I just listened to a TV news report about the Portland, Or. school district, they are removing playground equipment that we all grew up w/ and enjoyed. The list includes swings, teeter-toters, merry-go-rounds and, believe it or not, running, to include games of “tag”. They cite nationwide statistics showing the number of children’s injuries related to these devices and activities.
The report included a brief comment from an opponent of this action, who rebutted by pointing out the growing obesity of American children.
What do you think, are they being conscientious about protecting children, or are they being reactionary about potential lawsuits and shortsighted about the children’s physical development?
A lot of those ‘activities’ arent particularly active really - activity to injury wise its probably not a great tradeoff.
But if they’re not replacing them with alternative activity options in the same space then yes they’re being reactionary in my view.
Otara
The second. First, playing outside is far healthier than sitting around inside. Second, children are inherently at risk because they are small, ignorant, and human. Unless you put them in straitjackets in a rubber room, you can’t keep them perfectly safe, and that’s hardly good parenting. Sure, they need to be supervised to keep them from doing stupid things, but that’s how they learn.
Never giving them the chance to disobey the rules and maybe get hurt will only serve to produce clueless individuals who won’t know when the rules are important. That’s how kids learn and become functioning adults.
For that matter, what happens when they grow older and don’t have every moment constrained by rules ? You have the sort of kids who run wild, because they never learned any caution or self control, that’s what.
I have it on unimpeachable authority that 99% of children’s falls that result in injury are caused by the collision of the child with the ground. We need to lay three inches of soft rubber wherever a child might be go. That is the only answer.
I think I just read an article claiming that poorer kids were healthier than wealthy ones because they are exposed to more germs. (Or something like that.) All this coddling of our kids is insane—both the physical and emotional kind. They’ll grow up to be either self-important asses or strong competitors for the Darwin Awards.
Moderate exposure to germs is good, because it helps to build up the immune system. However, I don’t think you could isolate that from other factors of poverty, and I don;t think that poverty is good for the health in other ways.
I’ve taken part in the raising of four children. (The others who took part were my wife (their mother), and the friends and neioghbours around us). Believe me, they often learn from their mistakes – like the time one child was playing with gunpowder extracted from fireworks, burned part of the side of his face, and didn’t tell us afterwards (in spite of the pain) because he didn’t want to get into trouble. After getting him to a doctor, he finished up with very minor scarring, and a healthier respect for dangerous chemicals. On the whole, he’s better off: what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.
And what doesn’t make me stronger, kills me. I agree that the example in the OP is ridiculous, but I think that a reasonable element of regulation and restraint, especially when it comes to children, is essential. For example, playing with fireworks could easily kill a child, and if there were deaths associated with a particular piece of playground equipment (do they still have the beartrap as a preschool toy?) I think its reasonable to remove it.