There have been a number of threads recently where there has been a difference of opinion on the acceptable level of risk. Now, I always believed that what we did was offer activities that had a perception of risk, some where a calculated level of risk was involved, but that we generally mitigated the risk, whilst still leaving a perception of risk. Reading some posts it looks to me that some people have a desire to eliminate even the mere perception of risk. To remove self responsibility. If we remove all risk, how do kids learn? My mother made a point of not moving her ornaments etc. out of reach. Her view was that the kids had to learn not to touch what they shouldn;t touch. My grandfather used a fireguard to stopd embers from burning his carpet, and to keep prying hands out of the fire, as did my mother, as did we ( though embers from a gas fire were not an issue). But once the message was taught that fires were burney the fireguards were removed. There was an element of acceptable risk so that we would learn how to behave. Kids need to scratch themselves, fall off bikes, cut their fingers, even singe themselves. They will tear ligaments, break bones and such. It is part of growing up and whilst we must mitigate risk, we cannot, indeed must not remove all risk. If we eliminate all risk, all opportunities to learn, then we only teach by rote and order. Not by experience. Or am I really outmoded? Should I invest in a cotton wool manufacturer and watch their share prices rise?
Posted on: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:23:04 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015