Presentation of the topic

‘Free-Range’ parenting is a concept which has been recently coined, yet which
describes a return to past ways of raising children by granting them more
independence and freedom from a young age, teaching them to manage their
own tasks like walking to school or playing with friends; without the supervision
of a parent. Also, this movement is about allowing children more time to play
and discover what they like, instead of overwhelming them with classes, lessons,
and courses from an early age.

Summary
Here, you can read the summary of both “What exactly is this whole “free-range
kid” thing?” and “What Kind Of Parent Are You? The Debate Over ‘Free-Range’
Children”.

“What exactly is this whole “free-range

kid” thing?”
The text is an interview article with Lenore Skenazy, the woman who started
what is now the ‘free-range parenting’ movement.

In the interview, Skenazy explains that free-range parenting is a movement that

fights against a cultural custom according to which children are in constant
danger, either of being hurt or failing.
The woman talks about media leading parents to believe their children are
always at risk of being killed or kidnapped which, in her view, is not the case for
the majority. She also talks about the fact that childhood safety sells, with many
companies coming up with all kinds of devices tracking a child’s safety.

Skenazy goes on to explain that her goal is to make parents see that children can
be given more freedom without being exposed to danger. She argues that it is up
to the parents to decide how much freedom they give to their children, according
to the environment they live in.

“What Kind Of Parent Are You? The

Debate Over ‘Free-Range’ Children”
The debate is a national broadcast from April 26, 2015, from the National Public
Radio, moderated by Rachel Martin.

Rachel Martin discusses the issue of ‘free-range’ parenting with two mothers
who blog about parenting, Katie Arnold and Denene Millner. The debate was
started by the case of Danielle and Alexander Meitiv, who have let their children
walk to a park and back alone, and are investigated for child neglect.

Katie Arnold favors the idea of childhood freedom, or ‘free-range’ parenting and
believes this should be done step by step. Denene Millner, on the other hand,
argues that children are exposed to a lot of danger nowadays from the outside.

Then, the women discuss the influence of the environment on how much
freedom children should be given. Both women acknowledge that current
neighborhoods have changed since they were children, and they also draw
attention to the fact that some parents do not even have a choice but to raise
their children to be alone most of the time because they have to work.

In the end, Martin asks Katie Arnold whether she has any regrets about giving
her children too much freedom. Also, Martin asks Denene Millner to think of a
situation in which she could have given her kids more freedom. Both women
acknowledge these kinds of situations.

Analysis: Parents' attitudes to

childhood freedom
In this part of the exam set, you are asked to write a short analytical essay about
“What Kind Of Parent Are You? The Debate Over ‘Free-Range’ Children”. You
must focus on the parents’ attitudes to childhood freedom. You are also required
to use the terms genre, receiver, argument, intention.

When you analyze the radio material, you should take into account both the
content and form.

In terms of content, you should note that the material presents two different
views on childhood freedom.

Katie Arnold argues for giving children freedom gradually, teaching them how to
be independent, and for realizing that – as a parent – you cannot guarantee their
absolute safety. She also acknowledges that parents today are more concerned
about their children because the sense of community is not as strong as in the
past.

Denene Millner illustrates an opposing attitude on childhood freedom. She is

more focused on the fact that neighborhoods and the general environment are
more dangerous now than in the past, and that there are too many risky
variables to give children too much freedom.

However, she notes that some parents do not even have a choice because their
job does not allow them to monitor their children all the time. She also notes
that some freedoms should be granted, but only after the child is old enough,
and with strict limits.

Note also the implied attitudes of the anchor, Rachel Martin, of the Meitiv whose
case started the debate, and of the woman in South Carolina:

 Rachel Martin maintains a rather balanced, impartial attitude towards the

topic, presenting both sides of the debate.
 The Meitivs are clearly supporters of ‘free-range’ parenting because they
have left their children to walk alone to the park and back.
 The woman in South Carolina had no choice but to be a ‘free-range’ parent
because her job did not allow her to always keep an eye on her child.

When it comes to the form of the article, you should pay attention to genre,
receiver, argument, intention.

Genre
“What Kind Of Parent Are You? The Debate Over ‘Free-Range’ Children” is a
radio debate. The anchor, Rachel Martin, moderates the discussion in a balanced
manner and leaves it to the two sides to present their views on the topic of
childhood freedom. Also, the moderator introduces the listeners to the topic:
“Now to the debate about so-called free range parenting.” (l. 1)

Notice that the style of talking and presenting is casual and to the point.

Observe also examples of balancing the opinions in some of Rachel Martin’s

interventions:

MARTIN: Although you can argue that both of those attitudes come from
a place of concern - right? - like, the community spirit involved in taking
care of everyone’s kids. And at the same time, it’s an anomaly to see young
kids walking around having this kind of freedom that that, in turn, creates
a situation where people are more concerned, and it’s a red flag. (ll. 35-
38)

As with any debate, both sides (Arnold and Millner) are given the chance to
express their view on ‘free-range’ parenting.

Receiver
When discussing the receiver of an article, a radio broadcast or televised debate,
you should pay attention to the medium of conveying the message and to its
content.

The fact that the debate was broadcast on the National Public Radio suggests
that the intended general receiver is the American public at large, those who
follow and listen to the Radio’s programs.

Consider that, nowadays, radio broadcasts have lost their popularity to television
and the internet. This implies that most likely, the average audience of the
broadcast is represented by the adult and older population in the US.

However, given the topic of the debate – childhood freedom and the case of the
Meitiv family – we can also assume that some of the intended audience are
parents, those who are directly interested in issues related to child upbringing.
Also, the authorities concerned with the issue – Child Protection Services –
might have a direct stake in the debate.

Argument
By argument, we refer to the way arguments are presented in a debate; to how
those in the debate support them.

The arguments, in this case, revolve around the issue of whether parents should
give more freedom to their children and factors influencing this decision.

Each side of the debate – Katie Arnold and Denene Millner – presents their
arguments based on their own examples and experience as parents: “My
daughters are 12 and 15. And we live across the street in Atlanta from Piedmont
Park. And I don’t let them go to the park by themselves.” (ll. 19-20); “My two
daughters are 4 and 6. So we’re not at that stage where I’m comfortable at all
leaving them in a park and having them walk home.” (ll. 23-24)

Consequently, we can say that parts of their arguments are subjective. However,
the anchor, Rachel Martin, helps their argumentation and directs it through
several questions: “MARTIN: So you’re not saying, no, you shouldn’t teach your
kids how to be independent, but there are just too many external factors that you
just can’t account for?” (ll. 17-18)

Note also that Millner’s arguments are occasionally supported by giving other
examples from the media about ‘free-range’ parenting: “There is the one
example of the woman out in South Carolina who was actually arrested because
she was at work at McDonald’s and didn’t have child care for her 9-year-old.” (ll.
42-43)

Intention
When you discuss intention in connection to “What Kind Of Parent Are You?
The Debate Over ‘Free-Range’ Children”, you should consider the intention of
the anchor (and implicitly of the producers of the radio program) but also the
intentions of the two women invited to discuss the issue of childhood freedom.

Rachel Martin’s intention is to provide the audience with both sides’ opinion in
the debate about whether ‘free-range’ parenting is a good idea or not. In this
way, the public can have an informed opinion about the topic.

The family has been vocal about their choice to give their kids more
freedom. We reached out to two women who blog about parenting issues,
Katie Arnold of Santa Fe, New Mexico and Denene Millner of Atlanta,
Georgia. I started by asking them what they thought about this particular
case. (ll. 4-7)
Also, from the interventions and questions of Rachel Martin, we can see that the
anchor tries to give the audience a balanced approach to the topic. In other
words, the anchor’s intention is to show that neither too much freedom nor too
much strictness is good for children. This is mostly indicated by her last two
questions.

One the one hand, she leads Arnold – who supports childhood freedom – to
agree that there are some limits to ‘free-range’ parenting: “MARTIN: Katie, let
me ask you, are there… – have you made a decision that you, in retrospect,
perhaps regret or wish you had handled differently? Have you let your kids too
far afield at any point?” (ll. 50-51)

On the other hand, she also leads Millner – who is against childhood freedom –
to acknowledge that a degree of freedom should be granted to children:

MARTIN: Denene, can you give me an example of a moment that

represents a gray area for you in your decision-making? Perhaps a
situation where you were really involved or keeping your kids really close,
and perhaps you could have given them a little more freedom? (ll. 57-59)

Additionally, the intention behind the debate is also to draw attention to the fact
that parents’ attitudes to childhood freedom are deeply influenced by society and
their community:

MARTIN: Although you can argue that both of those attitudes come from
a place of concern - right? - like, the community spirit involved in taking
care of everyone’s kids. And at the same time, it’s an anomaly to see young
kids walking around having this kind of freedom that that, in turn, creates
a situation where people are more concerned, and it’s a red flag. (ll. 35-
38)

When it comes to the intentions of the two parenting bloggers, Katie Arnold and
Denene Millner, it is quite clear that their main aim is to persuade the audience
of the validity of their arguments. Arnold desires people to see and accept that
children need to be granted gradual freedom: “And there’s that moment when
you realize, you know, you’re just going to always be a little bit behind them
yelling “slow down.” And that’s kind of what childhood and growing up is about.”
(ll. 54-56)

Millner’s aim is to persuade the receivers that too much childhood freedom is
not possible, given the dangers of the modern world: “It’s not about the kids to
me. It’s about the outside world and what the possibilities are.” (ll. 15-16); “So we
have eased up a little bit, but I don’t allow house parties because I don’t, again,
trust other people.” (ll. 63-64)
Discussion
In your exam, you are also asked to discuss whether ‘free-range’ parenting is
responsible or irresponsible, taking your starting point in one of the texts. You
are also required to use at least two of the following phrases: initially, whereas,
consequently, on the contrary, yet, however, finally.

When discussing this topic, you should first have a clear picture of how the two
texts present the problem, who argues that ‘free-range’ parenting is responsible
and who that it is irresponsible.

“What exactly is this whole “free-range

kid” thing?”
In “What exactly is this whole “free-range kid” thing?”, Lenore Skenazy argues
that ‘free-range’ parenting is responsible and that it should be a matter of
parents’ choice how much freedom they grant their children.

However, her position seems to be contradicted by Child Protective Services

and concerned neighbors in the case of the Meitiv family who have left their
children to walk alone to a park a mile away. In the eyes of neighbors and
authorities, these parents have neglected their child.

In your discussion, you should pay attention to the arguments Skenazy puts
forth to advocate for ‘free-range’ parenting as a responsible attitude.

Firstly, she argues this way of parenting is the normal one, practiced by
older/past generations and that it allows children to develop better: “Even if it
looks like you’re wasting time as a kid, playing is the opposite of wasting time.
And that’s how they learn.” (ll. 18-19)

Secondly, she argues that rejecting and considering ‘free-range’ parenting

irresponsible is a matter of culture; that the media and companies selling child
safety items have made the issue one of irresponsibility. In fact, Skenazy argues,
children nowadays are not as exposed to dangers and risks as we are led to
believe.

Finally, note that Skenazy admits different circumstances allow for different
degrees of freedom, but that it is parents who should decide that:
 The idea is we do know what’s best for our kids. My parameter is that
unless a child is in obvious immediate and grave danger, we’re allowed to
teach our kids the same lessons our parents taught us: ‘Cross the street
safely. You can talk to strangers, but don’t go off with strangers.’ (ll. 45-
48)

“What Kind Of Parent Are You? The

Debate Over ‘Free-Range’ Children”
In “What Kind Of Parent Are You? The Debate Over ‘Free-Range’ Children”, we
are presented with both pro and against arguments related to the issue of ‘free-
range’ parenting.

Katie Arnold believes that ‘free-range; parenting is responsible and “appreciates

what Danielle Meitiv was doing by letting her kids out on their own.” (ll. 7-
8), whereas Denene Millner thinks it is “a bit much to let a 6-year-old and a 10-
year-old walk a mile and play in the park for an hour by themselves without an
adult.” (ll. 12-13)

Note that initially both women are very firm in their beliefs. But, as the debate
progresses, they indirectly admit that both ‘free-range’ parenting and strict
parenting have their limits.

Arnold argues ‘free-range’ parenting is responsible as long as it is gradual, and

that parents should also take risk into account: “My two daughters are 4 and 6.
So we’re not at that stage where I’m comfortable at all leaving them in a park and
having them walk home. I certainly would like to think that that is possible as
they grow up.” (ll. 23-25)

Millner argues that such a parenting approach is not responsible; on the

contrary, it exposes children to danger and risks:

And it took me years to trust that other people wouldn’t bother my

children, even with something as simple as getting off of the bus and
coming down the street without me. It’s not about the kids to me. It’s about
the outside world and what the possibilities are. (ll. 13-16)

Yet, she also has to acknowledge that one cannot constantly keep children in a
protective, secure environment. Sometimes, granting children some freedom is
inevitable, such as when work does not allow you to keep an eye on them or
when they are old enough: “…I think we can’t forget the fact that there are plenty
of parents out there who really have no other choice.” (ll. 46-47)
Consequently, if we are to draw an overall conclusion on ‘free-range’ parenting
based on the two texts, it would be that this way of raising one’s children is
responsible as long as context (the security of the neighborhood, the age of
children) is taken into account and as long as certain limits to childhood
freedom are still maintained.

In your discussion, you should also reflect on what is your opinion on the topic.
Do you side more with Lenore Skenazy, the Metiev family and Katie Arnold, or
with Denene Millner?

Consider the way you were raised yourself. Do you think your parents have given
you enough freedom as you grew up?

If so, has this affected you negatively in any way? Have you been exposed to
danger because of this freedom?

If not, do you regret not having more freedom? Has the lack of freedom
impacted you negatively? Possible negative effects of lack of childhood freedom
might be shyness, fears, lack of social skills, etc.

Lastly, do not forget to reflect on the influence of the environment on parents’

decision to raise a ‘free-range’ child or not. Living in an ill-famed neighborhood
or a very big city certainly limits the amount of freedom a child can be granted.
However, when the child lives in a small city or a safe neighborhood, more
freedom could be allowed.