Considerations for Risky Play 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

while considering such factors as developmental benefits, play environments, adult

effects on play, and children’ safety. Throughout this paper I will use three filters:

when comparing groups make sure they are comparable, who is being left out of the

study, and if a situation is alleged, ask so what.

A Brief History of Risky Play Research

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 dis-benefits. For example, he evaluated

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

the dis-benefits associated with children’s risk-taking were 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?

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. As an

experienced early childcare provider working in the United States, I have found this

issue is rarely discussed in the field of Early Childhood Education, yet remains

controversial nonetheless. There have been numerous times in my professional

experience where I limited children’s opportunities for positive risk-taking due to

school policy, safety regulations, or parental concern. Striking a balance between a

challenging environment that provides children with developmentally appropriate

risk-taking opportunities and sustaining a high degree of safety is one my optimal

future goals as a care provider. One of the aims of this paper is to describe the types

of risky play that exist while observing the potential developmental gains that occur

through this type of play.

Categories for Risky Play

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 her study 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. Consequently, Sandseter claims these factors were vital in the selection

of schools as they offered “information-rich cases” (p. 240) for sampling.

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; paly near dangerous

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

In the course of determining these categories, Sandseter neglects to mention a

category for children with physical or cognitive limitations. Subsequently, this does

not satisfy my filter for who is missing, as the absence of certain children from this

study disregard a growing population of young children with special needs. The

following sections further investigate the six categories while discussing some of the

hazards and positive developmental outcomes of each.

Play with Great Heights

Gathered from Sandseter’s (2007) observations, climbing was the most

recorded form risky play, as children climbed trees, big rocks, hillsides, playground

climbers, or steep slopes. Children were also observed jumping from high places,

hanging or dangling, and balancing from great heights. Dangers involved with these

activities included children hurting themselves or others in the process of falling.

Potential benefits from this type of play are practicing and improving motor skills

for developing strength and endurance, exploring the environment, and enhancing

spatial-orientation skills (Sandseter & Kennair, 2011). Another possible attribute of

playing with great heights and experiencing falls is the familiarization with the

experience of climbing to new heights, which may help children cope with a fear of

heights in their adult lives.

Play with High Speed

Examples of play with high speeds are riding a bike, running, and sliding

down hills at uncontrolled speed (Sandseter, 2007). Additional forms of this play are

swinging on rope, tire or traditional swings, as well as the action of standing or

jumping off the swings. Particular hazards of these activities include crashing or

falling and inducing injury to oneself, others, or property. Prospective benefits of

play with high speed include increased depth perception and spatial abilities in

conjunction with enhanced physical and motor skills (Sandseter & Kennair, 2011).

Rough-and-Tumble Play

This common form of risky play observes children fighting, wrestling,

chasing, and fencing with sticks (Sandseter, 2007). 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. Fencing with sticks requires the

same precaution, and introduces additional risk due to the involvement of weapons

for the children to potentially use against one another. On the other hand, RTB

engages the children in a great deal of motor and physical stimulation (Sandseter &

Kennair, 2011). RTB may also augment social skills amongst the children such as

peer group bargaining, social signaling, peer management, and dominance skills

within the peer group.

Play Near Dangerous Elements

Dangerous elements in this category encompass such natural features as

deep water, steep hillsides or cliffs, and fire (Sandseter & Kennair, 2011). While

adults may perceive these elements as risky, children are often too engrossed in

their play to be aware of such dangers. Therefore, this type of risky play brings

forth the potential for serious injury, yet it also enables children to explore their

environment and recognize its restraints and possibilities. Another likely benefit to

this sort of play is easing children’s anxiety towards these elements by providing

them with more direct experiences for learning.

Play with Dangerous Tools

Unlike play near dangerous elements, Sandseter (2007) claims that children

are “in deep concentration” (p.246) when engaged with dangerous tools. Tools

considered dangerous in the children’s play space were knives for whittling,

hammers with nails, saws for cutting, and even the use of axes for chopping. While

the risks of these activities are apparent, the children have opportunities to learn

about the properties of these objects along with their uses and possible dangers.

Through use of these tools, children are able to utilize their fine and gross motor

skills as well as their cognitive abilities for concentration and hand-eye coordination

(Sandseter & Kennair, 2011).

Play where Children can “Disappear”/ Get Lost

A unique category of risky play, disappearing or getting lost, involves the

children wandering alone without supervision into unknown areas (Sandseter,

2007). Within her study, the schools Sandseter observed facilitated activities in

areas with no fences, allowing for this type of play to occur. For the sake of

exploration, children were permitted to walk into a forest without any preschool

staff present. Exploration is a vital aspect of children’s play and often enhances their

depth-, form-, size-, and movement perception (Sandseter & Kennair, 2011). This

category of play may also alleviate separation anxiety that exists when children are

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

independence. While many of these categories for risky play are unlikely to occur

in the United Sates, 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. These results

alert my filter, as it is difficult to compare boys and girls due to socialization factors.

Parents often raise boys and girls with different standards and expectations,

possibly affecting the data of this study. Furthermore, results may have differed

depending on the location of this study. Here in Sonoma County, many girls and

boys are raised equally to be physically strong with the ability to take risks. When

discussing parents, it is important to recognize that different socialization factors

occur through same sex unions as well as with single parents.

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 analyzed video of

body gestures, facial expressions, and sounds exhibited by children during instances

of risky play in two Norwegian preschools. 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. While

the exploration of developmental outcomes for children’s risky play bears great

significance, it is equally vital to examine the contexts where this play takes place.

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.

Sandseter (2009b) examined the affordances for risky play in regard to the

features provided for children in outdoor spaces. Once more, she uses the ordinary

and nature schools for the setting of her research. Employing video recordings,

Sandseter utilizes her six categories for risky play to observe children’s. Twenty-

three of twenty-nine children from both schools were interviewed about outdoor

play and what they considered risks in their environment. Sandseter concluded that

the outdoor school with its natural features provided children with expanded

opportunities for risky play. She offers that the features of an outdoor environment

must be available for children if risk-taking opportunities are to be realized. There

are two reasons why the results from this study do not satisfy my filter for “so

what.” Firstly, the two preschools Sandseter uses are very similar when comparing

the outdoor contents. The ordinary preschool’s features are comparable to an

outdoor school in the United States, as it contains grassy hills, rock walls and trees

for climbing. Therefore, the results of this study, while possibly unique in Norway,

do not translate to American early childhood standards. Secondly, Sandseter

neglects to mention that many children from urban or even suburban areas lack

access to natural areas for play. Numerous urban and suburban preschools have

limited outdoor space, and consequently the affordances for risk-taking or a

challenging environment are restricted. Although it is ideal for children to have

opportunities to move freely in a natural outdoor environment, the majority of

children’s outdoor play takes place in Early Childhood Education Centers (ECEC) or

local park playgrounds (Little & Wyver, 2008).

Little and Eager (2010) conducted an Australian study to measure children’s

play choices in the outdoor spaces of ECEC and local park playgrounds. Thirty-eight

children ages 4-5 from six ECEC located in Sydney were selected for interviews and

naturalistic observations. During the interviews, children were shown pictures of

playground equipment to determine which features the children found the most

appealing. They were presented with one set of pictures that showed challenging

play equipment not normally found in community playgrounds in Australia, along

with traditional play equipment commonly featured on playgrounds. Observations

of the children were videotaped to verify what types of play equipment offered

children the most opportunities to engage in risky play. Results from the interviews

revealed that the majority of the children preferred more challenging play

equipment, which supports the notion that children naturally seek out more

challenging forms of play. Outcomes from the observations indicated that only low-

level risks were present at the park playgrounds, thus allowing children to master

their current skills, but giving little opportunity to attempt new challenges and

further develop their abilities. An argument against the provision of challenging

play features is the enormous expense of such equipment (Little, Wyver, & Gibson,

2011). Many community parks and ECEC do not have sufficient funding to purchase

new, more challenging play equipment. Therefore, regardless of children’s

preferences and developmental outcomes, much of the existing playground

equipment will remain intact. Another factor that limits the challenges and risky

play opportunities for children in an outdoor environment are required safety

regulations.

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 Sates 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.

Parent’s 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 parents most likely do not reflect those of many American

parents. In the following section, I will discuss how the lack of studies conducted in

the United States relating to risky play elicits many questions about how this type of

research might be replicated in this country.

Discussion

Throughout this paper, I have mentioned my experiences as an early

childcare provider and how working in the United States has affected many of the

opportunities I have been able to provide for the children. 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. For my extra criterion, 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. Examining this from an optimistic

viewpoint and with the progress of educational research, the studies conducted by

Helen Little and Ellen Sandseter will have larger implications for providing children

with challenges and risks in an outdoor environment.

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.

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

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 email, 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.

Sandseter, E.B.H. (2007a). 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 email 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.