Archive for the ‘Play’ Category:
Next year’s symposium to take place March 15-17, 2010 at The Banff Centre
The next Youth Development through Recreation Services (YDRS) Symposium is scheduled for March 15-17, 2010. The Symposium will once be again held at The Banff Centre. This year’s sessions will be themed around “Creating Youth Friendly Communities.”
The YDRS 2010 Provincial Symposium is your opportunity to come together as practitioners of youth programs in the beautiful setting of The Banff Centre. Come hear from front line staff and youth policy makers about their unique youth programs.
This three-day educational opportunity is designed to provide delegates with the opportunity to:
- Learn first hand about youth development and its application in recreation.
- Hear from colleagues and peers through focused and themed presentations.
- Enjoy networking opportunities and return home with practical and applicable resources.
For more information on this year’s YDRS Symposium, please contact Jennifer Finnigan at 780-644-4797 or jfinnigan@arpaonline.ca or vist www.ydrs.arpaonline.ca.
Length: 30 mins
Age Range: Youth (13 – 17yrs old)
Space Requirements: Small
Supply List: NA
Description:
Everyone sits in a circle. One person begins by saying one word. Each person in the circle adds another word as the story comes to him/her. Only one word may be added.
Technorati : Games, General Games, One Word Story, Sardines, Youth, Youth (13-17yrs)
Del.icio.us : Games, General Games, One Word Story, Sardines, Youth, Youth (13-17yrs)
Zooomr : Games, General Games, One Word Story, Sardines, Youth, Youth (13-17yrs)
Flickr : Games, General Games, One Word Story, Sardines, Youth, Youth (13-17yrs)
To officially launch the campaign, at least one billboard will be unveiled in Denver, Colorado, as part of the ACA National Conference. ACA has invited the six featured celebrities to participate in the launch and centennial celebration luncheon. We are excited about the opportunity for our membership to thank these special friends for their participation in the Because of Camp…™ campaign.
For more information on how you can Say It Big Coast to Coast contact Dawn Swindle at 765-349-3317 or dswindle@ACAcamps.org.
Technorati : ACA, American Camp Association, Camp, National Advertising
Del.icio.us : ACA, American Camp Association, Camp, National Advertising
Zooomr : ACA, American Camp Association, Camp, National Advertising
Flickr : ACA, American Camp Association, Camp, National Advertising
Written on September 9th, 2009 by cbiermanno shouts
Yellow Snow
Length: 30 mins
Age Range: Pre-School (3 – 6yrs old)
Space Requirements: indoors or outdoors
Supply List: an object to be the yellow snow
Description:
Have an object on the ground i.e. a chair. Players make a circle facing towards the object and join hands. Then on signal, the object becomes yellow snow. Players attempt force others to touch the yellow snow without touching it themselves. Those who touch the yellow snow are out. Note if anyone breaks hands they are also out.
Written on June 24th, 2009 by cbiermanno shouts
On November 26th, 2009 the Recreation for Life Foundation, its allied partner, the Alberta Recreation and Parks Association (ARPA), and their many sponsors and supporters will present the Recreation Industry Awards of Excellence at the inaugural showcase event.
The Awards will recognize and celebrate individuals or working groups within Alberta’s corporate and business sector for their creativity, innovation, excellence and overall contribution in designing, building, and providing services to support recreation, parks and wellness in our province and its communities.
It is of the utmost importance that we are able to apprise the Alberta Recreation and Parks Association stakeholders about the Recreation Industry Awards of Excellence. We expect that they will be very interested in this awards program and may, in fact, be a major source of award nominations. We are hopeful that you will be able to assist us with the dissemination of information about our awards program and the showcase event itself.
Specifically, we are requesting that the ARPA membership, through its outreach communication channels, promote to their colleagues and affiliates the Recreation for Life Foundation’s Recreation Industry Awards of Excellence by:
- informing your colleagues and affiliates about the Recreation Industry Awards of Excellence through various communication channels;
- distributing sponsorship opportunities in support of this event;
- passing on further electronic communiqués provided by the Foundation; and
- posting a link to the Recreation Industry Awards of Excellence on your website to enable your associates and affiliated organizations to learn more about the awards program nomination and registration process.
We are expecting to launch this exciting awards program in June in hopes that the nomination deadline of August 28th will render multiple nominations in all of the six award categories.
Should you have any questions about the Recreation Industry Awards of Excellence program please contact the Recreation for Life Foundation office. Please visit the following links to view the Recreation Industry Awards of Excellence brochure, nominations form, and sponsorship opportunities. All of these materials may also be viewed on the Awards website at www.Awards.RecreationforLife.org.
We are currently seeking sponsorship support and would greatly appreciate any support to any one of the many sponsorship opportunities.
Thank you in advance for your consideration and expedient action to this request as we move forward in disseminating the necessary information.
Sincerely,
Randall Conrad,
Committee Chair
Recreation for Life Foundation
Recreation Industry Awards of Excellence
www.recreationforlife.org
Full Story »
Filed under Aquatics, Arena, Community Development, Infrastructure, Parks and Open Spaces, Play, Recreation, Sport
Tags:Excellence, Industry Awards, Recreation, Recreation Industry Awards of Excellence
Written on May 14th, 2009 by cbiermanno shouts
Interested in being one of 5 communities in Canada to provide Grade 5 students with a FREE Community Physical Activity Pass that will provide FREE access to recreation and facilities? Learn more about the Canadian Parks and Recreation Association’s (CPRA’s) Canada Gets Active Pilot Project that will be taking place in 2009/2010!
CPRA is working on a new project titled Canada Gets Active. Modeled after Kingston Gets Active (KGA), and in conjunction with the Everybody gets to play™ initiative, the main objective of Canada Gets Active is to increase Physical Activity involvement of Canadian children by increasing their access to and participation in community recreation facilities. Don’t let this opportunity pass you by! In the next few weeks CPRA will be sending out the official Call for Applications for communities who would like to apply to pilot this project. For those communities who want to confirm their interest and receive additional information please contact Carolyn McClelland at cmcclelland@cpra.ca or call 613-523-5315 x312.
If you know of an initiative in your area with a similar vision to the Canada Gets Active project, let us know about it! To share your success story contact cmcclelland@cpra.ca or call 613-523-5315 x312.
For more information visit www.everybodygetstoplay.ca or www.kingstongetsactive.ca
Full Story »
Filed under Communication, Community Development, Parks and Open Spaces, Play, Recreation, Sport, Wellness
Tags:Canada Gets Active, Canadian Parks and Recreation Association, Community Physical Activity Pass, CPRA, Everybody Gets to Play, FREE Community Physical Activity Pass
Rita Shackel, Visiting Scholar, Duke University, Reprinted with permission from www.ipaworld.org
Introduction
Cities around the world have undergone dramatic social and economic changes over the past 15-20 years (UN Centre Human Settlements, 2001). Some of these changes have been very recent and some are still continuing. These changes have arguably had a profound impact on the way people are living their lives including how children are being raised. Changes in urban lifestyles seemingly have influenced a shift in the attitudes of adults towards childrenʼs play, their recreation & leisure activities. Unfortunately, the childʼs right to “play” is not being given adequate priority (UNICEF, 1998, p. 420). This paper discusses the impact of city living on attitudes to childrenʼs play and examines some of the key factors that may be influencing the current undervaluing of childrenʼs play.
Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)
This article specifically protects and promotes the right of the child to engage in play and recreational activities. It also ensures the childʼs right to rest and leisure. Article 31 provides that: (Ed: see back page of PlayRights) This provision highlights that such activities should be “appropriate” to the childʼs age. The intended aim of Article 31 is to promote and protect the childʼs development within the context of the childʼs community as well as the childʼs school and family (Detrick, 1999). The UNCRC is the first legally binding international human rights instrument to expressly recognize the right of the child to engage in play and recreational activities (Detrick, 1999). Article 31 of the Convention is extremely important because it expressly addresses the childʼs right to play, which is often a “forgotten right” (UNICEF, 1998, p. 417).
Article 31 distinguishes between “play” and “recreational” activities. Recreational activities embrace a wide range of activities undertaken for pleasure. The Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child published by UNICEF defines “play” as activities which are not controlled by adults and which do not necessarily conform to any rules (UNICEF, 1998, p. 417). Play is distinguished from recreational activities on this basis.
Article 31 begs the question: What constitutes “age appropriate” play and recreation? In considering the impact of urbanization on childrenʼs play the following questions also arise: What are the perceptions within urban communities of what constitutes age “appropriate” play? Have perceptions of “age appropriate” play changed over time and as a consequence of changes in urban lifestyles? Undoubtedly, there are differences between urban communities within and without each country as to what is considered “age appropriate” play. However, some consistent trends may be present across different urban centres.
One such trend is an apparent tendency in many urban communities to undervalue and trivialize childrenʼs play, particularly when compared to other activities such as academic pursuits and competitive physical and sporting activities, which tend to be perceived as much more important than simply “playing.” Playing just for the sake of playing is often viewed as a waste of time both for children and for adults. As the Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child highlights “the haphazard, anarchic nature of play contributes nothing to the nationʼs economy or international profile” (UNICEF, 1998). Accordingly, neither politicians nor the broader community seem to regard childrenʼs “play” as important.
The undervaluing of play in urban communities (and possibly in society more generally) is reflected in the erosion of both structured and free playtime in formal settings such as schools where there is now greater emphasis on formal instruction, testing and assessment of children from the very early stages of kindergarten (NAEYC, 2000; 2001). The trend emerging is of more formalised instruction and testing coupled with the elimination of free playtime, for example elimination of recess. Even in preschools and child-care facilities, the focus of daily activities is frequently on educational objectives rather than recreational, relaxation and creative time. This approach to childrenʼs learning often extends into out of school time and into extra-curricula activities. It is not uncommon for children to be shuffled from one-after school activity to another e.g. enrichment classes, soccer training, ballet classes, piano lessons, and gymnastics. Some of these activities may be recreational activities but they do not constitute play. Unfortunately, many teachers, parents, policy makers and other adults are increasingly failing to recognise this fundamental distinction. Play is unstructured and free from adult direction (although it may be facilitated and overseen by adults) (UNICEF, 1998, p. 420).
Therefore, a very important question that needs to be addressed is: When do children simply get time to PLAY in this array of very busy and highly structured schedules? Also, very importantly when can children play simply for fun? Unfortunately, within an urban setting the answer to these questions may increasingly be: not often enough. This view is supported by research data. For example, United States data collected in 1997 as part of the Child Development Supplement of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics showed that children were spending less time engaged in free play in the nineties than they did in the early eighties (Hofferth and Sandberg, 2001). This data revealed that children spent about three hours less a week in unstructured play and outdoor activities in 1997 than they did in 1981. Further, over this period, time spent studying increased by almost 50% per week. Similarly, the time spent in organized sports more than doubled in the period 1981-1997.
Characteristics of Urban Living that may Undermine Play
What characteristics of urban living have led to the undervaluing of childrenʼs play? The following factors may be influential.
The Social Focus of Urban Living.
The social focus and context of urban living may be an important influence on peopleʼs attitudes to childrenʼs play. A principal focus for people who live in urban communities is often, trying to gain a competitive edge in a fast paced world. Adults may be transferring such lifestyle priorities to their children. Furthermore, the social context of urban life highlights three inter-related factors that may be impacting on changing perceptions towards childrenʼs play:
- A competitive social hierarchy
- A “fast paced” way of life
- A degree of social isolation.
These factors may have undermined the perceived importance of childrenʼs play as a legitimate and meaningful activity and inhibited play opportunities for children.
Changes in Traditional Family Structures.
Another important factor likely to be influencing family life and consequently childrenʼs recreational and play activities is changes in traditional family structures. First, the role of the extended family has been eroded. One reason is that increasingly families are living in different urban centers. Secondly, families tend to be more fragmented in urban communities today than in years gone by. Divorce and marital breakdown is a frequent event. In Australia for example, between 1986 and 2001 the number of one-parent families increased by 53% (ABS, 2003). In many cities around the world, close to half of all marriages end in divorce (Americans for Divorce Reform, 1996). Following marital breakdown, custody and care of children is often shared between parents (National Center for Health Statistics, 2004), sometimes in estranged circumstances. Joint custody arrangements, while often in the best interests of the child in terms of preserving ongoing contact and a relationship with both parents, may lead to inefficiencies and duplication in childrenʼs use of time. In effect, a child who is a member of two households may be expected to contribute equally to both. Indirectly, this situation may further restrict a childʼs free time for play and recreation. More research needs to be conducted into the impact of joint custody or care arrangements on children and their use of time.
Parental Employment Patterns & Advances in Technology.
Another factor that may be having an impact on childrenʼs playtime is changes in parental employment. In urban areas many families have two working parents (ABS, 2003; Statistics NZ, 1996). Parents also are often working long hours (ABS, 2003; Major et al., 2002). This situation coupled with the heavy schedules that children themselves often have at school and with extra-curricular activities is likely to curtail the amount of time left for free and unstructured playtime.
Although more parents are increasingly working from home both on a full-time and part-time basis, due to technological advances many are spending long hours in front of the computer (ABS, 2003). The computer is increasingly becoming a focal point for all members of the household. Advances in technology have seen changes in the way children spend their time. Research shows that children are spending a large proportion of their free time in front of the computer or television. In Australia, the most common leisure activities for children are watching TV or videos and playing electronic or computer games (ABS, 2003). Over 50% of children in Australia spend 10 hours or more a week watching TV or videos. Brazil in its Initial report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child reported that children spend over 2 hours of the 3 hours of free time they have in the day in front of the television screen (UNICEF, 1998, p. 421). On weekends and holidays they spend 4 of their 7 hours of free time in this way. Some of this time may be described as playtime, but “television, though providing culture and entertainment, must also be seen as sometimes inimical to play and recreation “appropriate to the age of the child.””(UNICEF, 1998, p.421).
Changing Attitudes to the Use of Public Space.
Another factor that may be impacting on childrenʼs play is the space available for play in urban settings. In some urban communities less public space is available for play areas that accommodate play equipment for children. This has arisen from the increased cost of living in such communities where the price of land often comes at a high premium. Not only are individual families more often moving into smaller homes such as apartments and town houses, which have less land attached to them for childrenʼs play but also less land is available for communities as a whole in the form of public parks and other areas.
In some big cities, the price of land has increased to such an extent that public land has been sold off to private developers by governments trying to take advantage of increased values (see e.g. Protectors for Public Land). The property boom such as has consumed several cities in Australia, is changing community views to public space and land; public space and land are increasingly being viewed in terms of their monetary value rather than a community resource for public enjoyment. Paradoxically, the need for public land for recreational purposes is heightened as the density of living increases in many cities.
Increased Crime Rates and Fears for Personal Safety.
Increased crime rates in some urban communities may also limit childrenʼs playtime. Crimes statistics in many cities show increased rates of crime committed against the person (ABS, 2002). Children and young people are increasingly becoming the victims of violent crimes (AIC, 2002). There is also a reported increased fear of crime in many urban communities (Indermaur, 1996). As a result of increased crime rates and increased fears concerning personal safety in urban communities, children are often discouraged from outside play particularly if it is away from direct adult supervision. Because parents have less time for closely supervised playtime, some forms of play may no longer be viable for children. Further, the risks associated with high levels of traffic in urban communities may also be a factor that restricts childrenʼs play in the neighbourhood and outside the family home.
Litigious Trends.
Finally, another factor likely to have undermined play opportunities for children is the impact of increased litigation in our society. Governmental bodies, schools, and private organizations are acutely aware of the potential for litigation resulting from a childʼs injury during play. However, rather than addressing the deficiencies that may be the cause of such injuries fear of legal action sometimes leads to simply restricting childrenʼs play in order to minimize such risks. Frequently, the costs of rectifying design flaws and modification of play areas so as to improve childrenʼs safety during play is a disincentive. This may result in play areas that inappropriately restrict childrenʼs play but serve to minimize the risk of any physical injuries (Chancellor, 2003). Alternatively, simply eliminating play opportunities all together is sometimes considered the best and “safest” course of action. Such actions undermine childrenʼs opportunity for developmentally appropriate play.
The Consequences of Undermining Childrenʼs Play
The cost of limiting childrenʼs play in any society is very high. First, children are not spending adequate time on activities, which help build self-esteem, a strong sense of self and also important social skills. Further, children may be deprived of playtime that encourages creativity. The repression of creativity not only limits the individual but the whole of society since all areas of human inquiry require creative input.
Secondly, children are spending less time outdoors engaging in physical activity. This may impact negatively on childrenʼs health, such as increased risk of obesity and coronary disease. In Australia about 25% of children are overweight or obese (Booth et al., 2001). These statistics are amongst the highest anywhere in the world. In the ten-year period from 1985 to 1995 the level of overweight/obesity in Australian children more than doubled (NSW Health, 2002). High rates of childhood obesity have also been reported in the United States and in other countries (National Center for Health Statistics, 2002; Tremblay et al., 2002). Some research suggests that urban children are most at risk (Public Health Association of Australia). Obesity not only represents a growing burden for health systems and carries economic costs but also is associated with risks of low self-esteem and depression (NSW Health, 2002).
Finally, children are living a more high-pressured life and are being forced to often engage in activities that are not age appropriate and which may not be enjoyable for them. More is expected of younger children today. This, coupled with childrenʼs decreased opportunities for play and leisure time may be linked to an increase in mental health problems, suicide and drug abuse. The childʼs right to engage in play, recreation and leisure activities, which are age appropriate must be vigilantly protected for the sake of the individual child as well as for society as a whole. The wisdom of pursuing highly structured, academically focused and competitive activities at the expense of childrenʼs free play must be questioned and checked in light of research that reinforces the importance of play as part of the childʼs normal development.
Correspondence
Rita Shackel is a visiting scholar within the School of Law at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.
She can be reached at HYPERLINK “mailto:Rita.Shackel@law.duke.edu” Rita.Shackel@law.duke.edu
Arleen T. Dodd, Long Island University/C. W. Post Campus, USA – Reprinted with Permission of http://www.ipaworld.org
Introduction
Educational researchers in the United States, recognize the importance of the childʼs earliest years in shaping learning and development. However, “basic” human needs, such as the need for shelter and an appropriate early learning environment are not guaranteed to all children. Thousands of young children are homeless or living with inadequate shelter, healthcare, attention, support, or poverty. Research shows that these factors severely limit the developmental and educational opportunities of these children (Carnegie Task Force, 1994). However, regardless of their circumstances, all children will play (Moore, 1993). In fact, in 1989 the International Association for the Childʼs Right to Play declared that, “Play along with the basic needs of nutrition, health, shelter, and education is vital to develop the potential of all children.” Still, in this country, play, a basic human need, continues to be regarded as less important than the right to shelter (Moore, 1993).
The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1989 as a contract between nations about the universally accepted code for the treatment of children. In addition to ensuring the human and civil rights of all children throughout the world, Article 31 of the Convention, specifically addresses the childʼs right to play (IPA, 1990). The CRC has now become the most widely and rapidly ratified convention in history (UNICEF, 1995). As of November 2003, the CRC has been ratified by 192 countries thereby recognizing Article 31, The Childʼs Right to Play. The two remaining United Nations member countries that have not ratified the CRC are Somalia, and the United States of America. Both nations have signaled their intention to ratify however; Somalia currently does not have an internationally-recognized government which makes ratification at this time impossible (Mettimano, 1997). Therefore, the United States of America, one of the richest countries in the world, is the only industrialized nation that has not ratified the CRC. This presumably is a reflection of how we regard the status of children in our society, including childrenʼs play (Moore, 1995). The United States still has not recognized that the children are the most important economic investment for the future, a future which must ensure our children their basic human needs including the right to play.
Statement of the Problem
On February 16, 1995, the United States finally signed the CRC to meet one of the last wishes of James Grant, the late Executive Director of UNICEF, before he passed away (Moore, 1995). The CRC must now go to the Senate for ratification. However, Robin Moore, then President of the International Association for the Childʼs Right to Play, cautioned that, “the Convention is still light years away from being ratified” (Moore, 1995, p. 2). The next step is for the President and his advisors to draft a Statement of Reservations, Understandings, and Declarations which will be presented with the CRC to the Senate for its “advice and consent.” Once Senate consideration is completed in the affirmative the President will ratify the CRC. The United States Committee for UNICEFʼs Office of Public Policy and Advocacy has stated that, “Due to widespread misconceptions and erroneous claims about intent and content of the Convention, the climate for the CRC in the United States at this time is volatile” (Mettimano, 1997). Political Parties opposed to the CRC continue to discredit it by misinforming the public as to its true purpose (Moore, 1995). Some states are reluctant to relinquish rights, such as the legal execution of children, to international law (Moore, 1995). Opponents have made several claims such as,
- the CRC usurps national and state sovereignty.
- the CRC undermines parental authority.
- the CRC would allow and encourage children to sue parents, join gangs, and have abortions.
- the United Nations would dictate how we raise and teach children. (Mettimano, 1997).
Unfortunately, some members of the United States Senate agree with these criticisms, but a clear and fair reading of the CRC can dispel these concerns. In addition, the United States Statement of Reservations, Understandings and Declarations could further extinguish any specific concerns. UNICEFʼs Office of Public Policy urges child advocates to encourage the United States to ratify the CRC by organizing grass-roots support campaigns through local churches, schools, and community groups.
An International Perspective
Although the United States signaled their intent to ratify almost 10 years ago it has still not done so. Many European countries ratified the CRC shortly after its adoption by the United Nations General Assembly and recognize of play in the lives of children. The United Kingdom ratified the CRC in 1991 and Ireland ratified under its own auspices on September 28, 1992. Play is at the heart of communities in the United Kingdom and childrenʼs play activities are the core of most community development (Moore, 1994). The National Childrenʼs Play and Recreation Unit oversees play in the United Kingdom. Across England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland Play Day is an annual nationwide day of childrenʼs play activities. Play Day is a celebration of childrenʼs play and a time to focus on the importance of play in childrenʼs lives.
The United States held its first national Play Day in 1991. Play Day in the United States is now held annually and provides a good example of involving the whole community in publicly visible events (Moore, 1994). However, this is still not enough. Early childhood educators, those who advocate for children, a group that has no political voice of own, must continue to lobby for ratification of the CRC and use their voice to promote the value of play in the development and education of young children. The United Nations suggests that teachers, social workers or other professionals working with children, should try to raise awareness of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and promote play in the local community and school as a first step to greater understandings.
Correspondence
Arleen T. Dodd is a Professor of Early Childhood Education at the Long Island University/ C.W. Post Campus in Long Island, New York. She can be contacted at 720 Northern Boulevard, Brookville, NY 11548-1300. Her email is aileen.dodd@liu.edu
Http://www.ipaworld.org
http://www.toddreade.com
http://jobs.recreation4sale.com
Brian Ashley, Effects of globalization on the near-social context.
With the development of globalization, increasingly large and complex organizations, the city which expands to the metropolis and the limitlessness of cyber space, modern society is in danger of losing sight of the essential base component of human society, namely the individual and its relationships. These modern trends work against the protection and preservation of the near-social context within which such relationships develop and grow. This constitutes a threat to the rights of children because this near-social context is their world in which they grow and develop. It should nurture the maturity to cope with the wider society which they need to learn about and understand. All concerned with children’s development need to study and understand the extent and effect of these social changes upon social living environments in order to defend the childʼs world. One difficulty is that adults are themselves involved in this process of continuing change and therefore hardly notice what is happening. Adult perceptions are based on the wider effects of economic and technological progress and improvements in material and public health standards and education. Adults are unaware of, or discount, the results upon the near-social world of the child and its capacity to nurture social development. One way to measure these changes over time would be to compare with the social opportunities and experience provided within the traditional community of several generations ago. This is difficult because in most modern societies this kind of community no longer exists or is disappearing. It is possible, however, to construct an artificial model description, or what the German sociologist, Max Weber called an ʻideal type.ʼ Weber studied and collected together the general observations and descriptions of a particular social phenomenon to which he wished to direct public attention. He then extracted the important and distinctive essences and characteristics and put them together into an artificial model or type. This model could be used to assist understanding and study of the phenomenon and comparison with other phenomena.
The traditional near-social context.
An ʻideal typeʼ of the traditional near-social context of the child would describe large extended families with the central family unit of parents and children surrounded by similar units of relatives and their children and with near contact with grand-parents. These units would compose a social network of close adult relationships providing reciprocal support and advice for each other. This network would have built up relationships and be interwoven with other similar networks which would comprise a stable total near-community. These interwoven adult networks would accept a general responsibility to provide a protective and caring social environment for all children of the community. These children would grow up and play with children from their own and the other interwoven networks. Their interwoven relationships would create a child culture within which, with the knowledge and concurrence of the adults, the child would grow and develop and where younger children would learn from and be nurtured by their elders. This child culture would develop its own play activities and social programme with a minimum of interference and control from adults.
In such a traditional community a large part of the adult activity, including economic activity to sustain family units, would take place within the community. The children would therefore, see and learn about and even participate in this economic activity. As a result they would experience and understand the different roles fulfilled in the community by the adults with whom they had relationships. Through relationships with adults from all generations the children would learn how roles and abilities could change with age. Coping with and relating to the older generations would give them a natural understanding of the history of their family and community.
The social activities of the community would develop from the life within the community. To facilitate this social life the traditional community would use a communal meeting place usually, in the first instance, a central space like the ʻvillage greenʼ or market square, around which the community had established itself This space would be created and shaped and used by the way the community developed and by the communal needs and activities. The activities would be, firstly, those in which the whole community would participate such as communal meetings, festivals, dances and sports. This publicly visible participation by all members would strengthen the common bonds of relationship and fellowship and be evidence of the total resources of support within the community. Later the community would develop activities which would be specially for different interests or age groups. Because they would take place in the central meeting space they would be observed by all and therefore contribute to the general knowledge within the community and to the understanding of its culture by all the members, including the children. As the need arose, the community would perhaps add community buildings to the communal facilities.
Originally the total community would take responsiblity for its organisation, Gradually it would develop special roles to distribute and share the responsiblity for increasing community activity. Because these special roles emerged from the community activity the power and status to perform them would be conferred and supported.by the total community.
Of course it must be noted that this ʻideal typeʼ neglects many of the less desirable aspects of such communities, such as the resistance to change, the rigidity of social positions and social differences, and the dangers of prejudice. For this article, however, it has been extracted from many studies to illustrate the desirable aspects of such communities for the near-social world of the child.
Comparison with the modern near-social context.
For this article to make a comparison it is not necessary to detail a similar ʻideal type ʻ of the present day community in order to justify the opening paragraph. It is sufficient for the reader to conduct an own analysis of experience of the modern world and to note where it is deficient in providing a near-social world, which nurtures the child towards social maturity, comparable to that described in the ʻideal typeʼ. It could be stated with conviction that modern society provides a social environment which is the direct antithesis of the desirable elements of the ʻideal typeʼ.
To note just a few aspects, the ʻideal typeʼ modern family unit would be composed of two carers or one carer and one child, isolated from any relative or social contact network and forced to look inward to its own resources. The child would be reared in the intensive dynamics of the limited family relationships and cut off from widening social relationships with other children or adults except those in adult controlled and steered institutions. The opportunity for the child to have self -expressive play and to develop knowledge of the community and other adult roles would be extremely limited. The reader can complete the worrying comparison.
Unsuccessful modern attempts to solve the problem.
Experts concerned with social planning are obviously aware of the problem of the undesirable effects of social change. Quite rightly they say that, even if the desirable aspects of the traditional community were accepted, it cannot be re-created because technological and social change have made it irrelevant. They therefore, excuse the lack of any application of any learning from it.
The strange thing is that if the aim which underlies much social planning is analysed it appears that unsuccessful attempts are being made to achieve artificially some of the desirable aspects of the ʻideal typeʼ described above. Again the article must leave the reader to supply the analysis after citing a few examples. Few residential estates are built today without an attempt to supply the equivalent of the market square. Unfortunately it is usually interpreted by building a ready-made shopping centre, mainly to meet economic and commercial needs. At the same time possible spaces which could facilitate communal activity are closed off to local use. Existing communal spaces like parks are under-resourced and controlled in such a way to deny real public participation and free usage. Social work authorities provide services for the many families which cannot cope on their own resources. These include counselling those with problems of isolation and lack of support. These authorities rarely look for the deficiencies in the near-social context which lead to the problems. Authorities provide playgrounds but these are often too distant to be part of the near-social world or are inaccessible to children when needed, due to fears for personal security, or unusable for free play due to risks of injury. The same authorities see no need to employ facilitating play-workers in the commuity who could help children to play without risk or injury.
Main lessons from the ʻideal typeʼ are not applied.
This article suggests that unsuccessful attempts of this kind show how planners and providers have neglected to learn from two crucially important aspects of the traditional community. Firstly it was a small-scale community which was based on networks of primary social relationships between people who knew each other and who supported and helped each other. Contrastingly, modern large scale society relates through a system of corporations, authorities, organisations and associations in which primary relationships where people can recognise and get to know each other, are not usual or necessary or even expected. The personal scale of the traditional community is absent.
Secondly, the traditional community grew and developed slowly and responded to needs which arose within itself and these responses came from its own efforts. In modern societies, developments, provisions and services are conceived at a remote distance from the people for which they are intended and then imposed upon the communities. The communities are expected to receive these impositions from outside the community and require little or no interaction with or participation of the members.
Unsuccessful evidence of this kind is used to support the view that trying to learn from the past is unhelpful because the past cannot be re-created. This article accepts that the past cannot be recreated but suggests that better attempts could be made to apply these two important lessons in social planning.
Application of the lessons are particularly important to the childʼs right to play.
Even child advocates may be guilty of not applying these lessons. International decrees and national policy statements are admirable starting-points but may remain distant from the target groups of children and parents in their own near-social context. Attempts to create child-friendly cities are likely to fail if they do not build upon child-friendly communities. These in turn must depend on adults in the near social-context being motivated to find opportunities to develop primary relationships based on friendship and cooperation within the near-social context. Children need a child-friendly near-social context but they cannot create it for themselves. Adults must create it for them. It can only be done by those adults who are themselves members of that near-social world or part of the networks which relate to it. A friendly near-social world is a personal world and cannot be created artificially or imposed from outside. This is why modern attempts by authorities and organisations fail. They are too distant and impersonal. Helping adults to see and understand the need to re-create these social networks around themselves is not easy. Modern society tends to destroy or make extremely difficult the personalising of the near-social world. This anonymity also fosters a lack of responsibility for and lack of interest in the near social surroundings. Even when adults are helped to see the need and are motivated to change their situation it is still not easy for them because of the size of the task. But it at this near-social level that the work to create opportunities for free-self-expressive play is needed. This is the real task of child advocacy. This is where play-workers working outside institutions, in the community, have in the past had the most success and demonstrated their importance. Unfortunately, today they are very few and far between because the effects of their presence in the community is not understood This is partly because play-workers themselves are not always applying the lessons from the past described above. Where playworkers exist within communities they have the possibility of applying these lessons by using their visibility in the community as a demonstration of a caring near-social world. Not so much in helping the children to play, as to gather around them the surrounding adults into a network to re-create a near-social world in which children have the chances which they had in the traditional community. PlayRights has stated often that it is committed to support this role of play-workers and to encourage them with this real task. Working with adults to support and encourage them is a long process requiring great patience and sensitivity. Results of such patient work are not easily seen and, therefore, are rarely understood and appreciated by distant authorities. Such work is, therefore, rarely supported and resourced and it is rarely given the priority it deserves even in play advocacy. Such patient community support work is, however, vitally needed in all services concerned with the social problems which arise from the loneliness, isolation and alienation which large-scale modern society produces. Experience in community development which aims at countering these effects shows clearly that success is only to be achieved by re-creating local networks based on inter personal relationships. This experience also shows that such networks are easiest to re-recreate by beginning with the interest which adults have in improving the near-social world for their children and their needs.
An example of network activity.
The front page and this article show photographs of a traditional meeting place which is still the focus of such activity by local people. The photographs show the vigour of a traditional meeting which is still sustained. In this case, the handwork stalls of the local community organisations during the festival weeks around Christmas. The photographs show how this space which has seen public activity since the 14th Century has been preserved within the houses which have grown up over the intervening years. More than that, this square in the Old Town of Stockholm has been made a pedestrian area and there are moves to declare the Old Town a cultural and historic monument. It is used to illustrate this article because it is an example of the effort which needs to be taken by local networks to preserve the interests of children. The poster by an activist group of parents and other adults proclaims to all and sundry that a large number of children inhabit, use and pass through this area. They throng through the narrow streets designed for the horse and foot traffic of centuries ago. Their safety is being threatened by some thoughtless motorists who, despite the regulations of authorities, still try to use these streets to shorten their routes. The poster above describes how local parents have created an organisation to defend the rights of children to use these streets and the square without threat to safety. It calls upon all interested adults to join the network.
On the next page is a sequence of photographs which show that is not an easy task to defend the near-social world in modern society. Authorities carry out ʻimprovements with the best of intention but not always with the best of results. Even in Stockholm, a city with good practice of citizen consultation and participation, important interests can be overlooked. The sequence shows what happened to a pleasant ʻrural oasisʼ alongside one of the busiest streets in Stockholm when such plans were made. This little space had been a calm restful place for children and adults for several generations. Grassy areas, though small, gave space for children to exercise freely in safety whilst parents conversed after shopping. Hawthorns, cherries and roses had grown large there over the years, probably as remnants of a rural garden long since removed. Their greenness brought natureʼs colour into an asphalt desert. They cleansed the air and insulated the space from the bustle and traffic of the busy street. In the heat of mid-summer they provided a natural shady area. They filled the space with their blooms at different times of the year. But the inspecting experts decided the trees had grown too haphazardly over the years and showed their age. Their shade and shelter encouraged ʻmis-usersʼ. They would all be taken away and replaced by orderly rows of young trees. The space would be re-shaped as a ʻmodern town squareʼ. It would be aimed at meeting needs of the younger office generation who were consulted in the restaurants around. After local residents, learning at the last-minute of the proposals, intervened, one hawthorn has been retained in the space and one boundary lime tree saved, but efforts were too late to have a significant effect. The final photos p.10 shows the materials of paving and concrete which have been used to replace the grassy ʻchild- friendlyʼ space. The plan has almost been completed but for months the space was under feet of snow so the final result awaits the spring. Spot checking among passers-by indicate that opinions are mixed but certainly all parents regret that no provison has been made for the many children who accompany their parents when shopping in the area. A simple opportunity to express and apply the child-friendly idea has been missed.
Play advocacy is most needed in the near-social world
It is clear that this article continues the views expressed in the last number on the importance of encouraging adults to improve their own neighbourhoods. This could focus around all the possible nuclei in child care and education where adult networks could be formed to improve the childrenʼs near social world. It is here that interest in the childʼs right to play is needed and can be expressed immediately and practically. Play advocates could assume the task to identify in communities all these possible nuclei around which the interest of adults in their children could be developed. Play advocacy could motivate them to form networks to attempts to influence the near social world. But the play advocate must be pro-active. Advocates cannnot expect that adults will respond to national edicts and to written brochures. Advocacy cannot wait for interest to emerge in the inanimate community. PlayRights and similar communication media can provide explanatory and supportive material and information but it must be taken into the near-social world to be effective. Every nursery, child care institution, every school could be visited by play advocates to encourage the formation of networks. Unfortunately, supervisors, rectors and directors, above all, need to be informed about the importance of their role in encouraging these developments. Play advocates need to be trained for and adapted to work with adults in supporting such networks. To help adults to re-create the opportunities for childrenʼs free expressive play which are disappearing from local communities is the task which globalisation is presenting to play advocacy.
Contact.
Sociologist and former Director of the School of Community Studies, Moray House College of Education, Edinburgh. Now living in Sweden & practising as a free-lance educational and community development consultant. E-mail: brian.ashley@telia.com
