‘Should school playgrounds be wrapped in cotton wool?’

What is the ‘growing culture of surplus safety’ doing to students in our schools?

A study has explored this issue by using focus groups to gather the responses of children from years K-12 about their perceptions of safety in the playground and physical activity participation during school breaks. The study, with the long winded title ‘Should Educators be ‘Wrapping School Playgrounds in Cotton Wool’ to Encourage Physical Activity? Exploring Primary and Secondary Students’ Voices from the School Playground’ (the Study), was published in the June 2015 edition of the Australian Journal of Teacher Education.

Schools are often targeted as the key setting to develop students’ physical activity standards with play breaks a major source of a school’s daily physical activity schedule.

In Australia, there is little regulation of school playgrounds. Although a school may have policies to mitigate the risk of negligence and injury in its playgrounds, there is, by and large, no top-down regulation of what schools must do in the playground. The various school registration standards of each State and Territory only make scant reference to the policies and procedures required to ensure a student’s safety.

What impact does playground safety have on children?

One of the main issues looked at by the Study was the emphasis on the physical protection of students, rather than potential mental and social impacts.  The Study examined the impact of the ‘adult culture of over-protection’ on children. It observed (referencing other literature) that:

• there is ‘a growing culture of ‘surplus safety’ which ‘reflects the desire of parents and teachers responsible for children to protect Australian school students from danger’;
• parents were often unaware that restricting play can have an adverse impact on a child’s mental health; and
• ‘students can lose confidence to be physically active via an adult culture of over-protection’.

Using a focus group methodology, the Study found the following:

Individual (intrapersonal) influences on children

• overcoming an element of danger or potential injury was mentioned as being important in participating in physical activity, eg,
  • ‘I really like jumping on those pillows, those might be a bit dangerous at school’;
  • ‘if you take the tackling out of football… that becomes boring’;
• preventing boredom was perceived to be important to reduce misbehaviour, eg,
  • ‘with a boring space… people get really mean and stuff’;
  • ‘if people are bored… people are going to break the rules and do what they want’.

Social (interpersonal) influences on children

• students perceived the threat of potential liability to teachers as ‘a key factor in a climate of ‘surplus safety’ within school playgrounds, eg,
  • ‘at school it is much safer [than parks]‘;
  • ‘your parents aren’t really concerned about your safety as much as the teachers’.
• bullying and territorial issues were the most influential factors reported in playgrounds and mixing year levels was problematic for safety, eg,
  • ‘all the year 12s take up all the space… and we don’t get to play’;
  • ‘I feel safe except for within the toilets [where bullying is prevalent]‘.

The influence of the physical environment on children

• adequate ‘playground space’ is necessary for students to be able to play freely without running into other students;
• different types of surfacing materials (such as foam or woodchips) allowed children to feel safe while they were physically active; and
• wearing personal protective equipment in the playground could be useful in reducing the safety responsibilities on teachers.

The influence of policy on children

• the organisation and policy considerations in a playground were important in making students feel safe, eg,
  • designated areas for different year groups; and
  • rules to ensure safety.

The Study contains many more examples of student responses.

The playground and teaching standards

The Study linked itself to the Australian Institution for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) standards. In particular, it sought to address the gaps relating to a teacher’s knowledge of:

• how students learn in the playground;
• how to create and maintain supportive and safe learning environments in the playground;
• planning for and implementing effective teaching and learning; and
• engaging professionally with colleagues, parents/carers and the community to provide a safe and supportive learning environment for students.

Although the Study set out to gauge the responses of students, it is apparent from the responses that the increasing trend towards removing all risks from a playground may in fact be counterproductive. Moreover, it is clear that risk taking is a necessary part of a child’s education.

The response of educators

The Sydney Morning Herald has written that ‘families and schools are taking out accident insurance’ to prevent ‘smashed teeth and other mishaps’. It writes that whilst State and Territory education departments do not cover medical costs (unless the school has been negligent), some non-government schools were taking out insurance that would cover medical costs.  The insurance is said to reduce costs for parents and reduce the need to enter into litigation.

One of the authors of the study is quoted in the article as saying that the trend of ‘surplus safety’ was worrying – it left kids bored, increased the chances of injury and increased the chance of bullying.

The Study makes it clear that an element of danger, to be overcome, is an important part of being physically active questioning whether the notion of ‘surplus safety’ is in the bests interests of the children.