Free range nannies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Nanny here. If I were the parents, I would definitely describe myself as "free range." As a nanny, there are obviously some major limits on how much freedom I can allow my charges due to liability. That said, I definitely prefer to work with families who view the role of parents and caregivers as supporting and being a resource to children in exploring their own boundaries, rather than on placing arbitrary boundaries for the children.

What this means in practice is that the rules and limits ai enforce are based on the demonstrated aptitude of my charges rather than being one-size-fits all. I also do not view it as a problem to be corrected every time I see them struggle; it is an opportunity for them to grow, so I try to offer help only if it is truly needed.

So my charges definitely do things that are more risky than some would permit.

My 6yo charge right now loves to cook and (via demonstrable understanding of and respect for safe limits) has worked his way up to being allowed to using a veggie peeler and steak knife as well as using the stove. He can make certain meals (scrambled eggs, tacos, soup from scratch) independently while I work on something else nearby.

His 4 yo sister loves to climb and I allow her to go as high as she wants. From the time she could walk, I never helped her climb up or down from any structure and she was allowed to fall many times as a 1yo, so by age 2, she had a strong sense that she was responsible for her own safety and is very cautious. She climbs very high, but always tests the strength of a structure before moving her weight onto it and always plans how she will get back down. She has not fallen off of any structure in my care in over a year.

The 2yo is permitted to play with some "choking hazard" items because she has shown that she will not put them in her mouth.

Now, all of these things I am close by (supervising the cooking and legos and spotting the climber), but I let them take risks because I (and their parents) believe they will be safer overall if we teach them that THEY are responsible for making safe choices, rather than that WE are responsible for keeping them safe.

Not a chance I'd be ok with that in our home.

[Anonymous]

To 22:28:
What is your point? The free range approach isn't for everyone and I neither expressed that I would engage in this approach without parents being on board nor did I state that everyone shouldnparent this way. Do you also go up to people who ordered pepperoni pizza in a restaurant to state that you prefer cheese? If you don't like this approach; that's fine. Do you have anything to add other than "nu-uh!"

[Anonymous]

Free range, by definition, means letting the kids have free roam.

Nannies job is to keep the children safe, foremost.

This is like asking the question "How to citizens feel about policemen who steal?"

Such a retarded question and if any nannies out there think that it is OK to be a free range nanny, you need to get yourself another job before you get arrested for putting your employees children in intentional danger.

[Anonymous]

Nannies have to remember at all times that the rules for parents and the rules for nannies are very, very different. If a child gets killed or injured on the parents watch everyone feels sorry for the parent. If a child gets killed or injured on the nanny's watch, the nanny is arrested and vilified.

I think the whole "free range" movement is a ridiculous fad and not worth even discussing. However, if I ever met free range parents I would never, ever agree to work for them for fear of an accident involving the charges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Nanny here. If I were the parents, I would definitely describe myself as "free range." As a nanny, there are obviously some major limits on how much freedom I can allow my charges due to liability. That said, I definitely prefer to work with families who view the role of parents and caregivers as supporting and being a resource to children in exploring their own boundaries, rather than on placing arbitrary boundaries for the children.

What this means in practice is that the rules and limits ai enforce are based on the demonstrated aptitude of my charges rather than being one-size-fits all. I also do not view it as a problem to be corrected every time I see them struggle; it is an opportunity for them to grow, so I try to offer help only if it is truly needed.

So my charges definitely do things that are more risky than some would permit.

My 6yo charge right now loves to cook and (via demonstrable understanding of and respect for safe limits) has worked his way up to being allowed to using a veggie peeler and steak knife as well as using the stove. He can make certain meals (scrambled eggs, tacos, soup from scratch) independently while I work on something else nearby.

His 4 yo sister loves to climb and I allow her to go as high as she wants. From the time she could walk, I never helped her climb up or down from any structure and she was allowed to fall many times as a 1yo, so by age 2, she had a strong sense that she was responsible for her own safety and is very cautious. She climbs very high, but always tests the strength of a structure before moving her weight onto it and always plans how she will get back down. She has not fallen off of any structure in my care in over a year.

The 2yo is permitted to play with some "choking hazard" items because she has shown that she will not put them in her mouth.

Now, all of these things I am close by (supervising the cooking and legos and spotting the climber), but I let them take risks because I (and their parents) believe they will be safer overall if we teach them that THEY are responsible for making safe choices, rather than that WE are responsible for keeping them safe.

Not a chance I'd be ok with that in our home.

I agree, how would you ever explain yourself if the 6 year old burned or cut himself or the two year old forgets and does put something not for her age in her mouth and chokes. It is true children are always learning and yes good to learn from natural mistakes. Children can also get distracted and forget because children do this and should be allowed to be children. Why would you purposely put things out that are obviously dangerous ( risky as you say ) or go ahead and watch the child fall so they learn from it. As a nanny myself I would tell parents to be very careful with free range nannies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Free range, by definition, means letting the kids have free roam.

Nannies job is to keep the children safe, foremost.

This is like asking the question "How to citizens feel about policemen who steal?"

Such a retarded question and if any nannies out there think that it is OK to be a free range nanny, you need to get yourself another job before you get arrested for putting your employees children in intentional danger.

This is clearly someone who does not actually understand the free range movement at all.

I am the nanny who posted above. Another poster asked what I would do if one of the charges in my care were injured in someway while participating in these challenging/risky activities. The answer is that because I am allowing them to work at a more challenging level then they can easily accomplish without support, I am required to supervise them much more actively than I otherwise would. The goal of free range is not for the children to spend all of their time unsupervised engaging in whatever activities they deem appropriate. The goal is for the children themselves to demonstrate what level of abilities they have and to be working at the edge of their limits.
I actually supervise my charges more than most other nannies because they are in risky situations.

For example, when the six-year-old is cooking, I might not be doing the actual food prep, but I am right there beside him. I am talking in through safe practices at each step and getting verbal commitments from him of how he plans to use the tools in front of him. It would be much easier for me to send him off to play Legos alone in his room while I make dinner myself.

For the four-year-old who loves to climb, it would be much easier if I told her she had to stay in the little kid Area of the park or the sandbox well I spent most of the time sitting on a bench on the sidelines just keeping an eye on her. Instead, because she is climbing at the edges of her personal limits, I am right underneath her spotting her every step of the way and prepared to step in and catch her for help with instructions if she gets herself in trouble.

For the two-year-old, my life would be much easier if I told her she was only allowed to play with toddler blocks, because then I could sit nearby staring at my phone looking up only periodically. Instead, I am right there with her working alongside her, and the guarantee that she will not put something in her mouth is the fact that I am actively watching her every second that she uses her big brothers Legos.

In other words, anyone who tells you that the goal of free range parenting is to avoid having to supervise your kids simply does not understand the movement or the philosophy behind it at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Free range, by definition, means letting the kids have free roam.

Nannies job is to keep the children safe, foremost.

This is like asking the question "How to citizens feel about policemen who steal?"

Such a retarded question and if any nannies out there think that it is OK to be a free range nanny, you need to get yourself another job before you get arrested for putting your employees children in intentional danger.

This is clearly someone who does not actually understand the free range movement at all.

I am the nanny who posted above. Another poster asked what I would do if one of the charges in my care were injured in someway while participating in these challenging/risky activities. The answer is that because I am allowing them to work at a more challenging level then they can easily accomplish without support, I am required to supervise them much more actively than I otherwise would. The goal of free range is not for the children to spend all of their time unsupervised engaging in whatever activities they deem appropriate. The goal is for the children themselves to demonstrate what level of abilities they have and to be working at the edge of their limits.
I actually supervise my charges more than most other nannies because they are in risky situations.

For example, when the six-year-old is cooking, I might not be doing the actual food prep, but I am right there beside him. I am talking in through safe practices at each step and getting verbal commitments from him of how he plans to use the tools in front of him. It would be much easier for me to send him off to play Legos alone in his room while I make dinner myself.

For the four-year-old who loves to climb, it would be much easier if I told her she had to stay in the little kid Area of the park or the sandbox well I spent most of the time sitting on a bench on the sidelines just keeping an eye on her. Instead, because she is climbing at the edges of her personal limits, I am right underneath her spotting her every step of the way and prepared to step in and catch her for help with instructions if she gets herself in trouble.

For the two-year-old, my life would be much easier if I told her she was only allowed to play with toddler blocks, because then I could sit nearby staring at my phone looking up only periodically. Instead, I am right there with her working alongside her, and the guarantee that she will not put something in her mouth is the fact that I am actively watching her every second that she uses her big brothers Legos.

In other words, anyone who tells you that the goal of free range parenting is to avoid having to supervise your kids simply does not understand the movement or the philosophy behind it at all.

But why would you put a child ( let a alone a child not yours ) in a risky situation on purpose? As a nanny I feel my job is to be sure my charge is not in a dangerous situation and protect them from harm. Sure no matter how careful children do get hurt but I do not understand as to why anyone would intentionally set it up for a child to get hurt so to learn from it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Nanny here. If I were the parents, I would definitely describe myself as "free range." As a nanny, there are obviously some major limits on how much freedom I can allow my charges due to liability. That said, I definitely prefer to work with families who view the role of parents and caregivers as supporting and being a resource to children in exploring their own boundaries, rather than on placing arbitrary boundaries for the children.

What this means in practice is that the rules and limits ai enforce are based on the demonstrated aptitude of my charges rather than being one-size-fits all. I also do not view it as a problem to be corrected every time I see them struggle; it is an opportunity for them to grow, so I try to offer help only if it is truly needed.

So my charges definitely do things that are more risky than some would permit.

My 6yo charge right now loves to cook and (via demonstrable understanding of and respect for safe limits) has worked his way up to being allowed to using a veggie peeler and steak knife as well as using the stove. He can make certain meals (scrambled eggs, tacos, soup from scratch) independently while I work on something else nearby.

His 4 yo sister loves to climb and I allow her to go as high as she wants. From the time she could walk, I never helped her climb up or down from any structure and she was allowed to fall many times as a 1yo, so by age 2, she had a strong sense that she was responsible for her own safety and is very cautious. She climbs very high, but always tests the strength of a structure before moving her weight onto it and always plans how she will get back down. She has not fallen off of any structure in my care in over a year.

The 2yo is permitted to play with some "choking hazard" items because she has shown that she will not put them in her mouth.

Now, all of these things I am close by (supervising the cooking and legos and spotting the climber), but I let them take risks because I (and their parents) believe they will be safer overall if we teach them that THEY are responsible for making safe choices, rather than that WE are responsible for keeping them safe.

Not a chance I'd be ok with that in our home.

+1 "Free range" is a ridiculous trend of the lazy. Why not let your kid drive your car or watch x rated movies? A good nanny/parent knows what is age appropriate and what is not. You do no child a service by letting them explore areas where the risk for danger or injury is high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Free range, by definition, means letting the kids have free roam.

Nannies job is to keep the children safe, foremost.

This is like asking the question "How to citizens feel about policemen who steal?"

Such a retarded question and if any nannies out there think that it is OK to be a free range nanny, you need to get yourself another job before you get arrested for putting your employees children in intentional danger.

This is clearly someone who does not actually understand the free range movement at all.

I am the nanny who posted above. Another poster asked what I would do if one of the charges in my care were injured in someway while participating in these challenging/risky activities. The answer is that because I am allowing them to work at a more challenging level then they can easily accomplish without support, I am required to supervise them much more actively than I otherwise would. The goal of free range is not for the children to spend all of their time unsupervised engaging in whatever activities they deem appropriate. The goal is for the children themselves to demonstrate what level of abilities they have and to be working at the edge of their limits.
I actually supervise my charges more than most other nannies because they are in risky situations.

For example, when the six-year-old is cooking, I might not be doing the actual food prep, but I am right there beside him. I am talking in through safe practices at each step and getting verbal commitments from him of how he plans to use the tools in front of him. It would be much easier for me to send him off to play Legos alone in his room while I make dinner myself.

For the four-year-old who loves to climb, it would be much easier if I told her she had to stay in the little kid Area of the park or the sandbox well I spent most of the time sitting on a bench on the sidelines just keeping an eye on her. Instead, because she is climbing at the edges of her personal limits, I am right underneath her spotting her every step of the way and prepared to step in and catch her for help with instructions if she gets herself in trouble.

For the two-year-old, my life would be much easier if I told her she was only allowed to play with toddler blocks, because then I could sit nearby staring at my phone looking up only periodically. Instead, I am right there with her working alongside her, and the guarantee that she will not put something in her mouth is the fact that I am actively watching her every second that she uses her big brothers Legos.

In other words, anyone who tells you that the goal of free range parenting is to avoid having to supervise your kids simply does not understand the movement or the philosophy behind it at all.

That is not free range. Looks like you enjoy the trendy label. Free range would be allowing a 6 year old to fully cook and not being beside them or allowing a two year old to wonder and climb without being there to catch them.

[Anonymous]

I think there should be a healthy balance between free range so they can learn a little independence and being right next to them every second of the day.