Keywords

The kindergarten [shall] ensure that the children have the opportunity to experience, assess and master risky play through physical challenges. (Framework plan for the kindergartens, page 49)

In this book, we have focused on children’s risky play and why this is important for children’s experience, learning, and development. We have also discussed how risky play creates ethical dilemmas for adults who are responsible for children’s safety. When short-term avoid-harm-ethics is allowed to dominate, it does so at the expense of the children’s ability to develop physical and mental strength. We have highlighted do-good-ethics as an important counterweight to the protection regimes around children. We also have tried to show that the balance between allowing children to explore and take risks in their play while making sure that they do not injure themselves seriously is not an easy exercise. On the one hand it is important to protect children against serious harm. On the other hand, they need opportunities for challenging activities and excitement. Many studies show that there has been a marked decline in children’s opportunities for risky play and access to varied environments that inspire excitement and exploration. Therefore, it is important that there is opposition from parents, teachers, legislators, and others who influence children’s scope for risky play. Together, they have a responsibility to ensure that children have the chance to engage in risky play, beyond the adults’ radar. It is well documented that this is crucial for children’s positive development.

The philosopher Socrates claimed that he who knows the right will do the right. He expressed a strong belief to the effect that knowledge governs action. Today, it is easy to find apparent counterexamples. Mankind knows that the climate crisis is created through our own actions but struggles to change our habits. Each of us can have unhealthy habits that we continue to follow, even though we have knowledge of what they lead to. There also seems to be a gap between what we know about the importance of risky play for children’s development and what kind of framework we provide for play. The knowledge that children need to engage and find excitement in play is growing, side by side with the fact that protection and caution characterize the legislation and practice among parents and teachers. We can interpret Socrates to mean that what is required for people to do the right things is really thorough and deep knowledge about the consequences of what we are doing. If we really knew about the connection between our own lifestyle and climate change, then we would do something about it. If we really knew how crucial risky play is for children’s mental and physical development, then we would have expanded their scope for adventure. The authors of this book may not be as optimistic as Socrates about the power of knowledge, but still have a hope that our reflections can have an influence on how adults think and act when it comes to children’s opportunities for risky play.

We see some signs in official documents in our own country Norway that there is a growing understanding of how important risky play is for children’s development. The quotation at the beginning of this chapter is taken from the Norwegian framework plan for kindergartens, which was introduced in 2017 (Ministry of Education, 2017). This was the first time that a statutory framework plan for kindergartens mentioned risky play. The wording gives kindergarten employees backing to allow that children must be given opportunities to test limits for physical challenges and risks—and through that get the opportunity to exercise judgement and experience mastery. The Norwegian framework plan for kindergartens is strongly linked to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, also called the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN, 1989), which was ratified by Norway in 1991 and became part of the Norwegian Human Rights Act in 2003. Article 31 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child deals with children’s right to play and leisure. It emphasizes equal opportunities and freedom to participate in play, leisure activities, and cultural activities. In 2013, the UN assessed the achievement of Article 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN, 2013) and expressed concern that children’s right to play and leisure was not adequately recognized in many countries and that this right was not fulfilled for the coming generation. The UN report points to several factors that threaten the implementation of this child right and emphasized, among other things, the need to find a balance between risk and safety. The adults’ fear that children will be harmed generates surveillance and restrictions on children’s freedom and thereby limits children’s opportunities for play and leisure activities. According to the UN report, it is important to find a balance between, on the one hand, ensuring that children’s local environments and play environments do not pose a danger to children’s lives and health and, on the other hand, giving children space to experience, learn, and handle risk. The fact that the UN sends such clear signals and addresses how the emphasis on safety can pose a threat to children’s rights is an important signal for anyone who makes decisions that affect children’s lives. It applies to parents, kindergarten teachers, school teachers, and politicians.

Another important premise provider for children’s opportunities for play are the regulations for how play environments, including playgrounds, are to be designed. The European standard for playground equipment was first launched in 1999 and was then perceived as regulations that primarily focused on making children’s play environments and play equipment as safe as possible. This led to what many called a deterioration of the quality of children’s play environments. Stimulating and exciting opportunities for play were removed and disappeared. Later, the European Standard came with a revised version (EU, 2008) of the standard for playground equipment. In this new version, it was initially pointed out that risk-taking is a natural part of children’s play and that risky play will give them valuable experiences that will enable them to better manage risk on their own. It was therefore specified that the standard should help to make children’s play environments as safe as necessary, not as safe as possible.

Government agencies within health, environment, and safety have also come to the fore and pointed out that 100 per cent risk-free living for children is inappropriate. In the United Kingdom, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE, 2012) has issued a position statement, which clearly communicates that health, safety, and environmental regulations are often misunderstood or misused as an argument to restrict children’s scope for play and leisure activities. HSE shows in its position statement how to focus on preventing dangers and serious accidents, but that this does not mean removing all risk from children’s lives, precisely because it is of great importance for children’s development and learning: “No child will learn about risk if they are wrapped in cotton” (HSE, 2012, p. 1). In Canada, a similar position statement was published in 2015 (Tremblay et al., 2015).

Both the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the commentary on Article 31 and the EU standard revision have been around for many years, but, they are still living documents that have an impact on how we as adults manage our power over children’s upbringing. More and more countries are introducing legislation and guidelines that emphasize children’s right to free play, preferably in stimulating outdoor environments, and with acceptance of the risk it may entail.

In recent times, the World Economic Forum has also expressed the importance of play for children (WEF, 2018). WEF argues that this is a central right children have and that it nourishes children’s development and learning. Play helps to give children experiences with conflict resolution, problem-solving, and social interaction that are important in future community building.

Children’s right to free play, including that which involves risk and testing of boundaries, has gradually come high on the agenda of large and important actors in the world community. It is up to the individuals—professionals, parents, and others—to ensure that these concerns have practical consequences and that children have the opportunity for play and leisure in the manner described in the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

This book has been written by a childhood researcher and a philosopher. We have a common engagement for children’s need for risky play and how that need has come under considerable pressure in recent decades. When researchers are deeply engaged in their subject matter and take a normative stand in this manner, there is a risk that we become unbalanced and disregard arguments against the position we take. However, what we have set out to do here is to establish a middle ground between two ethical extremes. On the one hand, we have described a position where caution and protection dominate:

  • Avoid-harm-ethics: Children must be protected and shielded from what may be physically and mentally harmful to them.

The opposite to this position is one where protection is downplayed.

  • Do-good-ethics: Children must be allowed to engage in exciting and risky play that can give them positive experiences, even though it may be harmful to them.

The balanced middle position that we want to advocate is that both ethical perspectives must be taken seriously. We have described a societal tendency where avoid-harm-ethics, especially in its short-term form, dominates. Children are wrapped in cotton by well-meaning adults, to protect them against anything that may cause them mental and physical harm. These adults do not seem to understand that they are thereby weakening the children’s opportunities for healthy physical and mental development. The alternative is not to replace it with an equally myopic do-good-ethics. What we believe is necessary is to develop a perspective and a way of thinking that allows for ethical considerations from both sides.

Further research on risky play and ethics can go deeper into the issues we have suggested in this book. Empirical studies can explore how the balance between do-good-ethics and avoid-harm-ethics is maintained in different societies and countries. It is also of great interest to find out whether teachers and others who work professionally with children experience a fear of moral bad luck, or whether they sense that proper moral protection from their leaders is in place. There is also a need for more knowledge concerning risk assessment in relation to play. Studies can highlight both descriptive and normative dimensions. Researchers can contribute to an understanding of how such risk assessments are currently conducted and also provide suggestions about how they ought to be done.

In the final pages of this book, we would like to give practitioners some overall tips on how to work systematically with the ethical dilemmas associated with risky play.

  • Politicians and legislators should ensure that laws and regulations regarding children’s upbringing, play, and learning do not create a culture where it becomes common to sue each other whenever things go wrong. Such legislation contributes to a culture of fear among parents, kindergarten staff, teachers, or others who work with children. It is important not to encourage or create a framework where there is money to be made from compensation cases after even small and nonserious injuries.

  • Legislation should instead create a scope for do-good-ethics and the establishment of routines and norms where children have sufficient opportunities to explore the world on their own and to seek excitement and fun outside the adults’ radar.

  • Kindergarten teachers, school teachers, and others responsible for children’s play and activity should have risky play and activity as a topic they discuss with parents and guardians. Exchanging knowledge about the importance of play for children and finding a common understanding of where the boundaries should go provide security for all parties. They also give teachers in kindergartens and schools the courage to find a reasonable balance between avoid-harm-ethics and do-good-ethics. They can then to give the children the opportunity to play in challenging environments and enable exciting play. A conversation about risky play can also create a foundation for practices where children make their own assessments and make their own decisions about the risk element in their play and thereby develop a capacity for good risk management.

We would suggest that risky play becomes a topic at parent meetings and in other forums where those who work with children meet parents and guardians. Knowledge sharing and invitation to reflection are suitable for creating a common understanding and uncovering disagreements and misunderstandings. Such meetings can also help parents become more familiar with what kind of scope for play their children have in their everyday lives in the school and kindergarten and thus alleviate worry and anxiety. A more or less common understanding of risk is also good to have as a foundation on the exceptional occasions where a child is injured.

Parents and guardians of children should be aware of the influence they have as promoting or limiting factors for children’s ability to seek excitement, adventure, and challenge. They are caregivers for the children and must of course set boundaries. But they should also provide the necessary freedom so that children can explore their own boundaries and explore what is safe or dangerous in the environments in which they travel and are active. For the adults, it can be a good exercise to hold back and not always intervene in situations they themselves find to be scary. Then they will often discover that the children master the situation themselves. Parents and guardians also have an important role in collaborating with kindergartens and schools. If they express that they trust kindergarten staff and teachers, and give them backing in the practice they choose, then there is a greater chance that children will have sufficient freedom there as well.

Ultimately, it is about facing, experiencing, and living with uncertainty. Let the child climb if that’s what she wants, even if you as an adult have your heart in your throat. We have seen that the dominance of a short-term avoid-harm-ethics can lead us to limit children’s scope for risky play. We try to avoid harm here and now but forget that this has negative consequences in the long run. It limits the children’s opportunities to develop into confident, autonomous, resilient, and independent individuals.

With this book, we have tried to contribute to a richer understanding of the value of risky play in children’s upbringing and development. We have presented research-based knowledge about the connection between children’s scope for risky play and their opportunities for healthy mental and physical development. We have also highlighted how risky play creates ethical challenges for adults who have an influence on the boundaries for children’s activities. There will always be dilemmas when we have to balance the positive and negative consequences of expanding or reducing the scope for exciting activities.

We hope that the knowledge we have presented can relieve some of the anxiety and caution that drives the initiatives from overprotective parents and caregivers. Risky play gives children crucial opportunities to master their surroundings and develop the skills they need to flourish and do well in life. In exceptional cases, things go wrong. The child falls down from the tree. Was it reasonable and right to let her climb there? The answer may be yes, even if it ended in injury. We would like to repeat our warning against letting the actual, negative outcome colour the moral judgement of the adult’s decision to let the child climb. The fear of being left alone with the moral responsibility if things go wrong can create an excessive caution among parents in the neighbourhood and teachers and other employees in kindergartens and schools. Therefore, it is important that parents and others who may be upset about the injury are aware of the phenomenon of moral bad luck. They should learn to look beyond the drama of the accident and calmly consider whether it was initially acceptable to let the child engage in that activity, despite the injury. In many cases, the answer is yes.