Slashdot Mirror
New Zealand Schools Find Less Structure Improves Children's Behavior
First time accepted submitter geminidomino writes "A research project involving eight schools in Dunedin and Auckland report that loosening rules on the playground may lead to fewer incidents of bullying, vandalism, and injury. One principal opines, 'The kids were motivated, busy and engaged. In my experience, the time children get into trouble is when they are not busy, motivated and engaged. It's during that time they bully other kids, graffiti or wreck things around the school.' As one might expect, the article states that there was a lot of resistance to the project, and I'm kind of surprised they got as many administrators to sign on as they did. The story may be premature, as the article states that 'the results of the study will be collated this year,' but it may be interesting to see how the numbers shake out."
I can tell you from experience that 'lack of rules' does not prevent bullying.
And that's not what happened here either, from the story. They gave the kids toys, which kept them occupied. That's what happened. Some of the toys were slightly dangerous (like trees for climbing, one example), and that's why they called it 'getting rid of rules.'
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Instead of a playground, children used their imagination to play in a "loose parts pit" which contained junk such as wood, tyres and an old fire hose.
New Zealand's incredibly innovative and creative economy has allowed their populace to experience the highest living standard the World has ever known, followed by Finland's.
The United States, who once held that title, is currently revamping their "No Child Left Behind" program and is currently changing their CS classes for the latest computer language and technologies in order to be competitive with the rest of the World in doing New Zealand's grunt programming work.
In other news, New Zealand is struggling with the social issue of why there are still a bottom class of people who haven't yet achieved billionaire status. Of course, the rest of the World likes to use the derogatory term, "New Zealand Problems" in reference to the old "First World Problems" that was popular a couple of decades ago.
So when you wrote 'Find' in the article, you actually meant 'May Find'?
When children have pent up energy they act out and vent their energy and frustrations in what few outlets there are: other children and objects. Like the old saying: idle hands make the devil's work. When children get bored they get destructive (bullying could be considered destructive as well). Anyone that has kids or can still remember being a kid should already realize this.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
From me it's not the lack of rules, instead it's stopping a concerted attempt to prevent the kids from having fun. Basically, adults are taught that play is bad. Whether it is kids with toy guns, video games, or anything else. Play is GOOD for you. Note, this also applies to marriage. If you don't play with your spouse, you won't stay married.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
So if there are no laws, nobody breaks the law. So now there is no bullying, just a lot of kids playing sadistic and reluctant masochist games.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
There is nothing radical here. Basically -- as most people who have kids or spend any time around kids today know -- schools and parents are incredibly overprotective of kids. They worry about any little possible injury or harm to self-esteem or whatever.
It sounds like these schools had banished so many supposedly "dangerous" activities from playtime that the kids had nothing to do. So -- surprise -- they got into trouble! They beat up other kids, misbehaved in various ways, etc. Because they were BORED.
Now, they let kids run around and do the kind of fun silly crap kids are supposed to do. And -- surprise -- they actually have fewer disciplinary problems! Because the kids get TO PLAY.
From TFA:
When researchers - inspired by their own risk-taking childhoods - decided to give children the freedom to create their own play, principals shook their heads
Seriously?!? Kids need time to explore the world, figure things out for themselves, even -- the horror! -- occasionally get hurt or screw up in some minor way. And, guess what, when they do, they learn from it! Isn't that what education is supposed to be about?
Wow -- I understand that parents are overprotective and schools get overprotective to avoid lawsuits, but I never thought so many educators could be so stupid as not to realize that kids appreciate having some freedom and free time in their lives... and they probably will behave better when they have that.
FTFA:
Instead of a playground, children used their imagination to play in a "loose parts pit" which contained junk such as wood, tyres and an old fire hose.
Posted that...reread your comment....
Are you in the States? Here, we are so scared of "lawsuits" (I think the risk is WAY too exaggerated, but whatever.,) , kids would NOT be allowed to climb a tree.
We have become a bunch of safety conscious ninnies. It's true that had injuries and other school yard injuries happen (I was knocked unconscious from playing on monkey bars. I woke up with a splitting headache that I will NEVER forget!), but there's a point when safety stifles children's ability to play and burn off that energy they have - and allows them to sit still in class.
But unfortunately, we in the US use Ritalin and other drugs to accomplish what some recess time in the pit would.
Of course, I wonder what kind of issues these kids who where put on Ritalin for no other reason than being a bit rowdy will have on their psyche.
Idle hands are the devil's workshop.
Next!
well, they were less like prisoners.
prisoners have 24/7 to think how to make trouble for other prisoners and the coppers.
(occupied prisoners are easier to handle too..)
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
That's some hella inlflation for 20 years.
In my post from the "future", I was hoping to imply that most people in New Zealand were billionaires (will normal inflation of 3% or so) because the entire populace was so creative and free thinking that most were to become billionaires and that it was so common that the folks were wondering why there was still this "class" of poor people (net worth less than a billion - like 500 million) who couldn't make it.
It was a jab at our (US) educational system that ... interpret for yourself.
So, figure out who the "Christ" figure was (bashing my English classes in HS)
I have a child which has a mental handicap (he needs more time to learn what a child does in 1 day, he does it in 2 or couple more days). On top of that he had a hearing problem and he's hyperactive at the same time. Yup i got the whole package.
I go with pure logic here. I try to keep him busy all the time. Supervised or not that's not important but it does have a certain priority of course depending on how you know your child (could be 12 kids in a room instead of your own). If I don't keep him busy or let him go free, he will do what he wants and that means he could go in his room and empty all his closets and...well piss me off in other words. Same goes in a class or in school. It's not rocket science. just keep them busy with activities or toys and you wont see them in trouble.... its simple trust me.
PC Gaming enthousiast that gives comments, opinions and reviews on Games. I'm just having fun with games while doing let
I don't think the amount of rules and structure is why this system works better. I think it's that with less rules especially with kids, you get less of a us vs them mentality. The trick isn't so much in allowing the students to do whatever they want, it's in getting them to want to follow the rules. If you look at prisons you'll see varying levels of this mentality between the guards and the prisoners. Hell, There is an old store about a retail giant sick of theft, it starts a strict security program on the employees. But 'thefts" keep going up. It seems almost impossible for the employee to be stealing the merchandise especially it bigger TVs. Compters, etc. As it turns out some of the employee started using the garbage compactor to express their dissatisfaction with being searched every time they went to the parking lot... So having too many rules will defiantly foster this mentality.
From my experience with children in childcare settings, they need a combination of structured and unstructured play. Most children seem to do well with unstructured play for limited durations. This is usually between half an hour and an hour, depending upon the children involved. If the duration becomes too long, then you start running into issues with boredom. That's when structured play should enter the picture. Not only does it reduce immediate conflicts, but it also gives them ideas for those unstructured times.
Ideally, adults would monitor the free play in an environment with limited rules then switch to structured play when signs of risky activities appear.
Incidentally, simply switching from a highly regulated environment to one with few rules is a bad idea. You have to give them the tools first (e.g ideas for games, social boundaries, etc.).
There are no lawsuits for personal injury in New Zealand. One of the benefits of a really good nationalized health care system.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
This wouldn't work in the U.S. While the article says they tossed out all the rules, I think more likely they just let kids be kids. But here in the U.S. the school and the teachers would be screwed if a kid got hurt even in the slightest falling from a tree. So, here they do stuff to avoid blame for anything (with the associated lawsuit), even if it's not better for the kids in the long run.
Previous quote by you:
That's some hella inlflation for 20 years.
Thinking that you meant that money is inflated by central banks or some other means. I then explain why most are billionaires - it's not because of inflation. Then you post:
Are you sure you have a cohesive point?
They are billionaires because they fucking creative: they are not a bunch of mindless drones.
I have issues. I read too much from varying sources and then I try to squeeze a book's worth of ideas into a single Slashdot post and it many times comes across as gibberish.
I think I need to follow some advice from this old Buddhist master I once knew: Think less. Talk less. Just be.
Basically, if you let kids self-determine what to do, they don't try to regain a feeling of power by forcing their will on others. Don't make kids bridle against authority, and they won't.
CAPTCHA: quarrels
Here is a mind experiment. Imagine you live on a street. Each house holds a different family with children, and each household operates a different 'regime'- you can imagine all the various types of family homes you have come across in your life.
Now, in your mind, think about the experience of children in each of the different homes. Which types of regime produce the happiest kids, the most well adjusted, the most successful, the most moral, etc.
Let me ask you a question. Does the home with the most rules, including the most petty and trivial, with oppressive discipline to ensure even the most petty rules are obeyed, come top of any of your lists for a good place for children to be raised? Unless you came from such a household yourself, and you are still in denian, the answer will be a resounding "NO!".
In the UK, Tony Blair's puppets have placed a particular person in control of OFSTED, the over-arching body with responsibility over all schools in the UK. This person loudly proclaims his love of the pettiest rules possible, and the most draconian punishment of children who infringe such rules. This abusive monster was previously given free reign in a inner-city school where the parents have least social-economic power to protect their children from abuse. In the 70s and 80s, schools in this district were a hotbed of the most appalling physical abuse, with the majority of pupils, boys and girls, being beaten at least several times a year.
Treat people like inferior sh*t, and only fear holds the majority in place. The irony is in such regimes, the alpha criminal types actually get worse. Britain's worst gangsters went to schools were they expected to be severely beaten every week, and this abuse just made them 'stronger'. But the majority of kids in such abusive schools are ordinary good people, who simply tolerate the abuse, while being psychologically damaged by it.
So why is it that monsters who propose such vicious and abusive regimes in schools so frequently win the support of politicians, and get to run schools in deprived areas. Because middle class morons like you, the reader, think there exists an 'under-class' that needs to be beaten into submission, so that YOU can benefit, in some way, from their brutal conditioning. You wouldn't allow this abuse to happen in the schools where YOUR kids go, but you try to excuse it as an 'unfortunate necessity' for children of the 'lesser'.
A school is a place of learning, and should allow ZERO abuse by the adults that work there. It is DISGUSTING that the majority of US States allow BDSM rape of school-children via 'corporal punishment'. In America where school child beating is legal, shield laws protect teachers from ANY legal action by the parents, even if that state prosecutes parents who physically punish their children in any way.
American MALE teachers can legally force an 18-year old female student to bend over, discuss the position of her buttocks with her, give her intimate instructions on how to position herself, rub the paddle against her buttocks as a sexual caress, and beat her until she is blubbering, all with the active approval of most of the Americans that visit this site. Yet an off-colour joke at some technical conference has most of you dribblers here expressing your outrage in some pathetic attempt to prove your 'political correctness'.
Of course, as the article says, Humans respond far better to being treated with respect and dignity. The language used is a LIE though. 'Less structure' means ANARCHY- and 'anarchy' actually means, for those of you poorly educated enough not to know, "STRUCTURE FROM WITHIN". Let me repeat that. Anarchy means that the individual is encouraged to create appropriate rules for their own decent existence. Internal rules rather than external. Local rules rather than remote rules. Bottom-up rather than top-down.
I think this is a great idea. I was regularly bullied until we started playing British Bulldog on a regular basis. When I started running over the bullies and "fairly" beating the hell out of them, they started leaving me alone.
I'm curious if some of these behavior problems were simply things that the rules did not allow for previously. "You cannot climb trees! Such bad behavior!" You are now allowed to climb trees. "Look at how much the overall behavior has improved!" *Did not RTFA
Many children misbehave when you force them to follow rules outside of the non aggression principle. From my experience, it's like a Chinese finger trap, the more you try to control them, the more they do the opposite of what you want. Coercion works for some children early on but rebellious behaviour eventually surfaces, usually in their teens which is when some parents have difficulty.
My most valuable lesson as a parent is don't control you children. Guide them. If they don't please you with their choices, don't punish them, it's ineffective and it will make them resent you.
ayottesoftware.com
...
In college I lived in an old dorm with rooms around a central staircase. I was on one of the lower floors and my roommate and I had to continually deal with being pelted with water balloons from above. The dorm had fire hose connections, but the fire hoses had been removed from the dorms. Imagine that....
My roommate and I got fed up with being pelted, so after being pelted my roommate and I broke into one of the academic buildings one night and stole one of the fire hoses there. We lugged it back into our dorm room, got into gym shorts, walked out into the stair well and started hooking up the hose - getting water balloons tossed at us, buckets of water poured on us, all kinds of crap.
We charged the hose, started up the stairs, and soaked the living crap out of the rooms above us. Right under the closed doors and through the crap the water-balloon tossers tried to use to block the stream of water from the fire hose.
30 years later and I still laugh my ass off at that.
There are no lawsuits for personal injury in New Zealand.
Yes -- you're right. I forgot about that quirk in tort law there.
One of the benefits of a really good nationalized health care system.
Umm, not really. Have a look here for some historical perspective:
New Zealand's compensation system arose not in response to concerns about medical malpractice but through farsighted workers' compensation reforms. A Royal Commission, established in 1967, concluded that accident victims needed a secure source of financial support when deprived of their capacity to work.
Until 1992, when medical terminology in the act was clarified so it was clear that medical accidents were covered, claims for medical injuries were very few. (The article I linked notes that, historically, only 0.05% of claims for personal injury were related to health care on average.)
So, no -- this "benefit" came out of a desire to provide compensation to people who were the victims of accidents in general, and particularly out of compensation for workers. (I have nothing against nationalized health care, by the way -- and I think it can be a very good idea. But it is not the reason why personal injury torts are prohibited.)
If people had the most basic human right of all - the freedom to NOT associate with people they don't want to, there would be no more bullying, would there.
Decent, nice kids would NOT associate with bullies would they, they are FORCED to, which bullies love, of course.
If people could actually get away from bullies, the bullies would soon have to change their shitty behaviour, because almost nobody would associate with them.
This is so basic, yet almost everybody accepts being FORCED to associate with people who are ruining your life as if it's 'just the way things are'.
My generation played bull rush years before it was banned. Yes it is a bit dangerous, but it was a lot of fun so we played it a lot, almost everyday and I think some kids must have got hurt but if don't think anyone at my school was seriously hurt.
These are then rules as I remember.
A bunch of children go into a a football field. One of the kids is "in". He/she stands in th middle of the field and the rest of the kids stand at one end of the field. The "in" player the calls one of the crowd and that person the has to run to the other end of the field. If they are tackled they also become "in" and help call and tackle. At some point there is a call of "bull rush" and everyone runs to the end of the field trying to avoid being caught and becoming "in". The game then starts again playing from the other end. The game proceeds till there is only one player not "in". When that person is caught you start again with that person being in and every one else out.
The game was most dangerous when there enough in people to increase the prob.mof high speed collisions.
I remember playing this game as a primary school kid and having the time of my life.
If you're going to subject us to slashdot-for-the-over-50-crowd beta, at least do more than a single keyword seach for the pic. That pic, from a Baltimore pep rally, has nearly nothing to do with the story other than the word "bully".
While your statement is true, it has little to do with nationalized health care, per se. It's to do with the ACC, which is a body that is quite unique to New Zealand. And a great idea, if you ask me.
Plenty of places (virtually all other developed countries, the notable exception being the USA) have nationalized health care. But many/most of those still have lawsuits for personal injury, nonetheless.
I have noticed a huge decline in the incidents of creative criticism of government since it became clear that everything is monitored. The critics have gone underground, and are waiting for an opportunity.
Good old fashioned policing and having the public keep an eye open for underhandedness is better and safer in the long term.
All monitoring does is bottle discontent and add pressure. They're not protecting anyone from "terists" they are leaving themselves open to be "terrists (US RAH!)" and making it difficult to evolve as a society.
As someone who lives in a multicultural state I have seen the effects of cultures too scared to evolve and absorb good ideas from their surroundings, stagnation leads to ignorance, poverty, unhappiness, and cheapness of life... which leads to overall misery and a lack of creativity.
Let kids be kids, history is going to go on forever and no parent will settle for less than absolute removal of what killed their child, eventually kids will have NO TOYS soft or hard.
It's silly. Like a traffic jam that is equivalent to killing someone. Or a PC lawsuit which costs thousands of jobs, the greatest good for the greatest number is no joke, and appeasement is part of the formula.
I feel bad for Americans because achievements in this period will be viewed the same as achievements with slavery, in Nazi Germany and under communism. With the credit lying partially with the exploited and a taint on any good deed.
The headline speaks of less structure. The abstract speaks of loosening the rules. WTF man?
...less structure generally improves EVERYONE's behavior.*
*After the assholes get beaten to a pulp, and everyone settles down.
-Styopa
Think about it. Bullying is learned behaviour. It's something that some children learn and some don't (for a variety of complex reasons). Who do they learn it from? Possibly parents and siblings... but then bullying is a systemic issue, not just a few isolated incidences. Where is systematic bullying by adults in front of children most prevalent? In schools, of course. Children get bullied... sorry, "disciplined"... by teachers and caregivers and some children (not all, because there are other complex factors/influences at play) in turn see this as acceptable productive behaviour to be emulated, in order to get what they want. If there are fewer adults providing "models" of bullying... ahem, "discipline"... in their school lives and displaying it as normal, acceptable behaviour, they're less likely to emulate that behaviour. See Albert Bandura's "Bobo doll" experiments for a more detailed and nuanced view.
See: Bandura, A.; Ross, D.; Ross, S. A. (1961). "Transmission of aggression through the imitation of aggressive models". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 63 (3): 575–582. doi:10.1037/h0045925