Let kids hurt themselves
Posted by Trevor Mallard on January 10th, 2010
Kerre Woodham’s column in the HoS today promotes letting or even encouraging kids to take some risks.
Too often risk averse parents and schools wrap kids in cotton wool to the point where they don’t develop the power to judge risk and make their own decisions.
This entry was posted
on Sunday, January 10th, 2010 at 8:27 am and is filed under youth.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Bring back the merry go rounds!
Dear Amazed – I agree with you…………but,
The rest is deleted for being boring Trevor
” he said the reason young women drink so heavily these days is not to simply get pissed – but to put themselves in dangerous situations where they don’t know what will happen next.” – Er, I would question whether any young woman would want to put herself in a dangerous situation. I don’t think that’s it.
I think people drink to have fun, bond with people and let go of stress. But hey at least the man’s endorsing drinking!
Which would indicate that there was something seriously wrong with our society.
Why would people need to take drugs to have fun?
Why do they need drugs to bond with other people?
Why are our children so stressed?
We need trained physical education teachers in early childhood education and through the primary sector to expose children to risk and allow them to develop their motor skills to attain skillful movement. This is disciplined and hugely rewarding.
This involves climbing trees, running in long grass, flying over boxes, using missiles-javelin, wrestling with each other, swimming, skiing and all the rest of the wealth held in a well constructed physical education programme.
Drugs are just an additive to fun things to make them even more fun Draco
Anyway if we really want our children to make independent decisions and risks, then sure lets get our parents not to tell them what to do, but then can we please also take away any music, t.v shows or magazines that suggest to young people that taking drugs and risks is a GOOD thing?
Otherwise there is still a bias involved, its just going the other way.
@Draco – I was only writing that because I think that they are the reasons and not the wanting to be in danger.
Good questions, for some people it’s the stress of all the work that they have to do. For others it’s shyness. For others it’s the happy giggly feeling that they want to re-experience.
It’s definitely a social lubricant.
Not everyone drinks because they are stressed. As for why people are stressed. I don’t know. Modern living, family troubles, bad work places…
Yay alcohol.
@Vivienne
What you described is what its like at my local playcenter. This is one of the reasons why my two go.
I think Kindy’s are like this too.
People don’t need to take drugs to have fun nor do they need to take drugs to bond with other people, but they can do and should be able to freely without fear of violent action from the state.
Yay recreational drug use
Hell next Trevor will be advocating that a kid should be allowed to decide for him/her self whether or not to buy a pie from the school tuckshop after a sports game.
David I could make the obvious comment but I won’t.
pdm @ 9.20.
R.A.M.s were introduced into schools in the 90’s. A symptom of Tomorrow’s schools and “parent power”. They were apparently necessary because of the “laissez-faire” parents weren’t really laid back at all and were the first to beat a path to the principal’s door when their little Petunia or Sebastian got hurt in the playground… time wasted on litigating issues caused principal’s to collectively decide to remove these impediments to delivering the curriculum. Now just when do you want all this extra P.E., given that you have apparently demanded of “Professor Tolley Umbridge” that you want more of the 3 R’s
We also need to keep a really good no fault ACC scheme in case a kid such as in Kerre’s story gets paralysed after a misjudged jump from the cliff. They will need a life care package – medical treatment, family support, equipment, housing modifications, daily personal cares, transport, employment support, etc – worth millions of dollars.
David I could make the obvious comment but I won’t.
I wish you would Trevor cause it has passed me by.
I’m with Spud. I don’t think young women drink because they want to put themselves in dangerous situations. They drink to excess, and gamble that they won’t.
The current moral panic about young people isn’t a new thing. Every generation seems to thinks the younger one is off the rails. The review of the alcohol and driving laws has seen a frenzy of finger-pointing. The fact is fewer young people are killing themselves on the roads because of drinking. Fewer than when Trevor and I were teenagers.
The obvious comment for David in regards to sports and pies is that
Balance not necessary deleted Trevor
Lindsay is right,
Greek poets, “the father of Greek didactic poetry”, 700bc
“I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on the frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words. When I was a boy, we were taught to be discrete and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise and impatient of restraint.”
see: http://thinkexist.com/quotes/hesiod/
Trevor
Is this flip flop of policy from Labour recognition that their previous policy was wrong or is it just trying to look new to disillusioned voters ?
burt No policy change from me. In fact my actions with kids as a Minister involved pushing boundaries in a number of ways. Verbalised it several times.
I must admit Trevor, minor deletion to avoid threadjack Trevor it is hard to imagine you wanting to ban bullrush.
Trevor
Ridiculous. Is it too hard to delete any subsequent threadjacks that relevant reference starts rather than delete the point of the comment. [ self moderates sting of expletives ]
Thought the point was I didn’t ban bullrush. Then again you might have been trying to threadjack.
Oh the delicious irony of banning free speech on a post about reducing nanny states influence on schooling.
Trevor
Your views and Labour policies voted through the house look like two completely different things. You may not be having a policy flip flop but if you get your way in Labour then Labour most certainly will be doing a flip flop.
I’ll repeat the original question slightly differently.
Would a flip flop of policy from Labour be recognition that the previous party line policy was wrong or would it just be trying to look new to disillusioned voters?
expat if you get off from threadjacking do it somewhere else.
@Burt No flip flop from me. Tell me one bit of legislation that went through in education that for example discouraged bullrush or climbing trees. The trouble with you rabid right wingers is that your imaginations run well ahead of the facts.
A few related odds and sods come to mind, in the area of Health and Safety policy rather than education. And local government edicts. Requiring gym or swimming pool creche minders to have a professional child educator for example. Requiring a ‘dangerous’ tree-house to be removed. Requiring kids to remove a basketball hoop from a tree on public property. Requiring parental permission for children to leave kindergarten grounds just to go into a visiting display mobile parked meters away. Signs that warn children barbecues are hot. Secondary purpose-built fences around schools to prevent escape.
I don’t blame Trevor but the left tends to be dominated by women and they demand (and accept) much of the compulsory molly-coddling. However, if you don’t have children, just relying on media reports creates a picture that is unbalanced. My experience of schools mine have attended is that the kids are encouraged to challenge themselves. The cringing care and correctness that exists to varying degrees was more evident at pre-school stage.
I’m not going to take responsibility for local government poor interpretation of their own by laws.
And you are trying to tell me that the former PM was soft and molly-coddling. Certainly not my experience of her. And her own risk taking in mountains and cross country skiing pretty well documented.
Where were you for the last nine years?
I agree that relying on a few stupid examples is dangerous. Too many people do and that is why both in government and since I have taken opportunities to push boundaries back.
It could be worse.
Parents could have to supervise and watch their teenage children in the loo.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6982437.ece
Now that’s just degrading
Also, what does it teach teenagers if they aren’t even trusted with the simple task of toiletting? The thing that p****S me off about this is that these rules are being made by people who grew up without having to be supervised and who came to no harm as a result of this. This world is going to the dogs! 
Kids take risks everyday, well beyond what the law, and society think is acceptable. I didn’t think that this post deserved a comment but when the likes of David and burt started making it political I thought I’d set the record straight. Just go to Goff’s local highschool and you’ll get to see the risks that kids take with their lives everyday. Woodham obviously had nothing to write about so she went for the old “we’re all too soft” piece. This isn’t a political issue it’s cultural. No govt. can legislate social change. Get over it and move on to the next thing…..
I fully agree that we need to give kids the freedom to learn their boundaries, and that means that they will get hurt occasionally but that’s quite an OK thing to happen.
I have a 5 year old daughter and I think that I generally let her do reasonably dangerous stuff, while at the same time ensuring that if something does go wrong, the consequences aren’t too bad. Often it’s a subtle difference: don’t hold them while they climb the tree, but do be there to catch them in case they fall.
Trever are Balance deleted. I think this is a record. Life ban on first comment. I’m not sure if any blog would want you. Trevor
@ Jarbury:
Good point, this approach teaches risk assessment as well as fallback and disaster recovery.
But it does assume that there is a relationship of trust between parent and child.
Some political philosophies can work with notions such as ‘trust’ and ‘confidence’ between agents.
Whereas notions of ‘trust’ and ‘confidence’ fall outside of the political lexica of philosophies which set out from a position of objective rationality.
But then, what can we expect from a group of thinkers who can say that children are a form of ‘luxury good’?
I think that the our problem (given that this is after all a venue for political discussion) is to learn to recognise the ways that these positions manifest themselves in an increasingly complex and nuanced political mileau.
Unecessary. Go somewhere else if you have to be offensive. This is a warning. Clare
Have a month to think about it all. Trevor
Mmmm David Farrar
Balance deleted Make it three months Trevor
Who thought this would be such a contentious post??
I had a strange thought the other day when my kids were at the playground.
When we were kids we played on concrete or gravel or in nature. When we fell off the climbing frames it hurt, and we avoided pain. Now the kids get higher, jump further and push those boundaries because after a couple of falls on the rubber mats they realize they wont be hurt. The X sports skills have definitely improved over the years, but I wonder if the new generation are loosing their natural fears of injury (risk assessment), so take higher risks on skateboards or when driving??
Trevor,
No threadjacking occurred or was intended.
I broadly agree with you on your post and also with your assessment of some of the stupider replies however to suggest that I “get off” on threadjacking because I noted the irony of banning free speech on a thread related to reducing nanny state cotton wool in education is bizarre.
On the topic of cotton wooling our kids, the only way to reduce this effect is to start at the core, education guidelines and policies.
I suggest a good place to start would be the Forest School approach that was pioneered in Scandinavia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_schools
expat – every now and again we do a more general post to test reaction to Red Alert and the style people want. What comes through very clearly is that users want a much tighter moderation policy here than at Kiwiblog or The Standard. That includes staying on thread, language and tone. It means that lots of individuals who don’t feel safe on other blogs feel ok commenting here.
That is the end of the debate on moderation on this thread. All further off thread comments will be deleted.