What is Limiting Risky Play? Despite the positive benefits of risky play, the as safe as pos-


sible approach is pervasive, prioritizing the minimizing of risk over the benefits of risk in play.9 Ball & Ball-King sug- gested this could result from applying workplace risk man- agement theories to play and play spaces. While risk mini- mization makes sense in a workplace, the same principles do not apply to a recreation and leisure environment. The work- place mentality does not take into account the social utility or positive value of the activity when trying to eliminate all risks. It also leaves risk assessment to risk assessors with backgrounds in industry, rather than in children’s health and development. Herrington & Nicholls10 discuss how US injury data was


used to justify the Canadian Standards Association’s safety standards for children’s play spaces and equipment. Using US data gave the appearance of a substantial number of inju- ries resulting from the much larger population base in the US compared to Canada. UK research also suggests that some of the safety efforts undertaken in children’s play spaces may not be justified. A risk-benefit study on impact absorb- ing surfaces in UK playgrounds found that the risk of death on play equipment was about 1 in 30 mil- lion per year, which is much lower than the risk of injury while playing many sports. The risk-benefit analysis concluded that the high cost of impact absorbing surfaces might not be warranted based on this level of risk. Furthermore, where impact absorbing surfaces were installed, there was not a notable decrease in the rate of injuries. The perception of a frivolous litiga-


tion culture in the US with large damages awarded may have increased sensitivity to, and fear of, litigation in both countries, to such an extent that the as safe as possible route can appear to be the most sen- sible.11 In reality, there is little evidence that Americans are any more litigious than other countries, nor that allow- ing more risk actually increases litigation. A UK govern- ment report found no data to indicate that litigations have increased in the UK, and cautioned that risk assessment approaches based on the “Precautionary Principle” or “As Low as Reasonably Practicable” policy guidelines could lead to excessive caution.12 In Canada, there is some indication that the public and


the courts may be increasing acceptance of risk and reject- ing excessive safety rules. For example, in Calgary in 2013 a recreation center was advised to no longer allow children to climb on the rocks in their lobby due to safety and litiga- tion concerns. In a petition against the ruling, parents over- whelmingly said they accepted the risk and children were eventually allowed to climb again13. A recent court case in British Columbia provided support for children’s risk tak- ing in play, dismissing a claim filed against a district by a mother whose daughter was injured playing grounders (a variation of tag). In that case, Mr. Justice Baird referenced


the ParticipACTION Report Card on Physical Activity For Children and Youth, which was submitted to the court as “social fact” to indicate the approach to risk taken by the district, and noted that grounders was exciting and fun and that “in the overwhelming majority of cases, no mischief comes to anyone from such innocent pleasures”.14 Parents’ attitudes and safety concerns can also be a bar-


rier to children’s risky play. Two major safety concerns reported by parents include pedestrian safety and child abduction,15 but these do not reflect the data and efforts to address them can often be misguided. To deal with concerns around traffic, parents often resort to chauffeuring children to and from activities, despite the fact that children are more likely to die while riding in a car, than as a pedestrian.16 The risk of child abduction by a true stranger in Canada is approximately 1 in 14 million.17 Despite the rarity of this event, parents may limit children’s outdoor play, or engage in extensive supervision to reduce its likelihood with little thought given to the potential implications. This can not only limit children’s outdoor play time because it is constrained by parents’ abilities to supervise, but research also indicates that children are less physi- cally active when there is an adult present. While the research has mainly focused on parents, this is likely also the case for teachers and other educators, who may feel bound to supervise as strin- gently as parents would. Refer- encing statistics may have little influence in motivating parents to change their behavior toward children’s risky play. Rather, par- ents appear to be more motivated to change by discussions highlighting the negative impacts on their children’s health and development resulting from lim-


iting outdoor risky play. Many children live highly structured lives and there


is increasing emphasis placed on structured activities over self-directed activities. Parents can feel obligated to enroll their children in a wide variety of enrichment activities to ensure children will be competitive for schools and college, and so they do not fall behind their peers. This can also apply to teachers and other educators, who are challenged by increasing demands on their time and completing academic requirements. While there can be many perceived barriers to risky play, the benefits are numerous, and integrating risky play into practice does not have to be time consuming or complicated.


What Can Educators do to Integrate


Risky Play? Educators in all environments can be left feeling challenged by balancing rules and regulations with a desire to provide more risky play opportunities for children, especially in an environment where regulations may be designed to remove all risks. Educators may also be left feeling at fault if inju- ries do occur, or worrying about their job security if parents complain about the risks they allow children to take while


GREEN TEACHER 109 Page 5


Evergreen


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52