Thursday, 14 July 2011

A Different Perspective On A Child's Needs

I sent the following  e-mail this morning. in response to one received from a resident who wishes the town to remove a piece of playground equipment  installed in Confederation Park two years ago. No reports or claims for injury have been received by the town. 

Two mothers who live close by, came to Council in July  to present in opposition to a motion  before Council to remove the equipment.

Good Morning Ms Harris,
I received your e-mail and note your comments. I listened carefully to your presentation when you presented  to  Council in June. I  did not hear a reference to  a specific injury to your child. It was  difficult to understand you due to your lack of composure.
You related an incident and indicated, had you not  been there "within two feet" something terrible might have happened.
In your e-mail, detail of the incident refers to a specific injury. However, it  seems though  you were at hand you did not prevent  your child from "falling on her back, injuring the  pelvic bone and experiencing difficulty in walking for a time as a result of bruising"
Ms  Harris, municipalities provide playground challenging equipment for children to experience and learn. It is the nature of  play. Always striving. Always pushing . Climb higher. Go faster. Always trying to master next steps. When playground equipment no longer provides that opportunity it no longer serves its purpose.
Playgrounds are refurbished on a regular basis. Municipalities invest substantially on carefully designed equipment. Safety standards are imposed and observed.
 
I have known  mothers unwilling to allow children to take any risk at all in order to keep them safe.
I note you carried your six year old down the steps in the council chamber and held her in your arms while you encouraged the child to say what you wanted her to say,into the microphone.
I do not suggest a mother can be too protective or a child can receive too much love.
I do however contend  parents can have different ideas about how best to raise children.
A municipal  council  has a duty to make decisions in the best interest of the  entire community.  To do that responsibly, every perspective must be considered. Nine members are enough to provide what's needed.

I was not a child  protected at all times. I was one of five. Older siblings were assigned the role of caring for younger.
Perhaps not surprisingly, I became  a parent who  does  not believe it's possible that children can  be protected from every possible risk.
I raised seven.
There were bumps and bruises, three cuts that had to be stitched and once I had to  wait twenty-four hours to know if scratches on the surface of his eye would result in blindness for my child.  These were the my worst experiences until they became teen-agers.  Then  the really hair-raising stuff happened.

 No amount of parental pleading and tears was enough to assure me of their safety.
 
In family gatherings, I  still  hear of adventures I knew nothing about and still want to  be kept from me.

I am  mother to  five sons and two daughters now engaged in raising their own.
I  survived.  As will they.  Because that's what we all do.

I will not be  voting  to remove the monkey bars from Confederation Park and replace them with something innocuous that meets your idea that a child's needs can be met without providing  an opportunity to learn how high, how far, how fast they can go without coming to harm.

18 comments:

  1. The equipment is question is rated for children aged 5-12, maybe her 4 year old should not have been allowed on it in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  2. One of our lovable klutzes got a foot stomped
    by the 4H steer and also had a hand smushed in
    a school door. We didn't shoot the steer, nor did
    we sue the school. Another one, also a daughter,
    drove her bike into the ditch to avoid a dump
    truck. No come back there either. Ah ! The good
    old days ! Surely town kids can handle a play
    area without parents weeping and wailing ?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with your response completely, councillor Buck. I feel that there are parents who try to wrap children in cotton cocoons to protect them from the terrors and dangers that lurk in the community including parks and playgrounds.
    I remember as a child in England falling off a slide as I tried to negotiate the transition from the steps to the slide surface. In those days there was only a single bar on which to hold at the top. I was also flung off roundabouts that were whizzing around at breakneck speed and creating huge centrifugal force, too much for my grip to overcome. I even fell off a swing, the most tame of playground equipment. I survived and I loved playing in the park despite my mishaps.
    Children develop motor and perceptual skills through exploration of the environment. They learn how they relate to the forces around them by experimenting and challenging their bodies and gravity. They learn the concepts of through, over, under, above, up, down, around, on, off, by using their bodies and gross motor skills. They develop their equilibrium and balance systems by moving their bodies through space in all sorts of ways and contortions. It is a very necessary part of normal development.
    We seem to be hell bent today on protecting children from almost everything. We do them a grave disservice.
    I have heard a lecture on "nature deficit disorder". It seems children are not being given opportunities to explore and learn within the wonderful natural habitats and environment that surround us. We are overbearingly afraid for them and smother their opportunities.
    It is sad because in time we will begin to recognise the side effects.
    I fully agree that children should be guided in terms of what might be more age appropriate in a playground, but for God's sake let them breathe, explore and learn from risks and mishaps.

    ReplyDelete
  4. While it was a fun read, I wonder how being elected as a town council member makes you an arbiter of child rearing? You may have opinions on how child should be raised, but like it or not this is not the 1960's anymore. Federal and provincial governments have legislated all sorts of laws to "protect" us. Seatbelts, bike helmets, no more lawn darts! Yes we all survived our youth, but this is not the same world that it once was. If you feel that you represent the electorate, perhaps you need to understand it first.

    If I received your note, I think I would be offended first, angry second and then more resolute to get this process underway to get what I wanted.

    ReplyDelete
  5. To Anonymous at 7:52...

    I guess then it is okay to allow 15 years to learn from their mistakes and take the family car out for a joy ride at 6 in the morning???

    We also used to play with the mercury from broken thermometers... I remember following the "fogging" truck as it drove around a provincial campground. Turns out it was DDT, I should be okay right?

    You need to stop thinking that things today are the same as when you were a kid. That was a long time ago.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think you are all missing the point. When you fall off of this apparatus you fall ONTO the apparatus, not onto the ground or bark mulch. The proposal is to not remove but to replace and I think time will tell what happens here. You are jumping to conclusions about a desire to make the world sterile and safe. Far from it. We actually go out of our way to introduce our children to nature through camping, cycling, geocaching, hiking and so on. Jeff Harris Aurora resident.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "We are all missing the point"!
    Why is a 4 year old climbing on this equipment?
    Duh...see what happens!
    The parent is responsible for the safety of their child in this matter, not the Town.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thank-you Jeff for stating the obvious!!
    We are all on the same team. Why should a resident of Aurora who took her personal time out to share a concern for the safety of area children be met with such hostility. Thank-you Laurie for sharing your experience. You don't have to agree-but try to be respectful.

    ReplyDelete
  9. To Anonymous 9:38
    Yes that was a while ago and no, things are not the same. But then they were not the same as in my parets' day either when I was a child. My point is that there are lots of perils and always will be, seen and unforeseen; they just change from generation to generation, but we survive and I wish people would stop trying to defy normal child development and learning.

    ReplyDelete
  10. To Anonymous 9:38
    There were youths who drove in my day when they shouldn't or without permission and tragedies happened. That has nothing to do with playgrounds. That is to do with young kids who think they know it all and are indestructible and THAT has happened since the beginning of time and will continue until the end of time.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I let my children learn from natural conscequences. They to are turned out all right. As far as a joy ride at 15 well that is something that could happen to any of us. Kids do stupid stupid things. We can't keep them safe all of the time now can we. If you teach them good judgment then you can only hope they use it! As far as a play ground climber where were you to support this lady when she came to council. If this piece of equipment is so bad then why has it been so long for a mother to come forward on her own? Where have the rest of you been? Remove and replace is still the same as remove! And as far as not in the 1960's well we had a whole lot worse to play on didn't we? Safety standards that are placed on society? Don't you think the town did some homework and the equipment had a safety check before it was purchased. Kids will be kids if they are allowed to be kids, 1960's or 2011.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Tim the Enchanter15 July 2011 at 21:59

    I certainly hope that taxpayers aren't left footing the bill for this misguided attempt to pacify one or two residents.
    Our Parks and Rec staff can answer some basic questions.
    1. Is the apparatus in good repair?
    2. Is it approved according to industry standards?
    3. Is it installed correctly - including a suitably soft landing zone?
    If the answer is Yes to all 3 then it stays.

    Parental supervision is the key to playground safety.
    ANY apparatus can cause injury and thus be delared "dangerous". It is the parent's responsibility to determine which playground equipment their child is physically capable of using.

    If we remove this climber based solely on a complaint then we may as well go ahead and remove ALL playground equipment. Just to be safe.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It seems to me MS. BUCK that you have
    chosen to ridicule this mother for,as you call, her 'lack of composure' while trying to plead her case. Not everyone is comfortable speaking publicly, although I suggest that it's not a problem you've ever faced. She was also very emotional about the 'what could have happened' accident. I believe that some compassion might have been shown by you instead of your need to ridicule. Then you go on to PREACH about how you were raised and how you raised your children. As they say THAT WAS THEN THIS IS NOW. I would suppose that you would not be in favour of removing or replacing any playground equipment, until you were shown that it was dangerous and unsafe. Perhaps a coroner's report would be the proof you need. But then it would still only be ONE complaint wouldn't it? No parent needs to be counselled by you as to what children do in a playground. After all, they were once kids. You have not addressed the issue on it's merit. You have ridiculed and preached and it has solved nothing. How about getting back to the issue at hand and addressing that concern and leave your childhood and mothering memories at home.

    ReplyDelete
  14. AMEN to TIM THE ENCHANTED!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  15. 1947, 1960,1970, 2011, 2025 we still have children to rear, but things change but stay the same. They are still children.I do not see where Councilor Buck is preaching anything. I believe she clearly states this as her opinion. I also think that there is a huge difference in what could have been and what was. Obviously the mother was there to keep her child safe, but did not see any risks before she let her child get on the climber. There are two schools in this park and over the years the play equipment has changed only a few times. I would love to know how many unsupervised and supervised play on this climber on a daily bases and how many deaths or NEAR death experiences have taken place because of this climber. Children see risks parents do not, they see challenges we do not, they do it any way have fun and move on to better places because of the experiences they have been given.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous 9:03 a.m.
    An early morning " Mac Attack ! "

    ReplyDelete
  17. I wonder why a mother - any mother - would force her young child to speak at a public meeting at all but especially to have her discuss hurting her "private parts."
    How exploitive, appalling and humiliating was that? I felt so badly for that little girl.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Neat article on playgrounds in Globe by
    Monika Warzecha .

    ReplyDelete

If you've got a comment, this is the place to leave it for me. Please feel free to leave your name, or even just an email address if you'd like a response. You can also email me directly.