Slate's Bizbox
the chat room: Real-time discussions with Slate writers.

Some Serious FunAnn Hulbert talks with readers about the value of kids' playtime.


Posted Friday, June 22, 2007, at 7:06 AM ET

Contributing editor Ann Hulbert was online at Washingtonpost.com on Thursday, June 21, to discuss the benefits of children's playtime. An unedited transcript of the chat follows.

(Continued from page 1)

washingtonpost.com: Getting Lost in the Great Indoors (Post, June 19)

Ann Hulbert: Well, the figure cited in the Washington Post article about the percentage of kids who actually spend time outdoors—and a sharp decline over a mere half decade—does suggest indoor pastimes are eclipsing time running around in the woods. And I am struck by how much suburban sprawl is pushing "real" woods farther and farther away. But like you—unless I'm reading into your question—I suspect there's plenty of nostalgia at work, too.

_______________________

Washington: I am really puzzled by two recent developments, reported in The Post: a few days ago there was an article on how a Virginia high school instituted a strict no-touch policy for kids (even hugging and high-fives are illegal there); and just today I read another article on how the District is proposing an even earlier curfew for young people (including 17-year-olds!) starting at 10 p.m. What do you make of these draconian measures targeted at kids, in a misguided attempt to keep them out of trouble, mind-boggling in their strictness?

washingtonpost.com: Va. School's No-Contact Rule Is a Touchy Subject (Post, June 18)

Ann Hulbert: Those do sound like pointlessly draconian measures. I've been struck before that it's often an appealing strategy to get tough on kids, because it can be the quick fix, which in fact often only makes the problem worse. How are school administrators, who evidently don't feel much in control of the school culture, going to calibrate punishments for infractions of the no-touch policy, I wonder. And such an early curfew only begs to be violated.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: In both your story, and a related Washington Post story, organized sports are exluded when talking about playtime. I don't understand this perspective. In neither story is it explained. Was time spent running around with friends not worthwhile (as playtime or nature time) if a coach was nearby? I played soccer and ran because they were fun. "Organized" or not, fun = play.

Ann Hulbert: I think that's a very good point. In part, I think Richard Louv's interest is in a more untamed natural experience—not on a groomed field, engaged in rule-bound sport. He worries kids are losing touch with green, unstructured being out of "civilization." And fun though soccer is, kids aren't jumping over brooks or just wandering on paths, focusing on their unfamiliar surroundings. It's a more romantic vision of childhood.

_______________________

Crystal City, Va.: I'm 27 and we often were left unsupervised outside as long as there were 9-year-olds or 10-year-olds around. We also could bike all over the neighborhood. This was pretty much in suburbia, but we were not limited to the back roads. I don't recall not being able to entertain myself, with tag or roleplaying TV shows or just exploring. The areas around Washington seem alot more busy than the places I grew up, however. Is there a city/not city divide in this?

Ann Hulbert: Like you, I'd love to see a clearer breakdown in the surveys of how children spend their time and where they play in the United States. Is there a convergence of indoor-focused play, or do kids spend their time very differently if they live around DC or, say, in rural Maine? I believe there's going to be a television documentary this fall on where kids play, and I hope we'll learn more from that.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: I have twin boys who are 13 and they definitely work harder and more is required of them in school than was required of me when I was growing up in the '70s. The flip side of this is that they also have opportunities I never had as a youngster. They attend various day camps during the summer that include sailing, music, sports, and Web site and video design to name a few. During the year we take one or two vacations that have included trips to the West Coast, Southwest, New England and up and down the East Coast. During each of these trips, we spend lots of time as a family outside exploring the area and taking in the local sites through hiking, swimming and/or sightseeing. These camps and vacations would have been financially out of reach (and outside the norm) for most families when there was only one wage earner in the household 25 or 30 years ago.

I don't think this generation of kids has it worse, I think it is just different. Overscheduling can create its own problems — i.e. the inability/difficulty that kids have in entertaining themselves without something scheduled. But my husband and I try hard to allow our boys downtime, turn off the TV and require them go outside regularly (we went to lots of parks and playgrounds when they were younger) not to mention the sports that occupy the better part of our weekends during the school year.

VIEW AS SINGLE PAGE
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Ann Hulbert, a contributing editor, writes Slate's Sandbox column. She is the author of Raising America: Experts, Parents, and a Century of Advice About Children, as well as The Interior Castle: The Art and Life of Jean Stafford. A longtime editor and writer at the New Republic, she is now a regular contributor to the New York Times Magazine.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
Washington Post