No one can deny that parental influence is of paramount importance for children, especially in cases where children live with their parents, foster parents or guardians. However, it is by no means clear that children should spend time exclusively with their family. This essay will examine both viewpoints and provide rationale behind my opinion on this.
On the one hand, proponents of this theory claim that it is advisable for parents to act as role models and to establish ground rules for behaviour by spending as much time as possible with their children. This allows the youngsters to absorb conventions and codes of conduct which they can then follow themselves, hopefully leading to an absence of problems such as bullying, truancy and delinquency later on. In addition to this, being with the family should reduce the risk of children falling victim to crimes such as abduction, stealing etc.
On the other hand, opponents of this theory claim that it is not a practical proposition. In modern society where many families rely on dual-income, children cannot spend all of their time with the family. As such, child-minding and after-school childcare are often used in these cases. Equally, it seems that children can gain considerable knowledge from their peers. Therefore, allowing children to play without direct supervision may be an added advantage.
In conclusion, it appears that, while family time is quintessential for bonding and absorbing behavioural patterns, there are definite advantages when children are outside the family eco-system too. Given this situation, it can be said that they are in safe, well behaved environment with peers who are themselves reasonably well brought up.