Considerations for Risk-Taking Behaviors In Early Childhood

Joe LeBlanc

Introduction

Play is an essential component of young children’s learning and

development, as it has been shown to promote optimal learning and growth

throughout the domains of physical, social, emotional, and cognitive development

(Little & Wyver, 2008). Play gives children an opportunity to display and develop

their knowledge, skills and concepts. Through interactions with their environment,

children acquire tools to gain knowledge of the world and learn skills that are

necessary for adult life. Physical risk-taking appears to be a natural part of play in

early childhood, as children are exploratory and seek out new experiences in their

environments (Sandseter, 2007). This paper is structured to examine children’s

physical risk-taking behaviors while considering such factors as developmental

benefits, play environments, adult effects on play, and children’ safety. Research

conducted within this paper was a pilot study to determine how early educators in

the United States perceived these aspects of risk-taking behaviors.

Literature Review

Presumably, children have been engaging in physical risk-taking behaviors

for many centuries, yet the earliest research on children and risky play is quite

modern. Ellen Sandseter (2009b) defines risky play as “ thrilling or exciting forms

of play that involve a risk of injury” (p. 429). The majority of children’s risky play

takes place outdoors and is dependent upon the features of the outdoor

environment (Little & Wyver, 2008). Whereas much of the research related to

children’s risk-taking was conducted in the late twentieth century and focused on

the potential hazards in an outdoor play space, David Ball (2002) considered the

benefits as well as the dangers associated with risky play. Ball’s decade long study

assessed playgrounds in the United Kingdom and their connections with injuries

and overall child safety. His research balanced the threat of injury with the

developmental advantages afforded to children who chose to engage in risk-taking

behaviors. Ball created a chart termed “The Play Balance” (section 7.5) which

weighs the benefits of risk-taking against the disadvantages. For example, he

evaluated how to cope with real risks, accidents, costs, and bad publicity. He

concluded that the potential harm associated with children’s risk-taking was

quantifiable and therefore “too real”, while the benefits for risky play were more

difficult to prove and consequently undervalued.

Meanwhile, a study conducted by Alison Stephenson (2003) initiated the

current debate in Early Childhood Education regarding risk-taking opportunities.

Stephenson observed twenty-five children ages 0-5 in a New Zealand early childcare

center. She visited the center thirty-eight times to document the children’s physical

risk-taking experiences accompanied by the adult reactions to these behaviors.

Stephenson (2003) concluded “young children naturally seek out and enjoy physical

challenges in play, yet safety regulations make it very difficult for teachers to

provide children with experiences that are satisfyingly ‘risky’” (p. 35). As a result of

this study, Stephenson initiated the foundational questions that presently guide this

research: What are adequate physical challenges for young children? How do care

providers balance the need for a challenging environment while maintaining safety

regulations? What are the repercussions for restricting children’s accessibility to

physically challenging and risky play?

Categories for Risky Play

Currently, it is Australia’s Helen Little and Norway’s Ellen Sandseter who are

the leading researchers on the topic of risky play in early childhood. Before

Sandseter’s (2007) research there was no empirical study that categorized risky

play. Stephenson (2003) illustrated various aspects associated with what

determines a risk factor in play, for example “attempting something never done

before; feeling on the borderline of being out of control often because of height or

speed; and overcoming fear” (as found in Sandseter, 2007, p. 238). Stephenson

(2003) observed examples of risky play connected to swinging, sliding, climbing,

and bike riding. Sandseter (2007) focused all of her studies on two Norwegian

preschools consisting of one termed “ordinary” (p. 239) with traditional play

features, while the other was an outdoor-based nature school. Additionally, she

mentions that each outdoor play area contained fixed playgrounds with fences and

both preschools regularly took hikes into nature areas such as forests, ocean fronts,

and caves. Sandseter observed both schools for five weeks and conducted

qualitative interviews with eight children and seven preschool staff in relation to

what types of play they deemed ‘risky’. Results of this study were analyzed to find

codes that qualified the six categories for risky play. These codes consisted of: play

with great heights; play with high speed; play with dangerous tools; play near

dangerous elements; rough and tumble play; and play where children can get lost or

disappear. These six categories would influence all of the remaining research

Sandseter would conduct and set a precedent for other studies regarding risky play.

Discussing both the beneficial and hazardous outcomes involved with risk-taking

behavior is essential when covering this topic.

Potential Developmental Outcomes Associated with Risky Play

Potential developmental benefits young children might attain during risky

play are practicing and improving motor skills for developing strength and

endurance, exploring the environment, and enhancing spatial-orientation skills

(Sandseter & Kennair, 2011). Risk-taking behaviors may also augment social skills

amongst children such as peer group bargaining, social signaling, peer management,

and dominance skills within the peer group. Another likely benefit to this sort of

play is easing children’s anxiety toward dangerous elements and objects by

recognizing situational restraints and possibilities as well by providing them with

more direct experiences for learning. Play where children have the possibility to

disappear or get may also alleviate separation anxiety that exists when children are

first separated from a parent or care provider, thus promoting a sense of

independence. Conversely, dangers involved with these activities included children

hurting themselves or others in the process of falling, moving at high speeds, or

using dangerous tools. Rough-and-tumble play (RTB) carries with it the serious risk

of play fighting or wrestling becoming a real fight, which may result in extreme

aggression or injury. While many of these categories for risky play are unlikely to

occur in the United States, this particular category is utterly impossible to employ

due to regulations that children must be supervised at all times in a childcare

setting. Throughout this paper, topics such as these will be investigated further, but

for now it is essential when examining children’s development to include the facets

of a child’s age, gender, temperament, and emotional response relating to risky play

Age and Gender

Hiller and Morrongiello (1998) investigated age and gender in regard to

children’s appraisal of risk-taking opportunities. They examined whether children’s

beliefs about the likelihood of experiencing of an injury affected their appraisal of

risky situations. Results of their study determined that younger children were less

capable of judging risks in their play, and consequently possessed a greater threat of

suffering an injury. Another aspect of this study found that boys believed the

dangers of injury during risk-taking were less minimal than girls.

Temperament

A child’s temperament is relative to “individual differences in responses to

external stimuli and internal self-regulation”(Little, 2006, p. 148). Temperament

affects a child’s risk-taking behavior, as certain individuals are more prone to

engage or withdraw from potentially dangerous situations. Little has referred to

children that normally engage in risk-taking behaviors as sensation seekers. She

argues that particular children act as sensation seekers because they have an

optimistic bias towards their actions. An optimistic bias results in a child believing

that they are less likely than others to experience negative outcomes of their

actions. A child’s temperament often relates to their emotional response to certain

stimuli as well.

Emotional Responses During Risky Play

Sandseter (2009a) explored the notion of children’s emotional responses

pertaining to risky play. She contends that fear and exhilaration are the dominant

emotions when children are engaged in risky play. Sandseter concluded that

children demonstrated an innate urge to pursue the conflicting feelings of fear and

exhilaration through their acts of risky play. A child that is a sensation seeker

(Little, 2006) is more likely to show signs of exhilaration during risky play due to

their temperament. Sandseter (2009a) relegates fear as an “unpleasant outcome”

(p. 101) of risky play and determines that children are constantly straddling the

border between fear and exhilaration while engaged in risk-taking behavior.

Play Contexts for Children’s Risk Taking

Outdoor spaces offer children more opportunities to explore their

environment and engage in active physical play than indoor spaces (Little & Wyver,

2008). Outdoor play allows children to participate in a variety of gross motor

activities such as running, walking, jumping climbing, hopping, skipping and riding

bikes. Through this type of physical play children are enabled to refine their current

abilities and attempt and develop mastery over new skills. An ideal outdoor space

provides children with elements that enhance their physical, social, and cognitive

play, while allowing them a chance to engage with the natural world as well (Little &

Eager, 2010). Children require the space needed in an outdoor environment to

move feely and engage in open-ended experiences such as construction and pretend

play, not to mention peer interactions (Little & Wyver, 2008). Being that there is a

greater variety of challenging stimuli in an outdoor context, the opportunities for

risk-taking behaviors are also elevated (Sandseter, 2009b). There is diversity in

types of outdoor play contexts ranging from Early Childhood Education Centers

(ECEC), local park playgrounds, and the natural environment offered at outdoor-

based schools.

Playground Design and Safety Issues

An idyllic playground is one that offers children a variety of challenging risk-

taking opportunities while minimizing the hazards and potential dangers involved

with such play (Little & Eager, 2010). While risks offer young children the ability to

challenge their current skills, hazards, on the other hand, pose a threat of real

danger or serious injury. Little and Eager (2010) state that “an example of an

inappropriate risk or hazard would be one that is not clearly apparent to a child at

play such as head and neck or chest entrapment, or potential finger crush point”

(p.511). They argue that the removal of hazards from playgrounds will still allow

the children to participate in challenging and positive risk-taking opportunities.

They contend that a “hazard filter” (p.510) would enable playground designers to

promote physically and intellectually stimulating play features without

compromising the children’s safety. This is a critical point, as a lack of sufficient

challenges on a playground invites unnecessary risk-taking from young children,

thus increasing the likelihood of accidental injury. Subsequently, it is essential to

discuss the role of adults when examining risky play and concerns for children’s

safety.

Adult Effects on Children’s Risky Play

Presently, children are increasingly attending ECEC and Little, Wyver, and

Gibson (2011) state, “these services have a vital role in providing facilitative

environments where children can safely take the types of risks that enable them to

extend their current capabilities” (p. 116). Accordingly, it is early childcare

providers that must provide a safe and challenging play environment compromised

of positive risk-taking opportunities. Stephenson (2003) found in the New Zealand

preschools she studied that the amount of risky play permitted was dependent upon

the care provider’s attitudes regarding such play. Care providers who enjoyed being

outdoors had more of an interest in physical play, and generally were more tolerant

and supportive of children’s risk-taking behavior. Sandseter’s (2007) research

conducted in Norwegian preschools provided similar results. Staff in this study

recognized that they had a lower tolerance for risk than the children, yet they rarely

prevented risk-taking behavior solely because a child may suffer a minor injury.

These care providers believed that risk was a natural and inevitable aspect of

children’s learning.

Conversely, not all care providers have positive feelings towards children’s

risk-taking behaviors. Maynard (2007) examined the relationship between two

Welsh early care providers from a traditional preschool and two workers from the

Forest School, a nature-based enrichment center in Wales. Young children who visit

the Forest School interact with nature and experience unstructured play in a natural

environment. Maynard observed that the preschool staff and the Forest School

Workers frequently disagreed as how to respond to children’s risk-taking behavior.

The care providers viewed risk as negative and sought to regulate the children’s

actions to maintain the safety required for their school curriculum. On the other

hand, the Forest School Workers stressed the positive developmental benefits

gained from risky play, which they believed nurtured the children’s confidence,

independence, and self-esteem. These differences in opinion created a tension

between the care providers and the Forest School workers. A major contention of

risky play in early childhood settings is the safety regulations that care providers

must adhere to in order to maintain their practice and their programs.

Risky Play and Safety Regulations

Safety regulations have a tendency to impede early childcare provider’s

abilities to offer challenging experiences for children (Little, 2008). Little, Wyver,

and Gibson (2011) conducted qualitative interviews with sixteen (15 female, 1

male) Australian care providers to measure what they considered the benefits and

limitations to risk-taking behaviors in their ECEC. Results were varied, as eleven of

sixteen claimed that safety regulations both supported and constrained their

practice. While twelve (71%) of the care providers declared that the regulations

were necessary to guarantee at least minimal standards for safety, the same number

(n=12, 71%) believed the regulations to be “inflexible” (p.125) and restricted the

types of equipment and experiences they were able to provide for the children.

Many care providers (n=10, 59%) asserted that regardless of rules or regulations,

children would still find ways to take risks, for example, climbing trees and fences.

In addition to childcare workers’ required adherence to safety regulations, fear of

litigation or lawsuits is another factor that contributes to the reduction of risk-

taking opportunities in ECEC (Little, 2008). The threat of a lawsuit has potential to

bankrupt or close down many ECEC with legal fees and licensing requirements.

Although, Little (2008) adds:

Whilst restrictive safety measures may appear to ensure children’s safety in

the short term, the resultant impact on the quantity and quality of children’s

outdoor physical play is likely to contribute to other short and long term

negative outcomes (p.4).

Supervision of the children is vital factor while examining how adults are capable of

supporting children’s opportunities for risk-taking.

Adult Supervision in ECEC

Adequate levels of adult supervision ensure young children have

opportunities to take risks in a safe and supportive environment (Little, 2008). The

levels of supervision adults provide in ECEC dictates how children are able to

participate in risk-taking. ECEC with a high ratio of adults to children are able to

support children’s individual risk-taking behaviors, whereas an insufficient number

of adults determine low-level amounts of risks in which the children are able to

partake. Maynard and Waters (2007) asserted that care providers often did not take

children outdoors unless there was good weather, and rarely changed their

supervision tactics in the outdoor space that they employed indoors. They

commented that many care providers had limited opportunities to take children

outdoors because the buildings were not designed to allow the children “a free–flow

between the inside and the outside”, (Maynard & Waters, 2007, p.262). Supervision

is essential to maintaining safety in an environment with children. Sandseter

(2009a) comments that when children express physical or emotional fear during

episodes of risky play, the mere presence of a supportive adult enables that child to

solve their problems and move forward with their play.

Generally speaking, standard adult/child ratios in the United States are quite

high for preschool aged children. In some ECEC as many as twelve to fifteen

children are permitted in a class with one certified care provider and at times, an

aid. These ratios make it nearly impossible for care providers to ensure children’s

safety while offering a challenging environment for risky play. Therefore, in my

experience, care provider’s beliefs regarding risky play, safety regulations, and

adult/child ratios have the potential to severely limit opportunities for children to

engage in positive and challenging forms of play. In contrast, Helen Little (personal

communication, 2012) informed me that in Australia, pre-service care providers are

being trained to incorporate the ideas of risk and challenge into their own practice.

Little also conveyed that she is developing a research project that focuses on

teaching care providers to be more flexible and tolerant of children’s risk-taking,

along with benefits associated with risky play. Little commented that there are

several lecture series, presumably in Australia, that address this subject matter. My

response to Little was that I hoped they would visit the United States at some point.

While care providers are key players that influence children’s opportunities for

risky play, parental beliefs and concerns for safety also affect children’s risk-taking

behavior.

Parental Beliefs and Attitudes Towards Risky Play

Little (2010) addresses the role of parents by stating, “parental beliefs and

socialization practices not only impact children’s developmental outcomes but also

expectations for behaviors and participation in particular activities” (p. 325).

Preschool aged children are developing their appraisal and self-management skills,

as well gaining a sense of independence from their parents. Little administered an

Attitudes Toward Risk Questionnaire to twenty-seven Australian parents of

preschool children. The questionnaire was used to determine the parents’ personal

beliefs and attitudes towards risk-taking. Results showed that the majority (n=21,

87%) of the parents believed there were positive developmental benefits associated

with risk-taking. Conversely, eight parents (33%) recognized the negative

outcomes to risk-taking, while five parents (19%) spoke of risk-taking in

exclusively negative terms. Little adds that many parents (n=19) believed risk-

taking to be essential in order to enhance skill development and build confidence.

Little (2010) concludes, “parents beliefs about risk and safety are likely to influence

the extent to which children’s healthy positive risk–taking is encouraged” (p. 328).

Employing my filter for who is missing in this study, the absence of a male voice in

these interviews significantly affects the data. All twenty-six parents interviewed

were mothers, identifying that the results of this study were entirely from the

female perspective. In another study Little, Wyver, & Gibson (2011) specified that

males generally participate in more risk-taking, thus fathers have greater tolerance

for their children’s risk-taking behavior. Considering these factors, the lack of male

perspective in this study leaves many questions unanswered in regard to parental

beliefs and attitudes towards risky play.

Furthering Little’s 2010 research, Little, Wyver, and Gibson (2011)

conducted interviews with twenty-four Australian parents (23 mothers and1 father)

regarding their feelings for safety regulations in their child’s ECEC. Results of those

interviews determined the majority of the parents felt the current safety regulations

to be appropriate, or they simply made no comment about them. However, four

parents (17%) believed that the safety regulations were too stringent and were

bothered by the fact that their child’s ECEC had to complete an accident report for

each minor injury. She notes that there is often tension over differing beliefs

between care providers and parents regarding children’s physical risk-taking in an

outdoor space. This study represents a foundation for this type of research, yet the

views of these Australian care providers and parents most likely do not reflect those

of American care providers and parents. Consequently the following research was a

pilot study to discover how early educators in the United States perceive young

children’s risk-taking behavior in an Early Childhood Education Center.

Methods

In order to ascertain how American early educators weighed the

developmental potential with the hazards of risky play, five directors of ECEC in

Northern California were e-mailed a four-part questionnaire. Two of the

individuals chosen for this study were colleagues and fellow Master’s Students at

Sonoma State University, while I met another director at a local ECE meeting. The

remaining two participants were chosen due to previous research conducted on

different local ECEC in Sonoma County. Illustrating the variety of ECEC in the United

States, five diverse preschools were contacted which included; the federally funded

Head Start; a Montessori outdoor-based preschool; a small private program based in

a Presbyterian Church; a for-profit corporate childcare chain; and a small

independently owned preschool.

Each director was sent a questionnaire that consisted of four questions and

was asked to send back the results through e-mail. While developing these

questions, each individual’s personal and professional time constraints were

considered, therefore, the rationale for asking only four questions. Firstly, the

participants were asked about their general feelings toward children engaging in

risk-taking behaviors during their outdoor play. Secondly, the directors were

questioned about what opportunities their center provided for children to take

physical risks as well what types of risks they had observed. Thirdly, it was inquired

as to how safety regulations affected the types of activities that were provided in the

outdoor environment. Lastly, the directors were questioned about manner in which

adult beliefs regarding children’s safety influence the curriculum at their centers.

Through the use of these four questions, it was projected that the results of this

study might begin to illuminate how risk-taking behavior is perceived in ECEC

located in the United States. Additionally, this research may help to establish a basis

to determine what possible affects risky play may have on the curriculum used in

ECEC outdoor environments.

Results

Two of the five questionnaires that were distributed to local early educators,

were returned in the four-week period that was designated for responses.

Furthermore, the two individuals that replied to the four questions were my

colleagues and fellow Early Childhood Education Master’s Students at Sonoma State

University. Personal contact was made with both these individuals to ensure that

they had the time and interest to participate in this project. Therefore, the entirety

of the responses to these research questions was by means of graduate students

who hold positions as directors in ECE programs. While the participant from the

small independently owned preschool, replied once by way of apology for her

delayed response to the questions, this individual ultimately made no further

contact for this study. No response whatsoever was gathered from both the

Montessori and corporate childcare; consequently, the responses presented in this

text are derived from the perspective of Head Start and the private program situated

in a Presbyterian Church.

General Feelings Towards Risk-Taking Behaviors

When asked about her general feelings toward risk-taking in the private

program, the director stated that, “first I respond with the thought, ‘Is this too risky?

What is the potential for harm and injury?” (personal communication, 2013).

After first considering the potential for injury, this director commented that she

weighed the concern for harm with what the children may be learning and

experiencing while engaging in risky play. She explained that it was essential to

weigh the benefits with the costs of risk-taking behavior. She added that:

There have been times that I’ve talked to individual children about the

potential for falling or getting squashed by another child (in the type of play

they were engaged in). I’ve said that it really looks fun and might be worth it,

but it is their choice (personal communication, 2013).

Conversely, the director from Head Start responded to the first question by

listing several potential benefits that are associated with risk-taking behaviors.

Among those, she noted that these behaviors, “often build skill, increase

development, and build muscles”, as well as, “increase a child’s level of confidence

and competence” (personal Communication, 2013). In addition to these benefits,

the director cautioned that, “Children should not be put in a situation that they

couldn’t get themselves into on their own. (Like climbing)” (personal

communication, 2013). As far as risk-taking is concerned, she advised that teachers

should be in agreement over the outdoor rules at an ECEC, and each teacher should

be aware of what is and is not allowed in the outdoor environment. Commenting for

Head Start’s policies, this director remarked that the allowance of risk-taking

behaviors is dependent upon individual teachers and that, “Federal regulations do

not restrict or encourage this behavior, however Head Start is taking a stronger and

stronger stance on safe environments, i.e. no splinters on any surface” (personal

communication, 2013). She goes on to mention that her center recently removed all

scooters from the outdoor environment due to safety concerns.

Provisions for Outdoor Physical Risk-Taking

After being questioned about the opportunities for risky play in the private

preschool’s outdoor setting, the director indicated that her center brings in hay

bales for climbing and jumping each year in the autumn. She added, that at times

the hay bales are arranged in a maze or situated around an old tire tractor which

allows space for the children to jump from one bale to another. Additionally, the

director mentioned that this form of jumping occasionally results in the children

falling between the hay bales and they often participate in “dog piles on top of one

another” (personal communication, 2013). Moreover, she remarked that this type

of play was an example of what generated her warning to the children about falling

and getting squashed. In addition to the hay bales, the director noted that her

center has a tire swing for four year olds, a bike path that has potential for risk, as

well as a climbing play structure with bars.

Elements that give children an opportunity for risky play in local Head Start

centers are comprised of a tree for climbing in one location, tunnels, and slides that

the children have the ability to climb up. Illustrating that risk-taking is contingent

upon what age is being considered, this director commented that when working

with infants and toddlers, “even walking can be a risk!”(personal communication,

2013). She proceeded by explaining that the infants and toddlers that attend local

Head Start centers “are encouraged to move on their own, not placed in devices like

high chairs, etc. (personal communication, 2013). Concluding her response to this

question, the director stated that she believes more opportunities for risk-taking

could be offered at every site.

The Role of Safety Regulations

Safety is a fundamental concern for every program that serves young

children, yet safety regulations vary depending on each individual site. In my

experience as an early educator, safety regulations have regularly limited the types

of activities provided for children in an outdoor environment. After being asked

about this circumstance, the director from the private school stated safety

regulations affect the outdoor curriculum “more than I would like” (personal

communication, 2013). She proceeded by describing that her facility serves three

year olds two days a week and 4-5 year olds three mornings and four afternoons a

week. Taking this into consideration, the director explained, “Our preschool has

sought to add to our playground equipment several times to have more challenging

activities for the older children. However safety regulations really limit what we can

have since we serve three year olds on this same playground” (personal

communication, 2013). While the director for Head Start expanded on this notion

by stating that these matters were “mostly environment related. A safe

environment can be a ‘yes’ environment” (personal communication, 2013).

The Influence of Adult Beliefs Toward Risk-Taking

Responding to how adult beliefs toward risky play might influence the

outdoor curriculum at her center, the private preschool director responded by

saying, “I really appreciate working with a team because it causes us to dialogue and

debate topics like this one” (personal communication, 2013). Furthermore, she

explained that each employee at her center comes from a different background and

have different experiences, “yet we all care about children’s development and their

safety” (personal communication, 2013). She demonstrated these contrasting

experiences and backgrounds by giving an example of “one staff member has four

grown boys, while the other has an only daughter. Their experiences contribute to

the safety curriculum in varying ways” (personal communication, 2013). Moreover,

this director mentioned that at times she has discussions with parents on this topic

but it has not had a negative effect on the curriculum. On the other hand the

director from Head Start pointed out that adult beliefs are the key to understanding

what limitations exist in an outdoor curriculum. She expounded on this view by

noting that “adults are often uncomfortable with the children taking risks, working

out their own disputes, or being uncomfortable in any way” (personal

communication, 2013). Results from these two directors illustrate the varying

degree in which risky play is perceived in early education and beyond.

Discussion

While there was disappointment in the amount of questionnaires returned

for this study, any data collected on this subject is valuable being that this is pilot

study for this type of research in the United States. Again, the two questionnaires

that were obtained came from the view of ECE graduate students with many years

of experience in the field. Due to this, these two individuals do not necessarily

represent the typical ECE care provider in the United States. Therefore the data

from this study is only able capture a small glimpse into this controversial and

rarely discussed topic. It is difficult to determine if there would have been any

response to the e-mails, without already having a personal relationship with two of

the participants. Perhaps this is a reflection upon the enormous workload that

ECEC take on each day that leaves care providers with little or no time to respond to

questions from a research study where they have no professional or personal

connection. On the other hand, the lack of response to this study may reveal a

general absence of interest within the ECE field devoted to research regarding risk-

taking or physical play. In my experience, indoor activities that serve the children’s

social and emotional development are the prevailing aspects of a modern early

education curriculum, with outdoor play opportunities often viewed as secondary.

Furthermore, these results do help to illuminate some of the issues that concern

early education programs, including the lack of physical outdoor space, varying

regulations for different age groups who share an outdoor environment, and how

the beliefs and attitudes of adults influence the outdoor curriculum. Though the

concerns that afflict ECEC and the opportunities for risk-taking behaviors remain

quite complex in the United States.

Previously, I discussed how adult to child ratios hamper care providers’

abilities to afford risk-taking in early childhood settings, yet this goes beyond mere

numbers. Little (2008) refers to western culture as “increasingly risk averse” (p .1)

and therefore over-protective and restrictive policies towards risky play have been

enforced. While searching the National Resource Center for Health and Safety in

Child Care and Early Education (2012) for physical risk-taking in an outdoor setting,

identified risks such as suffocation with blankets, sun and weather exposure, and

injury, dehydration, and disease prevention, all had negative implications.

Additionally, it is imperative to recognize how media in the United States influences

parents and care providers alike. A recent article on Yahoo News entitled “Danger

on the Playground: Riding the Slide with Your Toddler in your Lap Could Break Her

Leg” (2012) is an example of the American media’s outlook toward risky play on

playgrounds. Rather than highlighting a doctor’s recommendation for children to

play independently on age-appropriate equipment, the article emphasizes the

dangers present on the playground. However, there is a new voice advocating

against the surplus safety (Little, 2008) that exists in many of this country’s ECEC

and local playgrounds.

Ellen Sandseter’s work has been featured in a Yahoo News article entitled,

“Have Playgrounds Become Too Safe For Kids?” (2011). While the article informs

readers that many schools have banned games of tag and touch football for recess

activities, Sandseter expounds the virtue of risk-taking. She commented:

Children need to encounter risks and overcome fears on the playground.

Children approach thrills and risks in a progressive manner, and very few

children would try to climb to the highest point the first time they climb.

The best thing to do is to let children encounter these challenges from an

early age, and they will then progressively learn to master them through

their play over the years. (as found in Alphonse, 2011, p.1).

Furthermore, the article cites that most schools are eliminating any risks in the

schoolyard no matter how minor the risk. Sandseter responds, “paradoxically, we

posit that our fear of children being harmed by mostly harmless injuries may result

in more fearful children and increased levels of psychopathology”(as found in

Alphonse 2011 p. 1). Sandseter seeks to inform the United States public of the

benefits of risk-taking in early childhood, yet whether her message is being received

still remains unclear.

During my career, the majority of care providers I have worked with possess

a risk-averse attitude towards children’s play. Most care providers fear for the

children’s safety as well as their jobs, should the children sustain an injury. Safety

regulations and school rules have also contributed the minimization of risk in the

ECEC where I have been employed. I contacted Ellen Sandseter via email regarding

the issues I am experiencing in my current position at the Sonoma State Children’s

School. California State Licensing visited the Children’s School and noted that

children running barefoot on dirt, climbing rocks and jumping from certain heights

were all potential hazards in the outdoor play space. Sandseter responded by

saying this was “really sad,” and commented further that in Norway the

kindergarten curriculum states that ”children have a right to meet challenges in play

and that a large part of their play in kindergarten should be out in diverse and

challenging nature environments” (personal communication, 2012). She inquired as

to how care providers are able to provide opportunities for risks and thrills

designed for children in the United States. Unfortunately, after discussing this

notion with a few colleagues, we all concurred the word “thrill” is never associated

with any of the early childcare programs we have been connected with, since the

term “risk” typically carries a negative connotation. Sandseter informed me that she

was unfamiliar with the situation in the United States and hopes there is more

research of this nature conducted in this country. Fortunately, Bernard Spiegal

lectured in San Francisco on May 1st, 2013 about the British perspective on the

rewarding risks of outdoor play. Spiegal is the co-author of Managing Risk in Play

Provision: Implementation Guide, a book that has reintroduced the concept of risk-

benefit assessment for children in the United Kingdom (Ball, Gill, & Speigal, 2008).

This lecture in conjunction with the progress of educational research and the

studies conducted by Helen Little and Ellen Sandseter will hopefully have large

implications for providing young children with challenges and risks in outdoor

environments throughout the United States.

Conclusion

Play is an essential manner in which children learn and develop new skills

and concepts. Lesley Koplow (2007) adds that through play, “children activate

synapses in their brains that allow them to think in increasingly sophisticated ways,

thus improving their potential as learners” (p. 97). Children naturally seek out

forms of challenging risk-taking during their play (Sandseter, 2007). Through risky

play children gain the ability to assess risk, establish independence, socially

negotiate, solve problems, and advance their current capabilities (Sandseter &

Kennair, 2011). In order for young children to attain these developmental benefits,

they must be provided with a challenging environment and supportive care

providers to ensure their safety and learning opportunities are not compromised.

Throughout this paper, arguments have been presented against risk-taking

opportunities in early childhood. Children sustaining a major injury, adherence to

safety regulations, and the cost of play equipment are among many of the

constraints to the provision of risk-taking in an outdoor play space. While the

majority of research conducted on risky play has taken place outside of the United

States, there are individuals in this country who advocate for opportunities for risk–

taking in early childhood. Bev Bos (2010) is the founder of Roseville Community

Preschool and while she maintains that safety regulations may limit her practice,

she has created “an illusion of risk” at her center. In essence, the children feel as

though they are taking physical risks while there is no actual danger present.

Perhaps this is a method for care providers in the United States to find the balance

between providing a challenging environment for young children without violating

any safety regulations. Furthermore, utilizing this school as a model, as well as

other schools with similar philosophies, there is potential to create new

perspectives about risk-taking in Early Childhood Education.

References

Alphonse, L.M. (7/20/2011). Have Playgrounds Become Too Safe For Kids? Yahoo Shine. Retrieved from shine.yahoo.com/have-playgrounds-become-too-safe-for-kids-2513862.html.

Alphonse, L.M. (4/25/2012). Danger on the Playground: Riding the Slide with Your Toddler in Your Lap Could Break Her Leg. Yahoo Shine. Retrieved from Shine.yahoo.com/danger-playground-riding-slide-toddler-lap-couldBreak-183100453.html.

Ball, D.J. (2002). Playground – Risks, benefits, and choices. (Contract research report No. 426/2002). London: Middlesex University,http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/crr_pdf/2002/err02426.pdf.

Ball D., Gill, T. & Spiegler, B. (2008). Managing Risk in Play Provision: Implementation Guide. DCSF Publications, Nottingham, UK.

Boss, B. (2010). Play Places in Learning. Starting at Square One (DVD).Retrieved from: http//www.turnthepage.com.

Head Start Director. Personal Communication via e-mail March 16, 2013

Hiller, L.M. & Morrongiello, B. A. (1998). Age and Gender differences in School-Age Children’s appraisal of Risk. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 23 p. 229-238.

Koplow, L. (2007). Unsmiling Faces, How Preschools Can Heal; 2nd Edition. Teachers’ College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Little, H. (2006). Children’s risk-taking behavior: Implications for early childhood policy and practice. International Journal of Early Years Education, 14(2) p.141-154.

Little, H. (2008, August). Finding the balance: Early Childhood practitioner’s views on risk, challenge, and safety in outdoor play settings. Invited workshop presentation at Queensland Children’s Activities Network annual conference. Brisbane, Australia.

Little, H. (2010). Relationships between Parents’ Beliefs and their Responses toChildren’s Risk-Taking Behaviour During Outdoor Play. Journal of EarlyChildhood Research, 8(3) p. 315-30.

Little, H. Personal communication via e-mail, November 18, 2012.

Little, H. & Eager, D. (2010). Risk, challenge, and safety: implications for playquality and playground design. Europena Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 18(4) p. 497-513.

Little, H. & Wyver, S. (2008). Outdoor Play: Does avoiding the risks reduce the benefits. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 33(2) p. 33-39.

Little, H., Wyver, S. & Gibson, F. (2011). The Influence of Play Context and Adult Attitudes on Young Children’s Physical Risk-Taking During Outdoor Play.European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 19(1).

.National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care and Early

Education. (2012). Standard 3.1,3.2, Playing Outdoors. http:www.Healthy childcare.org/pdf/SIDStummytime.pdf.

Maynard, T. (2007). Encounters with the Forest School and Foucault: A RiskyBusiness? Educational Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35(4), p.379-91.

Maynard, T. & Waters J. (2007). Learning in the Outdoor Environment: A MissedOpportunity? Early Years, 27(3) p. 255-65.

Private Preschool Director. Personal Communication via e-mail March 21, 2013.

Sandseter, E.B.H. (2007). Categorising Risky Play- How Can We Identify Risk-Taking in Children’s Play? European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 15(2).

Sandseter, E.B.H. (2009a). Children’s Expressions of Exhilaration and Fear in Risky Play. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 10.

Sandseter, E.B.H. (2009b). Affordances for Risky Play in Preschool: The Importance of Features in the Play Environment. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36.

Sandseter, E.B.H. Personal communication via e-mail November 18, 2012

Sandseter, E.B.H. & Kennair, L.E.O. (2011). Children’s Risky Play from an Evolutionary Perspective: The Anti-Phobic Effects of ThrillingExperiences. Evolutionary Psychology, 9(2) p. 257-284.

.Stephenson, A. (2003). Physical Risk-taking: Dangerous or Endangered? Early Years, 23(1) p.35-43.