This is more derived from the Lady Marjory Allen pedagogy (mentioned in the The Atlantic article as a distinct heritage from the kibbutz approach).
She got the idea from the Dutch skrammellegepladsen - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emdrup_Junk_Playground .
I recall watching a video from the mid-20th century about one of them, but can't find it.
For a recent US/NYC example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZxjZfpK8Qo .
For a more outdoors/forest approach in Denmark - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jkiij9dJfcw .
> "Who lets kids play with oleanders?"
I do? I have no idea what an oleander is (beyond "plant"), so don't know why they are a problem. :)
It's very bad to eat, though kids are unlikely to: put it in your mouth and you'll regret it instantly. They are more likely to touch it, because it's very pretty, and that can cause some serious skin problems. If you rub your eyes, it can be really bad.
If you plant oleanders, you wouldn't let kids play with it. But it is a hardy shrub, so you could easily move into a house with them and not know what they are. So the statement is still a little weird.
'Cause my upbringing was more like "this is poison ivy, three leaves bad, if you go in it you'll get itchy. Don't do it."
Which seems entirely reasonable to me.
So I also don't see what the point was with this oleander example.
Shrug. I do get the point of playing with "junk".
