As a child of 1970s [very] free-range parents, a latchkey kid, etc., I’ve wrested with the balance between free-range and involved parenting (I’ll use that term, instead of helicopter parenting, which I think is entirely maladaptive and harmful IMO). Sink or swim can definitely produce very strong “swimmers”, but in our society, how far can you let you kids sink with that approach and end up putting your kids at an necessary disadvantage? Conversely, how much is too much involvement and at what point do we stifle personal growth and need for kids to fail?
I don’t know the answers, but at least we can show this kind of press to our parents if/when they roll their eyes at how we raise our kids now a days.
To each his own, but we weren’t aware the world had changed when our son came into it and raised him exactly as we were raised in the 60s and 70s. I often post that we let ChoatieKid “run amok,” and he turned out fine with none of the parental angst. We just didn’t know we were “supposed” to do all those things listed in the articles. No playdates, no sports or clubs or activities besides Boy Scouts (which was held in our garage). We told him he could participate in anything he wanted as long as we didn’t have to drive him anywhere. We never checked homework or the backpack or sent him to any educational camps or did any test prep. He spent tons of time playing video games, lounging around torturing his cat, and otherwise just playing and roaming our neighborhood at will and unsupervised. We were pretty “permissive” and “uninvolved,” but we also knew our kid. He never seemed to struggle with anything, and he was just generally happy-go-lucky. We didn’t think we needed to interfere with that as we had our own adult lives to tend to. He was raised with the expectation that he would go to college with no bounds on where he went (just not Ohio State). When he was no longer challenged by the school system here, he chose BS, and we allowed him to go. I guess any success after that is due to the “authoritativeness” of Choate and our son’s innate drive and abilities but, if we had to do it again, I’m pretty sure we’d rinse and repeat. I prefer to remain unencumbered by any knowledge that the world has changed in any meaningful child-rearing way.
I think what @ChoatieMom describes is a great tactic if you live in certain types of neighborhoods. If you live in a place where kids can’t get to each other’s houses without a parent driving them then playdates and more structured activities come into play. I grew up free range in a city. I could roam the neighborhood but there weren’t any kids my age so it was a pretty lonely experience.
Our friends were always shocked at our kids’ independence from a young age. I told them we accomplished it through neglect and laziness. My jaw would drop to the floor every time our parent friends jumped up to get their kid a drink or snack on demand. There’s the kitchen. Pull up a chair if you can’t reach.
The same snack fetching friends are amazed we’d let our kid go to BS. On a recent trip for a tournament we found out that there are still parents that order their kid’s food, put the toothpaste on their toothbrush and follow them around picking up trash and clothes that they just drop at will. Teach and release, people. Teach and release.
There is no one right way to do this. I think most people try to do the best they can with the kids they have.
I have two who literally could have raised themselves after toddlerhood and one who needed a lot more guidance to launch. If I screwed up somewhere, I guess it’s too late now!
The research having to do with cognitive styles as a function of environment (including parenting) many of you will find quite interesting. With that said, I laugh at the notion of parenting styles having as great or greater impact on child welfare than the impact of the zip code in which they are raised. I don’t care how you parent your child, if you can’t afford healthcare, utilities, quality food, seasonable clothing,… your child’s likelihood of going to any elite institution is an inverse relationship to their level of poverty.
This is a topic that always takes my goat out for a walk, (as they say in Australia)! So here’s my little rant.
'Copter kids and BS are not a great match – regardless of economic background. These kids are at a real disadvantage unless their helicopter parent(s) is truly willing to change their ways and give their kid a real chance to succeed on their own. I’ve known a handful of these families. I have seen a couple of them counseled out the door by the school during the first year, because the situation became untenable. If a parent has a visceral response to every unhappy phone call from Junior and immediately complains to the school about the issue of the day ( i.e., too little playing time in sports, the B- that should have been a B+; the smaller-than-expected role in the musical, the mean dorm parent or the lab partner who is not pulling their weight…) then BS is probably not a great fit for that family. “PITA parents” are labelled pretty quickly in the community, and with good reason. You don’t want to be that parent, the one who undermines the kid’s ability to learn to deal with problems, become resilient and learn to advocate for him/herself. It’s not easy to let go, but the whole point of BS is to grow your kid into an independent young adult who is prepared to move on to a successful college experience. Don’t let your kid become known as the one with the Mom or Dad who comes running to smooth all the bumps in the road. Those bumps are a precious gift, and there is much to be gained by the kid in navigating them. I am always amazed by parents who pay a fortune for the services of a very well-qualified faculty and staff, who are very good at what they do, and then second-guess them every step of the way. When I see a great kid with loads of potential being sabotaged and undermined by their parents, it drives me crazy.
Well, I was packing my own lunch, not well, in elementary school, was a latch key kid, had no homework help etc. no input with college. Yes, I would say a combination of neglect and laziness and cluelessness. I turned out fine - my brother, not so much.
My H was raised my parents who were very involved. He turned out great as did all his siblings.
I always got my kids their snacks and loved it every time. I still do things for them even though they’re teens. They are wonderful human beings.
People need to realize there are many ways to parent well.
Although “authoritative” and “authoritarian” are similar-looking words, the difference between persuading and explaining (“authoritative”) versus dictating (“authoritarian”) is significant.
I know this is the prep school forum, but interesting discussion. I think it would be interesting to see every parent on CC take the quiz from the article. I’m guessing we’d get a lot of authoritarian and authoritative styles. As an aside, the parent who refuses to drive their kid anywhere is super annoying. Because I was the parent always giving that kid a ride when they had to mooch one. Understandable if parents trade responsibility or it evens out over time or it is an emergency. Otherwise, not cool.
Boarding school is both a protection against the more deleterious effects of helicopter parenting and a huge parental investment (both economic and psychic). Anyway, the best parenting is what fits the child. I have a feeling @choatiemom might have used different tactics if her son hadn’t been thriving under laissez-faire parenting.
I’m trying to figure out how Choatiekid was a Boy Scout without being driven all over the place! Even if the den meetings are in your own garage, the activities and commitments they require these days are insane! Troop meetings, den meetings, pine wood derbys, rain gutter regattas, blue and gold parties, courts of honor, JAMBO, camping weekends in the middle of summer AND the dead of winter, popcorn sales and all the work that goes into getting badges… the list goes on! We couldn’t keep up with all that, it was exhausting!
Our kids did cub scouts for two years when they were young. The first year it was only scouts and no youth sports. The second year we combined scouts with youth sports, and our lives were insane. After that year we told them it was one or the other, and they chose to continue with sports. For 7 consecutive years after that my husband head coached both of our kids teams, both fall and spring seasons. Even with head coaching, our lives were still less hectic than our parent friends who had their kids in scouts! I have a lot of respect for the scout organizations, but it is just as much work for the parents as it is for the kids!
Anyway, back on topic, I think boarding school is a good cure for the helicopter parent. I think I operate on a continuum between authoritative and permissive. In fact I am probably easier on my younger son as a result of my older son going away to school. As for my son at BS, he understands the sacrifice and commitment we are making to send him there, and so far is working hard to make it all worthwhile. So far his decision to go to BS has been good for all of us.
