Is play too dangerous in todays society
...sonal liberty is the fear of litigation. This is influencing many play providers t0 restrict activities in order to minimise the risk of injury. It can also be a different situation when adults are key carers for other people’s children. Opportunities for learning are sometimes restricted because of fears of what may happen if. Also fears of being blamed for an accident goes through the mind. Children also learn from the adults in their surroundings. Adults are looked upon as a role model, teaching children morals and values, as well as skills such as talking through problems or giving the confidence to ‘speak up’. If a child’s personal liberty is restricted, it can reflect in negative consequences. The child may impersonate the adult’s attitude towards worry, which will affect their chances of learning due to stress or anxiety. They may also develop attitudes that adults spoil fun and tell lies, as nothing they say might happen, never does. Adults need to consider two issues with personal liberty. The question of what the child has learned from past experiences needs to be asked before they are allowed to participate in risk taking activities. A child will learn relevant skills from an adult and will already have practised activities entailing risks in the presence of an adult. Adults need to consider this and ask the question is it better for the child to incorporate risks when there is an adult there to supervise. Adults need to balance the risks against the benefits. This is usually done in the form of a risk assessment, which focuses on the activity and the environment. A child’s environment needs to be a safe environment. Almost any environment contains hazards or sources of harm. Early Years and educational settings all need to have clear, well-understood policies, together with procedures that reinforce the policies. The policies and procedures provide a safe environment, but they do not promote a child to learn. It is the practice of the adults who have to do that. A factor to consider is the likelihood that children will seek out risks elsewhere in environments, which are not supervised or designed for them. It is best to allow personal liberty in a controlled environment in which they can learn about risk. If a child has personal liberty, they have the opportunity to experience different situations and activities knowing that a supportive adult is nearby. By having these privileges, they will learn about risk and how to handle the emotional and intellectual risks of childhood. They will understand that if they make a mistake, it is acceptable. This will also increase their confidence building on their social skills. Children, who have personal liberty, encounter risk in their play. They will learn practical life skills such as cooking, moving around safely and road safety. Depriving a child of personal liberty, can affect their ability in motor tasks such as cutting or balancing, lower the level of physical activity which may cause obesity, gives poorer ability to deal with stressful or traumatic situations, all lessons which are learnt through play. It also gives a poorer ability to assess and manage risks and promotes poorer social skills, which will lead to difficulties in negotiating social situations such as dealing with conflict and cultural difference. Depriving risk is performed by an absolute ban on an activity. This has thought to go too far. There are certain schools banning games such as football, conkers, tag and even making daisy chains because of fears of safety and anti social behaviour. By creating these bans, not only does it make the children feel aggrieved, but it imposes on the rights of the child as stated in the UN Convention on Children’s Rights 1989: ‘The views of children should be taken seriously and they should be able to take part in what is going on around them’ (BTEC National Early Years 2003) On the other hand, it could be argued with a statement from the Children Act 1989 that the welfare of the child is paramount and should be safeguarded and promoted at all times. Bans are imposed without an explanation to the child and without an alternative activity to replace with. This will aggrieve the child more and they may blame adults for spoiling their fun. It will also impose on their socialisation skills. According to Vygotsky, children learn by active involvement and the adult is a crucial part of the child’s learning experience. He argued that a child would understand more through playing than with interacting with an adult. This reinforces the need for children to be able to have personal access to objects and situations in order to develop. Jean Piaget also believed that a child would learn more through practical experience and interaction with the environment. ‘Children learn best by discovery. The role of the teacher is thus to facilitate learning situations in which children can find things out for themselves’ (Piaget’s theory of development: Angles on child psychology 2001). Banning activities such as balancing, cutting out, and riding bikes, will affect the milestones of development. We know a child has reached a certain developmental level and is capable of carrying out a certain activity unsupervised when they demonstrate it and have a chance to practice it. Activities which are banned are mostly activities which enhance development and maximise the abilities of the child thus if banned will create negative consequences. Another factor to consider in the issue of personal liberty and freedom of access is that of the parents. The main concern in an educational setting is that of the child. It needs to be understood that the child has a family network. It is vital that the central figures in the family are known. It is best practice to develop a relationship with the family from an early stage by sh...