[Publib] Adults in children's area

[subs itoors]

Why is it almost impossible?

There are several reasons, here are two main ones:

1) It is absolutely necessary to allow children (6+) to do things  
autonomously for their development. As a parent, you gauge when and  
how much and how. But having a 6 year old or 7 year old not able to go  
get a book on their own when you are sitting at one of the small  
tables (you can't always see them because the stacks are taller than  
the children) is not developmentally inappropriate, it is difficult  
because they WANT  to be able to do stuff on their own--they are  
feeling their independence genes emerging and it would be very very  
difficult to keep them from every doing anything on their own.

2) There are many times there are activities that are done for kids,  
and there are so many kids, it is hard to see your own child. For  
example, my library does a movie on Tuesday afternoon that has over  
130 kids and adults can't easily see their kids--so we rely on the  
fact that it is only other parents there, all of whom watch each  
other's children.

And on a final note, you are completely wrong. Their are no brats.  
There are children who are brought into situations BY ADULTS that they  
can not handle or asked to do things they are not DEVELOPMENTALLY  
ready to do. But it is parents and librarians who are the brats,  
because they put the children into those situations.


And by the way, I am VERY supportive of adult-only areas. We regularly  
go to resorts (kid friendly) that have adult-only areas specifically  
for this reason--I definitely think if this is such a big issue, then  
it should absolutely be done!



Because there are libraries--such as the one I am close to, that are  
huge
On Jan 30, 2008, at 6:57 PM, King, Jamie wrote:

> I believe Wynita was making a valid point, asking if it would be ok to
> ban children from the "adult" part of the library, since sometimes  
> they
> get out of hand.  It's not necessary to imply she hates sweet little
> children.  Believe it or not, brats do exist in this world, and they
> often come to the library.
>
> I don't have kids, but why is it "almost impossible" for a parent to
> watch their child in the library?  Having worked in public  
> libraries, I
> know it is indeed the case a lot of times for parents to let their  
> kids
> run loose or, even better, drop them off alone for a few hours.  But I
> was always bothered by that and wondered why the parents wouldn't want
> to keep an eye on them, especially since you have pointed out what a
> horrible, dangerous world it is out there.  I wish more parents would
> understand the library is not necessarily a "secure public space" or a
> babysitter.  Ultimate responsibility for protecting children lies with
> their parents, not the library.  Again, I don't have kids so it's very
> possible I'm not getting it, but that's my perception.
>
> Jamie
>
>
>
>
> "subs itoors" wrote:
>
>> Hello Wynita:
>>
>> I'm afraid I'm in complete disagreement with you. First of all, I'm
>> sad that you use the word brat to describe children--especially  
>> anyone
>> who works in a public service job. But I will not get drawn into an
>> argument with you about your attitude towards future generations.
>>
>> It is almost impossible for a parent in a larger children's library
> (for
>> example the 6,000 square foot space near us) to watch their child all
>> the time--not to mention that it is an important developmental issue
> to allow children of a certain age the autonomy to walk around secure
> public spaces.
>>
>> In the city I live in, kids are stolen from public places ALL THE
>> TIME. That is how the rule evolved.
>