> Risikoförderung, das heißt die Aneignung von Risikokompetenz, ist ein zentraler Baustein der Sicherheitsförderung, auch in der frühen Bildung. Wenn man möchte, dass Kinder lernen, sich sicher zu verhalten, müssen sie lernen mit Risiken umzugehen. Ohne Risiko keine Sicherheit. Das Zulassen von Risiken und Wagnissen gehört ebenso zu einer kindgerechten Sicherheitsförderung wie das Reglementieren und Verbieten. Es ist deshalb insbesondere in der frühen Bildung erforderlich, den Kindern Risiken, zum Beispiel im Rahmen der Bewegungsförderung, anzubieten, die sie grundsätzlich mit Hilfe ihrer Kompetenzen bewältigen können (Abbildung 1). Die Einbeziehung von Risiken und Wagnissen darf aber nicht dazu führen, dass Verletzungen der Kinder in Kauf genommen werden.
deepl'ed: > Risk promotion, i.e. the acquisition of risk competence, is a central component of safety promotion, also in early education. If you want children to learn how to behave safely, they have to learn how to deal with risks. Without risk, there is no safety. Allowing risks and hazards is just as much a part of child-centered safety promotion as regulating and prohibiting them. It is therefore necessary, especially in early education, to offer children risks, for example in the context of physical activity promotion, which they can basically master with the help of their competencies (Figure 1). The inclusion of risks and hazards must not, however, lead to the acceptance of injuries to the children.
the blogger understood "Insurance companies demand!".
Ah, nice trope in the making.
[1] https://publikationen.dguv.de/widgets/pdf/download/article/1...
"for example in the context of physical activity promotion, which they can basically master with the help of their competencies "
This agrees with my personal experience of having three children attend kindergarten in a very small town in Norway. At the end of the winter the playground looked like the Somme but the children (both boys and girls) were still playing in it; thundering around on trikes, climbing, and falling off, various bits of equipment, having the time of their lives.
I also called the city to report a loose screw at a playground once. The first question was "where?" and the second was "danger of injury?". I don't remember the exact wording, but it was clear to me that someone would be sent PDQ if there was, and it might wait a few days it not. I'd guess the author of the first paragraph might be thinking about maintenance etc., not about whether to build tall structure at all.
This one, BTW: https://www.spielplatztreff.de/spielplatz/achentalstrasse-pi...
There was never any real stage of "crawling" on hands/knees. Unless it was so brief I missed it.
Some parents definitely think I am too lax, from the reactions I see at a playground when our one year old has climbed to a height of 6 feet…
I am strict about them putting themselves in a position where they would have major head injuries though.
My only restriction was that I'd always help him down, but I'd never help him up. If he wasn't capable of reaching higher ropes, or branches, then I'd not assist him at all. I'd just say "If you can't reach it's too much for you". But I'd always be on-hand if he said "Daddy I'm stuck" or "Daddy down! down!"
I didn't realize for several months that when his mother was taking him to the park she said "Not so high", and limited him quite significantly.
I know head-injuries can be very (very) serious, but I was kinda surprised at the number of parents who'd say no. (For that matter broken arms and legs are serious too, but I guess I figured they probably wouldn't happen.)
To his credit I've never seen him fall, although these days I wince at times when he jumps from higher distances than I think are prudent.