROUD of their blossoming children. So the cycle of "I'd like to let them walk to school, but if something bad happened, I couldn't live with myself, so no -- I can't let them" is broken BY THE KIDS THEMSELVES. That's the ONLY THING that actually rewires parents: Seeing their kids be competent. Letting go goes from hard, to fine, to great.
2 - Then keep the schools open for loose-parts (balls, chalk, boxes) no-phones, all-ages-together, play time with other kids. We call it a Let Grow Play Club. I agree: It is hard to organize these things on your own! Which is why we work so hard to get schools on board. Having the school stay open for free play -- preferably several days a week -- guarantees PLAY TIME WITHOUT PLAYDATES! Guarantees free time without an adult telling the kids what to do. Guarantees a critical mass of other kids around. It's a "Playborhood" on the playground. Kids don't even need transportation -- they're already on the premises! To ease parents' minds, there’s an adult present, but like a LIFEGUARD. They don’t organize the games or solve the spats. It's as close as you can get to hanging out in the neighborhood and making your own fun.
I am so on board with everything in Katherine's essay AND the readers' laments. That's why we need more schools doing our FREE programs. They solve some thorny problems! Go to LetGrow.org and click on SCHOOL PROGRAMS.
We have three boys 5 and under -- hard agree with this. My husband is just much more determined to make the effort to get out the door with them. ha
A neighborhood needs a critical mass of children of the same age/gender who do not have after-school activities that require driving and the kids want to play together outside.
Without that an individual parent has a really hard time with this strategy. And, unfortunately, not many neighborhoods today meet this criteria.
I am not sure what the answer is, but I think this problem needs to be acknowledged by experts who give parenting advice.
My son has only a few boys his age within walking distance. Trying to set up free-range outdoor play was impossible as they all had conflicting schedules and some did not like each other much.
The Boy Scouts worked much better as they already had a pre-established schedule of outdoor activities with boys his age. Without them, it would be all school and video games.
I’m all for boredom at my house, but my kids know they can go over to friends’ houses and play video games. Hard to cut back on screen time when it’s always available close by
Outstanding article. Big "yes." And yet it's not about less parenting. It's about less controlling. Kids needs more true parenting, which is about loving them unconditionally---with no anger or disappointment---and teaching them. Learn how at RealLoveParents.com
No offense but I find that sentiment ridiculous. Anger and disappointment are natural parts of the human experience. Why would it benefit them not to experience the natural range of human emotion?
We can start by opting out of all the crazy parenting "traditions" like over the top birthday parties, Elf on a shelf, baby sprinkles.... All these insane and expensive activities parents do "for" their kids so they can post perfect pictures on social media to validate how wonderful parents they are. vomit.
My daughter claims "We're the only family in her class who doesn't do Elf on the Shelf." For generations, the myth of an omniscient Santa was good enough...why add the extra pressure of the stupid Elf?
I told her that I felt bad for those kids because I knew for a fact that Santa watches her directly and hasn't outsourced the job to an Elf.
Apparently, you're the only smart family in her class. =)
I feel this. My son is four. So far, we have done family only parties for his birthday. It hasn't been an issue for him because he has five cousins in the area. Recently, he (completely unprompted) asked if he could have a "bear room party" (his preschool class is called the bear room) for his birthday this year. It's really tough to say no to such an innocent and understandable request. We go to all his friends' parties, why shouldn't he have one? It's really tough to be one to have to figure out what/how much to opt out of or tone down.
My son is 11. We have yet to do a big class party or anything specifically for him and I don't plan on it either. We do lots of multiple family-only celebrations - w/ his Great grandma, then w/ my in-laws, then w/ my family and nieces and nephew - all require some travel. And he shares a bday month with extended family members, so he is never solely celebrated. But it's good for him to learn that the world doesn't revolve around him. And some years, his bday falls around Easter too. IMO, I think it's good for him to be used to doing things differently and not caving into societal pressure.
Apparently some kids get gifts from the leprechaun on St. Patrick's Day now, FFS!
oh hell no! This is all putting an insane amount of burden on the parent, typically the mother. Why are we succumbing to this madness?
I tried to raise my 3 kids, now in their 40's, to be independent and creative. Boredom was the best thing for that. I hadn't realized that the best neighborhoods were those with small yards, parks, and lots of kids, rather than one-acre properties, would have done that differently. One caution-parents do need to spend time showing love and interest in their children, which also makes them resilient and confident. Other than shared dinners my father spent no time with his big brood and my mother a few hours a week. Not good. Remember that the children you raise will probably be the ones caring for you in your old age.
This is 100% on target. One of the problems with extracurricular programs like sports and music is that they are not designed to be what used to be called "pastimes" - a modest part of a child's life. Instead, they are designed to be the main thing the child does, usually with an emphasis on a serious commitment to preparing for competitions (each of which often involves travel, additional expense, or at least an entire day at an event). This puts parents in an all-or-nothing position when it comes to "enrichment activities," which increases pressure on both parents and kids.
“Fun morality” is an interesting term. Society and morality have become so much less structured around religion since the time when parents didn’t play with kids. Play is the moral language of children, and if you get down on the floor or at the playground to engage with them in it, you can impart core values that way (if you have them). Refusing imparts its own messages, only one of which is “we value independence.”
I think family size is also a factor, as parents are often doing substitute work for older siblings who don’t exist. The article’s solution of a neighbor family that happens to have the same values sure sounds like surrogate siblings as well.
Just for myself, I wish I’d gotten the message (and understood the biological math) about having more kids earlier. It wouldn’t reduce my overall parenting time — for what, adult screen time? — but it could make for a better ratio of parent and sibling time for each kid.
Yes, we are hoping that having 3 (likely eventually 4) kids will mean a lifetime of close friendships, even when other friends can be hard to find (although making neighborhood friends is a big wish too, and one main reason we send our kids to public school).
Csikszentmihalyi,that's the one name I will never forget from that article
His book Finding Flow is very good.
One of our solutions to the “no kids free playing in the neighborhood” issue is that we bought a minivan so I can cart as many extras back to my house (no bus option). We live in a neighborhood where other parents are okay letting their kids roam free. So they use my house as a landing place, and can walk to cafes, the ymca, parks, playing fields. Between my two kids - 7 boy and 11 girl - they get multi-age mixed play independently. And there are a few neighbor kids who sometimes join in as well.
I love the idea of having your house as a landing place! I think it's so important for kids to have a spot where they know they can gather and do kid things. My oldest is in 1st grade and we organized a rotating playdate with 3 other kids who live within walking distance. By the 3rd playdate we had older siblings walking younger siblings and even one kiddo who walked all the way home. It's so important to build in that autonomy from an early age, especially kids who grow up in suburbia vs. an urban setting.
My grandmother was remembering how in the 30s they just used to be thrown out of the house to roam and play, which sounds idyllic. But there was a lot less road traffic then, so it was much safer for them to do that
What is the compulsion to endlessly make the case that child rearing is easy, cheap, like some MLM or turn-key operation? It’s obviously stupid. Sure, don’t parent—you go first! I’ll watch.
What you describe has been my experience 100%
Makes sense. I walked to school age five in 1950. Before that I played outside with neighbor children. That was in Grand Rapids, MI, population about 200,000. My family relocated to Leslie County KY in 1952, population less than 20,000, as rural as it gets. There were about thirty kids in my grade school, a one room school with one teacher for all eight grades. I played alone or with three to five other kids my age, fishing or swimming in the creek or climbing the hills, with no adult supervision. I usually breakfasted with my parents, them most days didn't see them until near bedtime. That was the way childhood should be.
These ideas are great for today’s parents. I always maintained, when I raised my own 3, that a certain amount of boredom was necessary for children to endure. I do see today’s parents getting their children involved too early in structured activities, as they mis-remember the ages they were when involved in activities; parents were older when they participated in certain activities but they think they were younger, so they start their kids in the same activities at younger ages.
My daughter has tried to have her 3 boys do independent things, but finds children in her community aren’t allowed to do some things, like walk or bike to school; school won’t allow it. She is also concerned about someone reporting her for allowing her boys to be independent, and she doesn’t live in a so-called “blue” state.
The more parents take care of their Self, the more they can take care of their children when needed most.