According to the quote by John Shedd, “A ship in harbour is safe, but that is not what ships are built for.”
And this has me thinking about children, too. Are children meant to be safe-guarded at all times? Or, is risk-taking just a natural part of childhood?
This is a debate that, in one form or another, has taken place between many parents, educators, and really anyone responsible for the care of young children. In today’s culture, we often think about experiences for children as being either “safe” or “unsafe”—and those “unsafe” experiences are sometimes disregarded as completely “off-limits”.
But, what if in-between this polarized viewpoint of “completely safe” and “completely unsafe”, there is a middle-ground of healthy “risk”? And, what if— that middle-ground—is where children learn what they are truly capable of?
It is my hope that this article will help to:
- create a clear, concrete understanding of “what is risky play?”, and
- offer tools and insights that will help teaching teams, parents, and caregivers navigate disagreements and find mutual ground on this sometimes-contentious topic.
Unpacking the Concept of ‘Risk’ VS. ‘Danger’
Let’s begin by establishing a definition and understanding of what ‘risky play’ is and is not. We know that there is a difference between exposing children to ‘danger’ and dangerous situations—versus offering children opportunities to experiment with ‘risk’ and risky play experiences. But to get us started let’s clearly define these concepts to help us sort this all out.
What is 🔎‘Risk’🪜?
I like to think of the “risk” in “risky play” as: a play experience that presents the child with these two conditions:
1) the experience itself presents a chance of harm, which we can assess the likelihood of that harm transpiring on a sort-of “sliding scale” (low risk – high risk).
2) the experience of this risk can be advantageous and beneficial to the child, if successfully navigated/overcome
A concrete example of ‘risky play’ might be: Imagine a Preschool-aged child who wants to build a very tall tower. They build the tower as high as they can reach, and then enlist the help of a chair to go even higher. As the child steps up on the chair to continue building it up, there is a slight chance of harm (eg. they may fall off the chair). There is also a benefit to the child if they can maintain their balance and build the desired, tall tower (eg. developing balancing skills, honouring their imagination/creativity in continuing to build without restriction, and so on). In short, the experience presents some risk, but also offers benefits and opportunities to the child.
What is ⚠️‘Danger’🚧?
When a child is faced with ‘danger’ or ‘dangerous situations’ there is a reasonable expectation that harm will occur. If we were to imagine this on risk’s “sliding scale”, dangerous circumstances are considered to be on the very high-end, and present the child with significant risks to their health, well-being, and development.
A real-life example of this might be: Imagine a family parks their car in a busy, shopping mall parking lot. One child hops out of the car and shouts “I’m going to run like a race car to the store”. Clearly the child’s imagination is ignited, and they speed through the parking lot towards the mall doors. Trucks, SUVs, and cars are also frantically weaving throughout the parking lot looking for an open space. This situation presents a reasonable expectation that harm may occur, and that harm could be significant (eg. child collides with car). Even though the child wants to play-out their imagined fantasy of being a ‘fast car’, this is not a safe space to do so. In other words, the combination of: a very high level of risk and the reality that significant damages that may occur to the child’s health, well-being, and development—far outweighs the potential benefits of imaginative play in this moment.
Navigating Disagreements with Others in Supporting “Risky Play”
Assessing ‘risk’ and ‘danger’ can be somewhat subjective—it comes down to the individual’s perception of the situation to a degree. What one parent or educator might view as a ‘moderate risk’ with high reward/benefit to the child, another might view as a ‘high risk’, dangerous situation that is not worth the potential for harm. For example, if a child climbs a tall tree, one parent might view this situation as dangerous and harmful, while the other parent views it as a moderately risky with an array of benefits to the child.
So how do we navigate these differences? It starts with understanding each person’s perspective of the situation(s) and then making a plan that is mutually-satisfying.
I encourage parents, educators, and caregivers to:
- First: sit down and make a list of risky play situations that seem to bring about tension or disagreement. For each situation on this list, you will follow the next steps.
- Second: make use of this Infographic that I’ve created, to determine each person’s perspective of each situation(s). For example, if one of the situations is “when the children climb tall trees”, anchor yourselves in that example, and each of you will then point-out where on the sliding scale this situation lands (from your individual perspective). This is a really important step in understanding the other person’s interpretation of the situation and opens up the conversation for constructive dialogue and compromise.
- Third: After you’ve each indicated where that circumstance lands on the sliding scale, take some time to discuss and explain why you feel it lands in this position on the scale. Consider: potential risks, potential harm, potential benefits to the child, opportunities for growth, and so on (from both perspectives).
- Fourth: Brainstorm strategies, tools, and approaches that can offer a middle-ground to both parties. For example, if one parent assesses “climbing a tree” as a high-risk situation, and the other parent assesses it as moderately-risky, consider concrete ways to—perhaps still allow the child to have this rich play experience—but in a manner that feels safer for everyone. This might mean that the parents agree to stand at the base of the tree as the child climbs, just in case the child happens to fall. Or, it might mean that especially tall trees have a “high enough” branch, and the child understands not to climb past that point.
This fourth step can feel sort-of formal or ‘contractual’, but the reality is that sometimes getting really specific about what we agree-upon can actually open the door for more freedoms to take place. Because you’ve reached a middle-ground that is clearly understood and mutually agreeable to everyone, this offers a path forward as situations arise.
Some questions that might pop up:
What if both parties, upon assessing on the sliding-scale, determine a situation is high-risk/high-harm?
In this situation, I’d say trust your gut. If you both feel the situation is harmful to the child, and is not worth the risk—your probably right to consider this situation as one where very clear boundaries should be set for the child. This might be a “no-go” situation. I would add: In these circumstances, It’s really important to explain your reasoning to the child. This is a teachable moment about the very real dangers of the situation. For example, running in a busy parking lot is a “no-go” situation for obvious reasons, but even though those reasons might be obvious to us—doesn’t mean they are obvious to the child. Explain the dangers so they can become aware of them too. This explanation will also increase the likelihood that they adhere to the boundary.
What if we can’t agree on a “middle ground”?
If this occurs, bring in another perspective. A fresh perspective might have new ideas and strategies about what could be mutually-agreeable to both parties. I would also offer that one party might need to bend a bit more than another, in the beginning. At first, sometimes it’s about taking “baby steps”, because some situations might be deeply rooted in long-standing values, beliefs, or past experiences. Be patient and understanding—with yourself and others—in this process.
