Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Will children of the future have as an enriching childhood as children from the past to the present day?

    I have the opinion that they won't for two main reasons.

    Firstly, I feel that the increase in technology and focus towards technology has had an effect on childhood. For example, and even though I'm 18, when I was younger I spent all of my time drawing, reading and doing silly things like making pictures out of lentils. I hold the opinion that kids, in general, don't do this as much anymore. They may have phases when they do, like the odd afternoon, but the focus away from what I consider to be 'childhood activities' like drawing and kicking a ball around in the park to things like watching films and playing computer games constantly at a young age (pre-10 years) can only be bad for children. Aren't these things meant to be for hormone-fuelled teens?

    Secondly, I think that society today protects children too much and that the cliché of being "wrapped in cotton wool" very much applies in today's Britain. Things like banning conkers in school, paddling in Princess Diana's memorial pool for fear of falling and grazing a knee is unnecessary 'moddy-coddling' and I think can have no positive effect on young children. Better to ban them playing their older brother's Grand Theft Auto than playing conkers, a classic and fantastic Autumn game! Sure, they'll get the odd broken thumb or bruised nose but it will teach them to find better conkers! :rolleyes:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Hear hear. I really feel sorry for kids who are stopped from just doing the normal rough and tumble play that's natural for them.

    Plus some parents and certainly teachers are discouraged from physical contact with their kids with the paedophilia moral panic - if they aren't shown affection in their childhood how are they supposed to show it themselves later in life?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with the second reason totally. Also, I think that it links in with what your saying in the first reason.

    For example, if a parent worried that their child may be murdered, raped or kidnapped because of the horrific stories on the news would much rather them 'safe' in their room playing playstation or watching TV.

    Personally, I think that mothers of young children are far too infulenced by what they read in the news. For example, all this rubbish about the MMR vaccine that really annoyies me
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I agree totally.

    Three things:

    Protection laws, Health and Safety laws and political correctness are having an exponentially increasing impact on the lives of children. (You probably have to perform risk assessment before you can let children walk to the toilet, and do a police check on the guy who comes in to fix the computer.)

    Children used to start school at age 5. Not content with that, schools have a 'reception year' so children can start age 4, and not content with that, parents take their toddlers to 'pre-school' and 'academies' where they learn how to sit up straight, cross their legs and speak when spoken to when they should still be making siren noises and playing in the sand.

    At age thirteen, in year 9, children basically have to decide their career. Their future hinges on their choice of degree, which is determined by their A-level choices, which are determined by their GCSE choices. A huge onus is being put on children of a younger and younger age to think about their career and go beyond the point of no return before they've had a chance to decide.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I think that the reason that children have moved away from drawing and reading is that TV and computer games give much more excitement and are far more entertaining in the short term. Also, it takes much longer to learn how to read or draw than it does to understand what is going on in simple cartoons on TV and that's why it is more appealing to young children.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by pikaboo)
    Plus some parents and certainly teachers are discouraged from physical contact with their kids with the paedophilia moral panic - if they aren't shown affection in their childhood how are they supposed to show it themselves later in life?
    I can't stand parents that stop their children playing because there may be dangers out there... these really haven't increased over the last century.

    Even worse, though, is the phenomenon of "pushy parenting"; parents that force their children into every dance, instrumental, sporting and amateur dramatics society going, perhaps to live some older dreams through the kids. These people make me shudder, and if I ever were to meet the Williams sisters' dad, I would punch him. Hard. Let them live, damn you! :rolleyes:

    [/baseless rant]
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Here's another point, detracting from my main point slightly. My old man is a professional wedding photographer and as such he knows loads of photographers who go into schools to do the classic yearly individual photographs. These photographers can now not touch or move children to make them sit nicely so that they will take a good picture for fear of reprisal from parents. As a result, even in this small case, children are not learning to do as they're told. It all adds up to decreasing the quality of childhood and the development into a, let's face it, stable adult.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revenged)
    I think that the reason that children have moved away from drawing and reading is that TV and computer games give much more excitement and are far more entertaining in the short term. Also, it takes much longer to learn how to read or draw than it does to understand what is going on in simple cartoons on TV and that's why it is more appealing to young children.
    But isn't the whole point of your childhood to learn these proper skills and to develop, rather than to satisfy short-termed boredom by cartoon and video-game 'fixes'?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silverjonny)
    Children used to start school at age 5. Not content with that, schools have a 'reception year' so children can start age 4, and not content with that, parents take their toddlers to 'pre-school' and 'academies' where they learn how to sit up straight, cross their legs and speak when spoken to when they should still be making siren noises and playing in the sand.
    Please... this is not rocket science!!! Obviously they spend most of the day playing anyway what do you think they do in 'pre-school academies' (just glorified nurseries) they hardly are having lessons in how to sit cross legged and how to speak and listen... you are drastically exagerating this point!!!

    At age thirteen, in year 9, children basically have to decide their career. Their future hinges on their choice of degree, which is determined by their A-level choices, which are determined by their GCSE choices. A huge onus is being put on children of a younger and younger age to think about their career and go beyond the point of no return before they've had a chance to decide.
    You aren't deciding anything when you do GCSE!!! Everyone takes GCSE in set core subjects. I can't believe that the choice of GCSE will mean that you will become a businessman if you chose to study business studies instead of french GCSE.

    I agree that over protection of children is a problem but I don't agree that children are being controlled by schools to what career they want to go into - ask any 18 year old what they what to be when they are older and 99% won't have a clue!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eddie K)
    But isn't the whole point of your childhood to learn these proper skills and to develop, rather than to satisfy short-termed boredom by cartoon and video-game 'fixes'?
    My point is that a 4 year-old will tend to look for instant enjoyment, eg. from TV, as opposed to working hard to achieve long term enjoyment, eg. from reading.

    I agree that you can say that the whole point of childhood is to develop but naturally TV and video games will be more appealing than reading books. Therefore when your young your more likely to spend your time watching TV than reading, this is generally speaking of course.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2 + 2 = 5)
    Even worse, though, is the phenomenon of "pushy parenting"; parents that force their children into every dance, instrumental, sporting and amateur dramatics society going, perhaps to live some older dreams through the kids.
    That's the other side of the coin but still a valid point. However, how much does 'pushy parenting' affect the quality of childhood if the child is experiencing a huge variety of things. I agree with you in the case of the Williams sisters because they were quite obviously engineered tennis players rather than ones who play because they truely do love the game. Before anyone attacks me on this comment - Venus Williams was asked whether she loved the game at this years Wimbledon Championships and she refused to answer. Anyway, back to the point: does 'pushy parenting' negatively affect a child if they are pushed to try all things but not forced to pursue something if they don't like it?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Surely the reality of why childhood is nothing like it was in the past is because kids grow up faster. Sure you might describe young teens as immature but its obvious that many kids want to be seen as grown ups- 13 year old girls would rather dress like hookers and chase boys than run around in fields or whatever it is they used to do. As for wrapping up in cotton wool, would you be as happy letting your kids play in notoriously gang-ridden council estates all day as opposed to friendly rural communities of 60 years ago?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revenged)
    My point is that a 4 year-old will tend to look for instant enjoyment, eg. from TV, as opposed to working hard to achieve long term enjoyment, eg. from reading.

    I agree that you can say that the whole point of childhood is to develop but naturally TV and video games will be more appealing than reading books. Therefore when your young your more likely to spend your time watching TV than reading, this is generally speaking of course.
    But was this the case when you was a child? Sure, you probably spent every afternoon watching children's programmes when you got home from school but did you have access to the "CBBC channel", which provides programming for children twenty-four-seven, rather than just two or three hours a day?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silverjonny)
    At age thirteen, in year 9, children basically have to decide their career. Their future hinges on their choice of degree, which is determined by their A-level choices, which are determined by their GCSE choices. A huge onus is being put on children of a younger and younger age to think about their career and go beyond the point of no return before they've had a chance to decide.
    Y'know, when I took my GCSEs I chose things that I thought would lead me to a journalism career, because I liked writing and thought it would be fun. When I got to A Level, I switched to more computer related subjects, because the interest in journalism waned and I wanted to become a programmer. I'm in the third year of a degree now and am studying digital arts, having never taken a single art class at GCSE or A level. And y'know what? When I finish I'm not even going to pursue this field, I'm heading off to do some ESL teaching. The point I'm making here is that you're not locked into a lifelong career by your GCSE choices, or even your A levels, so they're not really deciding their entire lives at 13.

    I do think a lot of the rough and tumble elements of childhood have been killed off by the lawsuit crazy culture of the modern day. School lets children play conkers, child gets a smack in the head from a stray conker, parents sue school for endangering their precious crotch-monster.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eddie K)
    does 'pushy parenting' negatively affect a child if they are pushed to try all things but not forced to pursue something if they don't like it?
    I think that 'pushy parenting' will cause negative effects towards a child if they are made to do things which they do not enjoy or made to do too many things.

    Clearly if the child really enjoys a particular hobbie then push parenting would have a positive effect as they are being encouraged to do something which they enjoy doing.

    On the other hand, if parents paid no attention or treated the childs hobby as a complete joke than clearly the child will lose motivation and would be discouraged to work at their hobby therefore having a negative effect.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The point about schooling nowadays is a valid one. Children take exams and tests more regularly and at a generally younger age than ten years ago. They may only be small tests but are official tests necessary? I haven't got anything against spelling tests and tests on times-tables, but SATS before Year 6? Learning to revise before you reach secondary school? Doesn't this just take the fun out of going to school in the primary years and therefore reduce the quality of your childhood?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eddie K)
    But was this the case when you was a child? Sure, you probably spent every afternoon watching children's programmes when you got home from school but did you have access to the "CBBC channel", which provides programming for children twenty-four-seven, rather than just two or three hours a day?
    Yeah it wasn't the case when I was a child but I spent as much time as I could watching TV.

    I agree with your point but I don't see it as a justification for CBBC not to make TV programs as if the demand wasn't there they wouldn't make the programmes.

    I'm sure that if we were that age we would have liked the idea of the CBBC channel. Though what would you suggest people to do, children's attitudes haven't changed to children's TV programs. You could hardly ban childrens TV.

    I'm totally against the idea that if you ban TV from children you'd magically improve their life style. If that happened to me I'd wonder why I couldn't watch me and all other children could - hardly going to be a peaceful household there! It's bound to have a negative effect as the child would moan constantly to made my parents let them watch TV!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eddie K)
    They may only be small tests but are official tests necessary? I haven't got anything against spelling tests and tests on times-tables, but SATS before Year 6? Learning to revise before you reach secondary school? Doesn't this just take the fun out of going to school in the primary years and therefore reduce the quality of your childhood?
    Obviously more tests won't improve the quality of childhood but these are very demanding test and not the sort you need to revise for.

    I took SATS exams when I was younger and they didn't have any negative effect on me but clearly too much pressure on children to do well on primary school exams would cause negative effects.

    I also never revised for any exam in my life until secondary school, perhaps things have changed since then. I think primary schools do try and make things fun though and perhaps reducing the number of tests would be better though I agree than some sorts of test are necessary.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    the length of childhood seems to be shortening. check out the H&R forum if you doubt that.

    scary stuff.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gexko)
    the length of childhood seems to be shortening. check out the H&R forum if you doubt that.

    scary stuff.
    I don't know childhood seems pretty long compared to say, eras when people were looking at marriage around the start of their teens, and reproducing as fast as possible because they didn't have enough life expectancy to wait around having fun with pipe cleaners and PVA glue and fingerpaints, or whatnot.
 
 
 

2,300

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.