Some people think parents should supervise their children’s activities closely, while others believe children should have more freedom. Discuss both sides of the arguments and give your opinion.

The matter of educating youngsters has always been a hot topic for debate. There are two main sides of the argument, revolving around the question of whether or not should kids commit mistakes. While most people believe youngsters should freely do what they think is correct and should bear the responsibilities coming from their actions, the opponents argue that the role of adults in teaching their kids is to stop them before they make errors. Personally, I am a proponent in thinking that a compromise between two perspectives of (i) allowing kids utmost freedom, to do as they please (ii) and entirely restricting their actions is a healthy choice.

This

essay aims to elaborate on both sides and to explain my opinion regarding the topic. On one hand, many adults claim that self-correction is the best means of education. They

also

believe that lessons learned from the consequences will prevent

children

from committing errors. A classical example of

this

type of thinking is demonstrated in the life of the famous tennis player Roger Federer. He was known to be a rich kid and was known to display many non-sportsman activities / behaviour on the tennis court. Some of these included breaking rackets and harassing the opponents. He did not listen to his coach before he realised his awful actions. After he understood his faults, he became one of the most generous tennis players of all time inside the court as well as outside.

Nevertheless

, not everyone is as fortunate as Roger Federer. Nowadays, teenagers are getting into trouble,

such

as taking drugs and smoking.

On the other hand

, parental guidance can prevent a young lad from committing petty crimes. A significant factor that contributes towards growing up is, to listen / obey elders. In

this

case, their parents / guardians. Their knowledge and experience are shared with the offspring to prepare them to face the world.

For instance

, when a child grows up in an extended family, he receives a lot of attention and care from family members, especially the grandparents. Due to their life-long experience in dealing with different types of people, grandparents can easily identify their grandchildren's immediate social communities / friends which are harmful.

Thus

, growing up in a nuclear family helps the

children

to grow in a safe and secure environment.

However

, forcing a child not to do what parents deem to be risky can lead to many detrimental impacts, one of which is complete dependency on parental guidance.

For example

, many modern adults lack the ability to decide for themselves what they want to do, having to continuously ask their parents about their choices. In conclusion, both sides have merits and demerits regarding their efficiency and long-term effects on

children

. I believe that allowing a child some freedom in a set boundary defined by rules is the most efficient way to teach young

children

about the harsh realities in life.