What is overscheduled?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Free unstructured childhood" doesn't work unless you have a strict nanny or live in a commute like cluster of likeminded people with similarly aged kids who aren't on screens and aren't signed up for activities.

Many introverted kids make good use of their unstructured time without a nanny or needing to live in a commune. It ain't rocket science to limit screen time. You simply take physical possession of the iPad and the game console controllers.

My kid doesn’t get screen time at home. He doesn’t have an iPad or video games. But unstructured time is literally just him playing or reading at home or else playing ball by himself outside. There are a few kids around but they are usually busy.

This is such a bummer. This is another reason that overschedule is such a big problem.

Overscheduling and activities are two different things.

We'll call it being busy then.

Being upset that the kids in your neighborhood are busy and unavailable to play with your kids is very different from concerns about a particular child being overscheduled.

It is, but maybe it's not. I would assume if they weren't overscheduled they'd have some more time.

You have an only. That's the problem. Kids with siblings don't need to wait around outside for someone to be available to play. They have built in playmates.

No I dont have an only. Playing with siblings is great, but it's better to also play with other kids.

Usually when you say my kid it means just 1.

I must have made a typo

You did it several times. Kid, he, him. You clearly have just 1. Why lie?

Never said he, him. Don't have a boy.

This person right above did. Why in the world are you responding if this wasn't you:

My kid doesn’t get screen time at home. He doesn’t have an iPad or video games. But unstructured time is literally just him playing or reading at home or else playing ball by himself outside. There are a few kids around but they are usually busy.

[Anonymous]

In any case, the PP who said siblings don't solve the socialization issue was right. Siblings are great in many ways, but it's not the same as playing with peers you aren't related to. Birth order dynamics and family quirks make those relationships fundamentally different (sometimes better, sometimes worse).

No one wants neighborhood friends more than the kid who isn't getting along with their sibling, btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In any case, the PP who said siblings don't solve the socialization issue was right. Siblings are great in many ways, but it's not the same as playing with peers you aren't related to. Birth order dynamics and family quirks make those relationships fundamentally different (sometimes better, sometimes worse).

No one wants neighborhood friends more than the kid who isn't getting along with their sibling, btw.

Then go where the kids are. At after school activities. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any case, the PP who said siblings don't solve the socialization issue was right. Siblings are great in many ways, but it's not the same as playing with peers you aren't related to. Birth order dynamics and family quirks make those relationships fundamentally different (sometimes better, sometimes worse).

No one wants neighborhood friends more than the kid who isn't getting along with their sibling, btw.

Then go where the kids are. At after school activities. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I don't know who you think you are arguing with. I'm fine with after school activities and don't care if there are neighborhood kids around for y kids to play with. Mine go to aftercare because that's where their friends are. I was just agreeing with the PP who pointed out that having siblings isn't some magic bullet that ends the need for your kids to make friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any case, the PP who said siblings don't solve the socialization issue was right. Siblings are great in many ways, but it's not the same as playing with peers you aren't related to. Birth order dynamics and family quirks make those relationships fundamentally different (sometimes better, sometimes worse).

No one wants neighborhood friends more than the kid who isn't getting along with their sibling, btw.

Then go where the kids are. At after school activities. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I don't know who you think you are arguing with. I'm fine with after school activities and don't care if there are neighborhood kids around for y kids to play with. Mine go to aftercare because that's where their friends are. I was just agreeing with the PP who pointed out that having siblings isn't some magic bullet that ends the need for your kids to make friends.

It certainly goes a long way. Bored kids who have nobody to play with will figure it out, isn't that what the anti schedulers are arguing? Yet they can't even get their own kids to get along? Whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any case, the PP who said siblings don't solve the socialization issue was right. Siblings are great in many ways, but it's not the same as playing with peers you aren't related to. Birth order dynamics and family quirks make those relationships fundamentally different (sometimes better, sometimes worse).

No one wants neighborhood friends more than the kid who isn't getting along with their sibling, btw.

Then go where the kids are. At after school activities. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I don't know who you think you are arguing with. I'm fine with after school activities and don't care if there are neighborhood kids around for y kids to play with. Mine go to aftercare because that's where their friends are. I was just agreeing with the PP who pointed out that having siblings isn't some magic bullet that ends the need for your kids to make friends.

I think some people have this imagined ideal of a neighborhood full of kids playing baseball and tag in the street and in and out of each others houses all the time. But I grew up with that childhood and it was... fine? I actually think it would have been cool to go to activities where I could have made friends with kids who shared my interests and actually learned some kind of skill. I didn't stay in touch with a single kid from my street growing up. Nothing wrong with them, we had some good times, but it didn't create lasting bonds or make me a better person or anything.

I probably would have really liked to go to gymnastics and learn to play the piano a couple days a week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any case, the PP who said siblings don't solve the socialization issue was right. Siblings are great in many ways, but it's not the same as playing with peers you aren't related to. Birth order dynamics and family quirks make those relationships fundamentally different (sometimes better, sometimes worse).

No one wants neighborhood friends more than the kid who isn't getting along with their sibling, btw.

Then go where the kids are. At after school activities. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I don't know who you think you are arguing with. I'm fine with after school activities and don't care if there are neighborhood kids around for y kids to play with. Mine go to aftercare because that's where their friends are. I was just agreeing with the PP who pointed out that having siblings isn't some magic bullet that ends the need for your kids to make friends.

I think some people have this imagined ideal of a neighborhood full of kids playing baseball and tag in the street and in and out of each others houses all the time. But I grew up with that childhood and it was... fine? I actually think it would have been cool to go to activities where I could have made friends with kids who shared my interests and actually learned some kind of skill. I didn't stay in touch with a single kid from my street growing up. Nothing wrong with them, we had some good times, but it didn't create lasting bonds or make me a better person or anything.

I probably would have really liked to go to gymnastics and learn to play the piano a couple days a week.

We had this when my boys were little, like in kindergarten. We lived in a neighborhood with a lot of kids and a bunch of boys would play together after school. This was when kids may have played t ball or rec soccer once per week. We moved and some kids played sports more competitively. Even if they live in the same neighborhood, I heard a lot of the boys are no longer friends.

[Anonymous]

The effects are temporary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any case, the PP who said siblings don't solve the socialization issue was right. Siblings are great in many ways, but it's not the same as playing with peers you aren't related to. Birth order dynamics and family quirks make those relationships fundamentally different (sometimes better, sometimes worse).

No one wants neighborhood friends more than the kid who isn't getting along with their sibling, btw.

Then go where the kids are. At after school activities. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I don't know who you think you are arguing with. I'm fine with after school activities and don't care if there are neighborhood kids around for y kids to play with. Mine go to aftercare because that's where their friends are. I was just agreeing with the PP who pointed out that having siblings isn't some magic bullet that ends the need for your kids to make friends.

I think some people have this imagined ideal of a neighborhood full of kids playing baseball and tag in the street and in and out of each others houses all the time. But I grew up with that childhood and it was... fine? I actually think it would have been cool to go to activities where I could have made friends with kids who shared my interests and actually learned some kind of skill. I didn't stay in touch with a single kid from my street growing up. Nothing wrong with them, we had some good times, but it didn't create lasting bonds or make me a better person or anything.

I probably would have really liked to go to gymnastics and learn to play the piano a couple days a week.

We had this when my boys were little, like in kindergarten. We lived in a neighborhood with a lot of kids and a bunch of boys would play together after school. This was when kids may have played t ball or rec soccer once per week. We moved and some kids played sports more competitively. Even if they live in the same neighborhood, I heard a lot of the boys are no longer friends.

Yeah this fizzles with age no matter how busy the kids are. I live in a neighborhood with TONS of kids, and the younger ES kids (like K- 1st) pop outside and play regularly. My K DD enjoyed that this year. The older kids are busier than the younger kids, sure, but more importantly they aren't friends anymore. There's actually a bit of unpleasant drama, which I don't think is unique to our neighborhood but rather kind of inevitable. My 4th grade DD has three completely free afternoons during the school week. Often on those days she gets together with her actual FRIENDS (I WFH and log off at 3, so I'm able and happy to facilitate the hang outs).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over scheduling is kid dependent.

I have one kid who can do back to back sports, can go to practice, skills training and hang out with friends on the same team and it will feel fine. Then we throw in math tutoring and all of a sudden, my kid feels overwhelmed and he has too many activities per day.

I don’t think the question is whether he can or wants to do that. The question is whether he SHOULD. People are saying no.

If your kid wants to compete in high school, that kid needs to play a lot in elementary. My oldest just started high school and many kids got cut from basketball, tennis, baseball, etc. many kids who play travel and club got cut. I doubt any kids who play just rec could make any team.

So highly sport and school dependent.

Example: at Hayfield SS enough girls tried out for softball that they could easily fill the varsity and JV teams and still make a few cuts. At Lewis HS not far away they only can field a varsity team that plays everyone else's JV teams because they are so new to the sport.

We live in McLean. Everything is competitive.

Not football and basketball

Why aren’t football and basketball competitive? The top two American sports? I don’t think ice hockey is competitive either. That leaves baseball.