Daniel makes stuff, and, in his spare time, writes about things like movies, kid culture, and geek stuff.
"Strange Stuff in the Microwave"

Lordy, this is such a fun book. (Have you bought it yet?)

Feb 03, 2010 :: Tagged under: , , , :: #

Banning "50 Dangerous Things" from Victoria, Australia?

That’s (roughly) what one Australian child psychologist wants to do to Gever Tulley’s new book, citing that it was a “massive over-reaction” to cotton-wool parenting.

Huh.

Not to particularly dwell on the controversy around books like “50 Dangerous Things” and “Free-Range Kids,” but if I were a kid and/or parent and saw that either book was being prevented from being sold in the area, I’d launch a counter-smuggling operation and sell the books out of my garage if I had to. Nothing vindicates a book quite like others wanting to ban it.

Feb 02, 2010 :: Tagged under: , :: #

What Really is Dangerous?: 'Dangerism' and Risk

By Daniel Bigler :: Saturday January 23, 2010

Gever Tulley, founder of the Tinkering School and author of the recently-released book “Fifty Dangerous Things (You Should Let Your Children Do)” discusses why he was led to coin a new word for the process of deciding what truly is and isn’t dangerous for kids:

I have had a lot of discussions with parents about which risky activities they will and won’t let their children participate in, and the differences are often striking. Just as there is no necessarily rational basis for choosing which animals are eaten, there appears to be no rational basis for deciding what activities are acceptable for children. […]

So, I propose the term “dangerism” to describe how a culture decides what is and isn’t dangerous. The sources of dangerism can be traced to both personal and social sources. Our individual perception of risk is based on a combination of personal experiences and family history. The cultural aspects of dangerism are probably best described by anthropologists, but the popular news media certainly plays a part in creating exaggerated portrayals of risk.

The point of it all is that ‘Risk’ is relative – and real risk, the kind that will actually, statistically stand a good chance of hurting you, is limited.

I’m reminded of Tim Gill’s work on risk aversion in society: as he finds, a little controlled, manageable risk is in fact a desirable thing in society. There’s nothing to be gained from completely avoiding risk, since not only can we never completely control or avoid risk, but we react far more dangerously to risky situations when we’ve not been exposed to milder forms of more “acceptable risk” and learned to handle it appropriately. For many cultures, this need for acceptable risk exposure is necessary for their very survival; for instance, in one of Gever’s examples, Inuit children begin to use knives at a very early age – a “risky” proposition by many modern mainstream American notions – but the same children also might later need to depend on using those knives knives skilfully if they come into actual dangerous circumstances, like confronting a wild animal in the woods alone.

So how can we really reconcile risk, and know what is acceptable risk? Gever concludes with this: “We must assess the risks, weigh the benefits, know the child, and know ourselves – then we just have to try to make the best decision we can.”

It’s a nice way of summarising the ‘Risk vs. Benefits’ weighing process, I think – even if it sounds deceptively simple. Here in the UK, playworkers – the adult staff present in our many Adventure Playgrounds – ask a similar question of themselves, as part of one of the guiding principles of their work:

Is the good this child or children will gain from this experience stronger than the likelihood of their coming to serious harm?

When it comes right down to it, if we hone our perspectives well enough, we can quite easily develop a pragmatic but respectful perspective on risk assessment. Consider this matrix from London Play, that is sometimes distributed to playworkers and providers. (Please bear in mind that, since Adventure Playgrounds in the UK are typically publicly funded services, playground management are legally required to do such risk assessment. The allowances within risk assessment would probably be different in more personal or family-based, non-public situations.) The matrix analyses activities seen as “potentially risky” for these criteria:

  • Possible Hazard or Problem
  • Possible Result or Outcome – worst case scenario
  • Likelihood – risk assess for different age/ability groups
  • Is Risk Apparent and Controllable to children participating?
  • Reasonable and Practical Steps available to avoid or reduce problem
  • Value of Allowing Activity

There are probably certainly other considerations you might take into account, such as modifications that can be made to negate some of the more dangerous aspects of an activity, while retaining most of that activity’s core value. All of this might be a bit too formal and impersonal an approach to risk-benefit analysis in everyday life, but I think there’s a lot we can still learn from there.

Further, if you’re interested in all of this, you might also appreciate Play Wales’s guide to risk and Play England’s brief on managing risk.

Tagged under: , , , :: #




Dangerous Things (Parents Should Let Their Kids Do)

This is why I absolutely love Gever Tulley – he says things like this:

“Driving a car is an empowering act for a young child. It gives them a handle on the world in a way that they don’t often have access to.”

And how true that is. Everything we thought was bad or ‘dangerous’ for kids can be looked at in a positive light, like driving a car or climbing a tree. It’s all a matter of asking “Why shouldn’t a kid try this?” It’s about approaching childhood experiences positively instead of fearfully – recognising that whatever kids do, there’s often an underlying need there to do it, or some sort of unmet sense of fulfilment that comes from it. For instance, why shouldn’t kids throw rocks? As Tulley says, “Children need to practice throwing things because it activates the frontal and parietal lobes of the brain, which help with visual acuity, 3-D understanding, reasoning and structural problem-solving.” It makes sense to kids, but adults have talked them out of it. We need to let them kids experience these ‘dangerous’ things again – we need to see that there’s something behind them, something meaningful that’s worth exploring.

And that, my friends, is what I love about Gever.

If you haven’t seen Gever’s TED Talks before, you certainly owe it to yourself. He succinctly captures so much about the needs of childhood and the origins of creativity. This interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, where he chats about his new book, is pretty great too.

Jan 14, 2010 :: Tagged under: , , :: #

Assimilation of Change

A few weeks ago, I was trying to figure out what was bugging me about all of the talk around President Obama’s recent education reform efforts.

As others have said, “Everybody calls themselves a reformer.” But what really is “reform”? We’ve seen too many hyped, large-scale efforts that have fallen flat to know that that isn’t reform. And we’ve seen some very inspirational work being done on the ground, in individual classrooms and schools, but some would question whether that’s reform if it’s impact doesn’t extend any further.

The question is, how to marry the two. It’s this friction, between the macro-level structures that often can be seen as “getting in the way” (despite their overall necessity) and the micro-level work within classrooms, that has often been what’s stopped well-meaning “education reform” from taking place. And I believe it’s this relationship we’ll have to understand if we want anything good to actually happen.

Gever Tulley, founder of The Tinkering School, recently highlighted one aspect of this macro-micro relationship that I think is fundamental:

The rate at which an education system assimilates change is inversely proportional to the level of hierarchy. Students will always be threatening the stability of the system by introducing technologies and behaviors to the classroom long before the administration is prepared for it.

Give a kid the opportunity to explore and learn about something they want to learn about, and the speed at which they’ll do so is breathtaking. Good teachers know how to inspire and capitalise on this motivation, and great teachers can pull it off with all 20 or 30 kids in their class.

There’s no way an education administration can keep up with that. There’s no hope at all that they can develop suitable measures, tests, and structures fast enough, that will do justice to the children themselves or to the future they’ll live in. Most administrations are instead just trying to feign stability, and try to maintain the status quo for however long they can.

I think real reform will mean putting aside efforts that either emphasise macro-level fixes or disregard them completely for micro-level change. The trick will be to marry the two, making them as aligned, complementary, and frictionless as possible.

If you’re a person at the top, this would mean to empower the people at the bottom and make it as simple as possible for them to do what is best. If you’re a person at the bottom, this would mean to recognise the well-meaning intentions of the people at the top and let them know what it’s really like in your classroom, what your kids really need, and how they can help.

It’s this macro-micro relationship that will need all the work. I think we’re lucky to have a President who understands this relationship well (having worked many years as a community organiser at the bottom), but it will take everybody involved to be vividly aware of and respectful of this relationship – its shortcomings, potential, and the responsibilities it bears – for meaningful change to happen.

Nov 24, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , :: #

Life Lessons Through Tinkering

Speaking of the benefits of boredom, Merlin Silk recently reminded me of an old TED Talk that Gever Tulley gave a few years back. Tulley titled his talk “5 Dangerous Things You Should Let Your Kid Do,” and it was about exactly that: Tulley shared experiences like building and tearing things apart, playing with fire and using pocket knives, and experimenting and tinkering – experiences that are crucial to children developing aptitude and their own self-competency.

Certainly not welcome things in our risk- and mistake-averse society – but Tulley’s message is made all the more compelling by the fact that he works with actual kids to build, make, deconstruct, and tinker during a week-long, not-your-usual summer camp he founded, called “The Tinkering School”. It’s a place, as he says, where “kids can pick up sticks and hammers and other dangerous objects, and be trusted. Trusted not to hurt themselves, and trusted not to hurt others.”

That there is no more convincing evidence in support of his message than the sight of actual kids in action – building, creating, experimenting – is I think the way it should be, and it’s something Tulley is able to share beautifully.

Now Tulley is back with another talk, discussing life lessons learned through tinkering. It’s another fine – and truly captivating – look at the creative processes of children, and the unimaginable possibilities that emerge when they’re given the time and permission to tinker.

I hope you enjoy it.

Jul 08, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , , , , :: #