Why This Conversation Matters
Before we talk about what we'll allow, we need to talk about what we believe — and be honest about where we differ.
This session isn't about finding a liability policy — it's about finding a shared pedagogical position. Each of us brings different histories, fears, and instincts to risky play. That's exactly why this conversation matters. There are no wrong answers here, but our differences will matter for children. Let's surface them honestly.
"The question is not whether children will take risks — they will. The question is whether we are present with them when they do."
— Mariana Brussoni, Child Injury Prevention Research, UBCPhysical Risk
Heights, speed, tools, rough terrain, balance challenges. The most visible and most debated category.
Social Risk
Exclusion, conflict, disagreement, hurt feelings. Rarely named as risk — but equally important for development.
Emotional Risk
Fear, frustration, failure, loss. Children need supported exposure — not protection from these states.
Environmental Risk
Mud, water, fire, ice, darkness. Elemental encounters increasingly rare in institutional care.
Tool Use
Real scissors, garden tools, woodworking, cooking implements. Age-appropriate but culturally contested.
Independence Risk
Children out of sight, self-directed exploration, child-chosen destinations. Mobility and autonomy.
Opening round: Each person names one type of risky play they feel comfortable with — and one they find genuinely difficult. No explaining yet. Just listening. Where is there energy? Where is there hesitation?
What the Research Actually Says
There is a substantial and consistent body of research. Let's make sure our team is reading from the same page.
Work through these cards together. After each one, sit with two questions: "Does this match what we see in our room?" and "Does this change anything for you?" The goal isn't to win an argument with the research — it's to let it honestly inform our practice.
- Risk
- A situation with uncertain outcome that a child encounters and must navigate. Risk is manageable, developmental, and chosen — often by the child themselves.
- Hazard
- A condition that presents likely harm with little developmental benefit — broken glass, unsupervised deep water, structural collapse. Hazards are removed. Risks are managed.
- Benefit-Risk Assessment
- A framework (Tovey, 2007) that asks not only "what could go wrong?" but "what will children miss if we remove this?" Both sides of the ledger count.
- Risky Play
- Thrilling, child-chosen play that involves uncertainty, the possibility of physical or emotional challenge, and the sensation of being at the edge of one's competence (Sandseter, 2007).
- Helicopter Parenting / Hovering
- Close adult proximity that signals danger and undermines child agency — even when no danger is present. Research shows children read educator anxiety as environmental cues.
- Supportive Witness
- An educator stance of nearby, attentive presence that communicates confidence in the child without active intervention. Proximity without intrusion.
- Risk Competence
- A child's developing ability to read, assess, and manage risk through accumulated experience. Built through practice — not instruction. Denied through over-protection.
- Duty of Care
- The legal and professional obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm. "Reasonable" is the operative word — perfection is not the standard, and not a defence against learning.
Risky Play as Anti-Phobia Therapy
Their landmark study proposed that risky play functions as a natural anti-phobia mechanism — gradual self-chosen exposure to thrilling, fearful situations helps children develop appropriate fear calibration.
Outdoor Risky Play & Child Health
A systematic review of 21 studies found that risky outdoor play was associated with increased physical activity, reduced sedentary time, better social skills, and improved resilience — with minimal injury risk.
Educator Anxiety as the Core Variable
Their research found that the single biggest predictor of whether children engage in risky play is not the environment — it is educator comfort with risk. Our anxiety is contagious and consequential.
The Culture of Risk Aversion
Tim Gill documented how institutional and cultural shifts in Western childhood produced systematic over-protection — with measurable costs to children's independence, resilience, and mental health.
Benefit-Risk Analysis vs Risk Assessment
Helen Tovey argues for replacing "risk assessment" with "benefit-risk assessment" — asking not just what could go wrong, but what will children miss if we remove this?
Natural Environments & Motor Development
Norwegian research comparing playground and forest-based play found children in natural, irregular environments showed significantly superior motor skills, balance, and coordination.
Children's Own Descriptions of Risky Play
When asked, children described risky play as experiences at "the edge" — where they weren't sure if they could do it. This sensation of uncertainty was the point, not a problem to be solved.
The Risk Paradox
Ironically, overly cautious environments may increase injury risk: children lose practice in managing real challenges, so when they encounter them outside the centre, they are less capable.
Read the Research
Links to the original sources. Where a free version is available, that is linked directly.
Take a moment before moving on. Which of these findings surprised you? Which do you resist — and why? A team that can name its disagreements with the research is more trustworthy than one that simply nods.
What Do We Actually Value?
Our practices are downstream of our beliefs. Before we negotiate specifics, we need to know what principles we're trying to serve.
Each person names the 4–5 values most important to their practice. Look for patterns across the group. When two values conflict — say, child autonomy vs duty of care — which wins, and why? That question is where the real conversation begins.
"When our top values conflict with each other — which do we choose?"
Example: A child wants to climb a tree you're not sure they can get down from. Child Autonomy says yes. Physical Safety says wait. Challenge & Growth says yes. Duty of Care says assess first. Which value does your team actually prioritize in that moment? Is it the same for everyone?
Let's Get Specific
Abstract agreement is easy. These scenarios are designed to find the places where we genuinely differ. Click each scenario to open the discussion questions.
Work through 3–5 of these as a group. Don't rush to consensus. The goal is to surface real disagreement, not paper over it. The question worth asking at each scenario: "What assumptions are driving our different reactions?"
The Tree They're Not Sure About
Outdoor · Physical Risk
Four-year-old Mia is attempting to climb a large oak tree. She's made it to a branch about 1.5 metres up and is now paused, looking uncertain. She hasn't asked for help. She hasn't fallen. Two educators are watching from different distances.
- What does each educator do in the next 30 seconds? Why?
- At what height, if any, does one of you intervene — and what form does that take?
- If Mia looks scared but doesn't ask for help, what is your read of the situation?
- What would you say to her family if asked about this later?
- What is your centre's current unwritten rule about tree climbing — and who decided it?
The Stick Sword Fight
Outdoor · Rough Play · Weapon Play
Two children have picked up sticks and are having an enthusiastic, clearly consensual sword fight. Both are laughing. Neither has been hurt. A third child is watching and looks like they want to join in.
- Is this play you support, redirect, or stop? What's your instinct — and where does it come from?
- Research suggests rough-and-tumble play, including weapon play, is normal and valuable. Does that change anything?
- What rules, if any, apply here? Who sets them — educators, children, or both?
- If a parent walks by and looks alarmed, what do you do?
- Does your answer change if the sticks are larger? Sharper? If one child is smaller?
The Mud Kitchen in November
Outdoor · Environmental · Mess
It's 4°C. Wet. Three toddlers have found the mud kitchen and are deeply engaged — hands covered, one has sat directly in the mud. They're clearly not cold yet. Families will be arriving in 45 minutes.
- Do you let this continue? For how long? At what point does temperature become a reason to stop?
- Whose comfort are you managing — the children's, the families', or yours?
- If you have a centre rule against outdoor play below a certain temperature, where did that rule come from? Is it evidence-based?
- Scandinavian ECE operates outdoors year-round in sub-zero temperatures. What does that tell us about what's possible?
- How do you communicate to families that their child is wet and muddy — as a problem or as a success?
Real Tools in the Workshop Corner
Indoor/Outdoor · Tool Use · Agency
A colleague has proposed introducing real woodworking tools — a small hammer, nails, real wood — for preschool-aged children. They've shown you a centre in Denmark where this is standard practice. Your licensing body has no explicit prohibition, but there's no precedent at your centre.
- What is your gut reaction — and what is driving it?
- What would you need to see in place before you'd support this?
- Research consistently shows children capable of real tool use with appropriate scaffolding. How do we know if that's true here?
- What's the difference between a hazard and a risk? Which is a hammer?
- If a child got a minor cut from this activity, how would you respond — and would your answer change how you decide today?
The Child Who's Gone Ahead on the Walk
Outdoor · Independence · Supervision
On a neighbourhood walk, five-year-old Jonas has moved ahead of the group. He's around a gentle corner — not visible for about 20 seconds. He knows the route. He's capable. He's done this before without incident. An educator is unsure whether to call him back.
- What does your centre's policy say about this? What does your gut say?
- At what age, in what environment, do we permit any independent movement? What's our principle?
- The research on "free ranging" children shows significant benefits. How does our supervision culture serve or undermine that?
- If Jonas was 7, would your answer change? If 4? What's the logic behind that line?
- What are we actually afraid of — statistical likelihood, or culturally shaped anxiety?
The Conflict That's Getting Heated
Social Risk · Emotional Challenge
Two children are in a genuine, escalating argument about who gets to be the "leader" of the game. Voices are raised. One child is near tears. The other is using forceful language. No one has been hurt yet.
- At what moment, if any, do you step in? What's your threshold — and is it consistent across the team?
- Is this risky play? (It is: social and emotional risk are real categories of developmentally valuable challenge.)
- What are children losing if we step in too early? What if we wait too long?
- How do different cultural backgrounds on your team affect this intuition?
- What does "supportive witness" look like versus "passive bystander"?
Where Does Our Team Actually Stand?
Use the sliders to map your team's collective position across the seven tensions. This is a negotiated result — not an average, not a compromise, but an honest statement of where you've landed together.
Step 1 — Educators scan the QR code below on their phones and complete the Individual Reflection form. Give them about 10 minutes.
Step 2 — Click Refresh Data when most responses are in. The sliders will populate from the team's actual positions and the most common stance will be highlighted.
Step 3 — Negotiate from the data. Don't average away the disagreement. The gaps between people are the most useful thing this session produces.
Educators scan the QR code, open the Individual Reflection tab on their phone, and enter the Session ID when prompted. Allow 8–10 minutes.
One last question worth sitting with: "Is the stance we selected the one we aspire to — or the one we actually practice?" The gap between those two answers is the professional development agenda. Name it directly.
Draft Our Approach
This is not a legal document. It is a living pedagogical statement — a reminder to ourselves of what we believe and why. Write it in your own voice.
Complete these sections together — take turns contributing, read each section aloud before moving on. If the group can't agree on a sentence, write both versions. Forced consensus produces worse documents than honest disagreement. This statement belongs to the team, not to any one person.
Next step: Each person opens this tool on their own device and switches to Individual Reflection mode using the tab at the top. Complete the personal form and hit Submit — responses are collected automatically. The team picture will be available in the Director Collation tab.
Finally, each person switches to the ✦ Risk Tolerance Profile tab and generates their individual profile. It takes about a minute. The profile belongs to each person individually — they don't need to share it unless they want to.
Create a formatted PDF of today's session — team stance, belief statement, policy sections, and next steps. Ready to file, share with governance, or use in accreditation.