[SMH | Text-only index]   

Parental responsibility cannot be outsourced

Date: December 08 2012

TEENAGERS drunk and disorderly on a Saturday night, down and out on drugs at formal after-parties or the tragic victims of excessive risk-taking during schoolies.

Too often we are reminded that the exuberance of youth comes with many a poor judgment. "But unfortunately, they are 10 foot tall and bulletproof and believe that this would never happen to them," as one parent put it this week.

And parents should know. They were bulletproof kids once.

Faced with a heartbreaking loss or simple realisation that children need to learn from their mistakes, many a parent is philosophical about their offspring's behaviour.

Most rightly reassure themselves that most will survive their teen years relatively unscathed. But when reports of antisocial and self-destructive conduct among teens accumulate, and the tears of fellow parents drive home the risks, there is an understandable tendency to seek scapegoats.

Weak governments, sneaky advertisers, slack schools, hotels, non-existent laws and ''bad influences'' among other children get the blame.

The calls come thick and fast for harsher deterrents, better security and stronger regulations to protect the young from themselves.

Social cohesion is a constant battle between the regulation of citizens and their personal responsibility.

The tension was highlighted this week when a prominent doctor and health academic, Professor David Penington, called for a child's weight to be included in school reports.

Penington believes this could spark discussion between teachers and parents about their child's diet and level of physical activity. His intention is laudable to the extent that it spurs debate about where the responsibility lies for childhood behaviour.

But a proposal to name and shame children according to an arbitrary measure of obesity can only ever be a symbolic gesture.

In practice, it is not the role of the overloaded school system or legislation or the police or even security firms at schoolies and formals to do the job that parents should be doing at home.

Parenting is not a skill to be outsourced.

The parents with the most education and financial flexibility to guide their children wisely are the wealthiest ones, yet far too often they are those willing to outsource their responsibility.

School-leavers are spreading their wings, travelling overseas younger than any previous generation. They pitch up at full-moon parties in Thailand, go berserk on the magic mushrooms that are openly advertised in Bali, and fill up cheap nightspots in countries where police often look the other way.

Hundreds if not thousands of dollars are spent on school formals and coming-of-age parties, only for them to implode under the weight of poor choices.

Rites of passage are one thing; preparing your children for the potential risks is another.

A few under-age drinks with family and friends is one thing; roaming the suburban streets and wreaking havoc in a booze- or drug-filled haze at school formals is another.

Companies promise parents they will supervise their charges, for a hefty price. The promise can never be fully kept.

Police can do only so much. Teachers can tolerate only so much appalling behaviour before it disrupts whole classrooms.

Of course families under the most financial and emotional stress need every support as they try to raise their children in difficult circumstances.

There needs to be hefty investment in lifestyle education as well as a safety net of strong alcohol and drug regulations to keep the peace.

But most of all, it takes a village to raise a child.

And in the end, a village is made up of parents who set limits for their children and warn them of the consequences of their actions.

Stalactites hang in there through it all

FOR almost 150 years, the people of NSW have endured near-death experiences just to drive down to the hill to what Aborigines call "the dark places". Jenolan Caves. What fond memories.

Like when mites crawl up, they pull their tights down. Or pull your tites up, that's where the stalactites are. Or stalactites are for ceiling but stalagmites are for ground. Or the letter T has a hangy part from the top, while the letter M has upward points. And tites hang down from the washing line.

Then again, stalactites also hold tight to the ceiling but stalagmites may grow to meet them. A stalactite is stretched ''tite'' by hanging, while a stalagmite pushes up with all its ''mite''. Then again, stalagmites mite hang … but they don't.

The O'Farrell government is surely entering a very damp, dark and dangerously sentimental place with its privatisation plans for the caves. It wants ideas to help turn the award-winning tourist experience into a money-making business so taxpayers no longer have to pay $60 a bed per visitor night to subsidise it. The best idea is clearly an extreme driver training course. Barring that, the government should ask old and new students of Normanhurst Boys High, which has conducted 53 straight years of annual excursions to the caves … with not one child lost! That's a world record.

If Jenolan Caves weren't perfect just as they are, the school wouldn't keep exposing generations of kids to the hair-raising bus trip down the hill. Tite mite … mite tite … let's call the whole privatisation off.


[ SMH | Text-only index]