An interesting insight on this in Freakonomics is that things we do with our children don't affect their long-term development as strongly as things we are.
Take the effort to make yourself whatever kind of person you want your kids to grow up to be, and they are more likely to grow up into that person.
For example reading 50 books to your toddler is good for short-term amusement followed by teaching your kids that "books are for kids" leading to a belief that they've outgrown "silly books". By contrast letting your toddler see you read what you like teaches your toddler that "books are for grownups" and your kid will naturally model their behavior on yours.
My personal attitude is that I want my children to grow up curious, inquisitive and self-motivated. Supplying external structure can't supply those traits, I have to model them instead.
From the article: "In 1972, 87% of kids who lived within a mile of school walked or biked daily. Today, only 13% of children bike, walk or get themselves to school."
Interesting point. I remember growing up in the middle of a city, playing outside for hours at a time without my parents' supervision when I was 5. Then when I was 7 I was taking public transportation to school or, if the weather was nice, I would walk 5 or 6 blocks home.
But that was decades ago and in a different country. I wonder if in US today my parents would be reported for "child neglect" if they let me do the same things they let me do then.
Couple friends of mine let their two daughters, ages 5 and 10, walk to the park alone. A block away (within shouting distance), with a cell phone, and mom home and ready to come get them if there was any trouble.
Their ex-roommate called Child Protective Services on them.
They were eventually cleared, but the whole experience was a hugely stressful nightmare for them, with multiple visits by social workers and threats to take their children away. So yeah, your parents would probably be reported for child neglect if they let you roam free like that.
That is really sad and disturbing. Somehow I think most people nowadays would side with the person that did the reporting. I wish people watched less TV hype and instead used their heads to critically assess risks and dangers.
When I was in the 3rd Grade (1976) - which would have put me at 8 years old) I started walking to school when the weather was good - http://bit.ly/info/3rdGradeCommute is a rough approximation, but imagine crossing over the farmers fields instead.
That circle (about 1 1/2 miles) from my house, was my world to explore for several years - I don't recall anyone suggesting I shouldn't - actually the opposite - someone would usually tell me to "go outside an play" - and would hopefully not see me until dinner time. Farmers Fields, streams, cattle, trees - are kids even allowed to climb trees these days?
I wonder whether if all the structure is going to have some type of negative impairment on kids imaginations or elements of their IQ (per the HP article on rapid email negatively impacting IQ)
From 5 to 10 I took public transportation with my father to school. It was exciting, I got to read the paper like my dad on the bus. I got to meet new people at the bus stop. When I was 10 I started taking the public bus to school by myself. At first my father rode with me, helping me transfer, and watched me get off at my new school. After about a month of that, I took the bus and made the transfer by myself.
I did dumb things. Played with matches and fire at the bus stop, but I didn't hurt myself. Since there weren't any other school children on my bus, if I wanted to socialize, I had to talk to adults - strangers (shudder). I did fine. I cherished my independence.
Thoreau on Goethe (_A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers_, Thursday):
"He was even too _well-bred_ to be thoroughly bred. He says that he had had no intercourse with the lowest class of his towns-boys. The child should have the advantage of ignorance as well as knowledge, and is fortunate if he gets his share of neglect and exposure."
But one should not minimize the level of surveillance that was there for the boomers. A lot of mothers did not work, and though playtime was not micromanaged, it was not that easy to get away with serious mischief.
I believe the point the article is making is that the "modern" children's books tend to be written explicitly to "facilitate" learning. To me, modern children books read like powerpoint slides; nothing but cloying bullet points thinly wrapped in an artificial storyline.
"Shere Khan, the Big One, has shifted his hunting grounds. He will hunt
among these hills for the next moon, so he has told me."
Shere Khan was the tiger who lived near the Waingunga River, twenty
miles away.
"He has no right!" Father Wolf began angrily--"By the Law of the Jungle
he has no right to change his quarters without due warning. He will
frighten every head of game within ten miles, and I--I have to kill for
two, these days." [0]
Why anyone would deprive someone the thrill of reading short stories like "How the Camel Got His Hump" [1] or "Jungle Book" is beyond me. Kipling fell out of favour because of the "Imperialist" overtones of his writing, a product of the British Empire times he lived in. I can think of another reason: Kipling also wrote what he saw, not what was ideal. Take the above quote from, "The Jungle Book". You have descriptions of how real natural systems work. Surely we don't want to frighten young children with such descriptions of predators and predated?
Yet the same ideas and themes are reported in the media on a sport, business and politics regular basis.
For some parents not enrolling their kids in every possible class (from sports to arts) or encouraging their participation in debate or math clubs is somehow failing to prepare them adequately for a competitive college/job market. The idea that actually stepping back and saying "just one extracurricular per year" might actually be better for your kids is controversial for "helicopter parents".
As for Kipling, I would assume the reference I took (from another critic) was referring to either Kipling's more adult books or reading the Jungle Book to very young kids. As a parent of a 2-year-old who is tired of reading and re-reading most of the very simple books in the young kids' section of the library (I agree with gvb regarding many modern storybooks), I'm inspired to pull out something more mature that I might enjoy more as well.
I'm at one far end of the spectrum, but I was reading Stephen King in 5th/6th grade, read Anna Karenina (chosen myself) in 7th grade for a book report and had read nearly all of Tolstoy's works by the end of 9th grade. My parents never had a punishment for failure, only failures without effort. The idea was to set your goals so high that they cannot possibly be accomplished. It still holds to today for me...when I don't reach the goals I set for myself, I'm not disappointed, I look at how good I actually did do. The only time this is an issue is when coming up with those annual and semi-annual review goals that determine are used to measure if you're going to get a reasonable merit increase or not.
I like the Mr. Men (& Little Miss) books by Roger Hargreaves. Not just for kids; I still gain pleasure from reading them several decades later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Men
Take the effort to make yourself whatever kind of person you want your kids to grow up to be, and they are more likely to grow up into that person.
For example reading 50 books to your toddler is good for short-term amusement followed by teaching your kids that "books are for kids" leading to a belief that they've outgrown "silly books". By contrast letting your toddler see you read what you like teaches your toddler that "books are for grownups" and your kid will naturally model their behavior on yours.
My personal attitude is that I want my children to grow up curious, inquisitive and self-motivated. Supplying external structure can't supply those traits, I have to model them instead.