More and more children have a mobile phoneIn fact, last September we commented that according to a study by The App Date, the number of children between 10 and 15 years of age who have one of these devices stood at 37%.
Parents know that we must educate our children for a healthier and safer use of smarphones and other media that have communicative purposes, but also We are aware that it is necessary to place trust in our children, provided they have responsible behaviors.
Every week he has a way of doing things, and we all want the best for our children, but how can we make sure that children are respectful in their relationships through the network? How can we know if they can get to show compromising images of themselves, or to share those of their friends? This week Janelle Hoffman has made a place in the news by transcending the contract he has signed with his 13-year-old son to whom he gave an iPhone 5 for Christmas. Many of us could not afford such an expensive gift, and others (even allowing the economy) would not be willing to make this concession to a teenager of that age. But the question is to ask if it is necessary to make a written contract, or if the clauses seem appropriate.
Gregory Hoffman must be delighted with his new phone, other teenagers from all over the world at his age also have similar ones (although surely the majority of lower cost). The first teaching that in my opinion transmits this news is the lack of contention in the eagerness of a child who wants to be up to date, and the huge chasm that occurs between families that can afford to spend, and those that have problems to survive
But let's return to the topic at hand: Gregory must answer the calls with education and will never refuse when they come from his parents' phones, his mother will always know the password, in the afternoon he will deliver the device to his parents and will not take him to school. Nor can he access pornography and is obliged to behave as he does in real life; If it spoils the smartphone, it is the boy who must assume the repair.
So up to a total of 18 points which is the total clauses included in the contract: If there is default, you can not enjoy your smartphone.
My thoughts: I know that many may think that Gregory may try to skip some of the limitations, and in many cases he will succeed, but What counts here is the educational intention oriented to the protection of the child and to achieve acceptable behavior towards others. On the other hand, I do not believe that I would ever sign a written contract with my children, although (in the same situation) I would indicate the limits or restrictions they have, and then act accordingly if they were not responsible. Obviously, if it is the parents who buy the device, they can remove it from the child's hands with the same ease, this does not involve any secrets.
The reactions aroused by Janelle's initiative range from the belief that she has been too exaggerated in her limitations, to those parents who have been interested in asking for more information. We have also been able to hear comments from teenagers saying that 'if parents have to set you standards, why do they buy your cell phone?'
I would turn this question around 'if you are not willing to meet some family rules, can you demand that your parents buy you certain consumer items?' I am sure that parents should actively demand parental function while the children are minors, and that later, if the young person continues at home (and depends economically on their parents), they have to adapt to rules that facilitate coexistence. Growing up is not only asking for independence, it is also showing yourself as responsible people, both aspects are united and are indissoluble for the maturity criteria to be met.
And what do you think?
