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."

Comments

that wasn't 'no rules'

[phantomfive]

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.'

Re:that wasn't 'no rules'

[i kan reed]

Rules against harmful behavior are good, because they limit harmful behavior. Rules about how to play add stress, anger, and rebelliousness. This isn't especially complicated, and the headline makes perfect sense.

I mean, anarchists are going to believe their dumb philosophy regardless of your pedantic correction of a headline. You haven't won anyone over to the "some rules are good" land.

Re:that wasn't 'no rules'

[Sique]

Actually, it's not toys the teachers gave them. Toys are objects specially designed to be played with. None of the items they gave to the kids was specially designed to be played with. A tree is not a toy. An old tyre is not a toy. A hose is not a toy. And thus there was no direction for the kids if and how they had to play with the items. And that's what kept the children occupied, that's what kept them motivated and busy.

And that's what also reduced the bullying. If there are much more exciting things to do than bullying someone, why even bother with it?

Re:that wasn't 'no rules'

[i kan reed]

Teaching is a profession dominated by meticulous organizers, you know ENFJ types, because they're pretty much the only ones that can cope with the amount of personal planning it takes. So that mentality ends up being projected onto students too, who don't do as well that way.

(I just looked up ENFJ, it's apparently called the "teacher" personality type, funny)

Re:that wasn't 'no rules'

[Jason Levine]

True, but I'd add two caveats. First, too little rules can lead to kids engaging in patently dangerous activities. I'm not talking about potentially dangerous things like climbing trees, but doing things like bullying or hitting each other with objects. You need basic ground rules. The trick is setting those ground rules without them morphing into a "control every move you make" rules system.

Second, there are some kids that like organization. My son has been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome and Anxiety Disorder. He thrives on schedules and hates disorganized time. The more time he spends where he doesn't know what he is supposed to be doing, the more anxious he gets and the more likely he is to engage in behavior that will get him in trouble. (Sadly, too few people see this rising anxiety and just assume he's a trouble-maker despite a doctor's diagnosis and repeated talks with people about ways to spot his anxiety.) In his case, you almost can't schedule his day too much. Almost because being too specific on the schedule can lead to anxiety when the schedule needs to change on the fly. He doesn't handle this well either.

Of course, I recognize that he's the exception rather than the rule, but it just goes to show that you need to take the individual child's needs into consideration rather than assuming that one set of rules (or lack thereof) will fit all children.

Re:that wasn't 'no rules'

[phantomfive]

Rules against harmful behavior are good, because they limit harmful behavior. Rules about how to play add stress, anger, and rebelliousness. This isn't especially complicated, and the headline makes perfect sense.

It may make sense, but it's not related to the story. Really, read it; they gave the kids better toys, and the kids were more entertained. Some parents were worried because the toys might be dangerous. That's basically it.

Re:that wasn't 'no rules'

[i kan reed]

There were two references to things that could be called "toys" in the article, and neither is a resounding support of what you just said.

One:
"junk such as wood, tyres and an old fire hose."
Such amazing new toys there. WOOD! TIRES! whoooooooooooooa.
Two:
Skateboarding allowed(as opposed to skateboards provided, I guess). Which is a change in rules, not supplies.

Re:that wasn't 'no rules'

[AthanasiusKircher]

Rules against harmful behavior are good, because they limit harmful behavior. Rules about how to play add stress, anger, and rebelliousness. This isn't especially complicated, and the headline makes perfect sense.

It may make sense, but it's not related to the story. Really, read it; they gave the kids better toys, and the kids were more entertained.

Actually, since I read TFA, I can say that it *IS* related to the story. They didn't just give the kids "better toys" -- they let them do things they weren't allowed to do before, like climb trees and play "bullrush" (basically a kind of fast-paced tag). I don't think they installed the trees there just for the kids to climb -- instead, the implication is that previously it was disallowed.

In other words, they used to have more rules prohibiting various games and activities on the playground. They got rid of many of those rules. They also happened to give them a few other "toys" as you put it, some of which were not the fancy "approved" safe toys for playgrounds or whatever.

But they also got rid of a number of restrictive rules, according to the article I read anyway. (Obviously, I don't think they got rid of the "no bullying" rule -- it's just that when kids have more things to do, they are less likely to find it necessary to get "in trouble" just to have something to do.)

Re:that wasn't 'no rules'

[jittles]

Yes. Now imagine how bad their toys must have been before, if tires are an improvement.

Seriously? I would have loved to play with those tires in elementary school. In fact, I can tell you right now that the best week of the year during my childhood was always the week the city allowed you to dump all your trash in the street for pickup. We would most certainly play with old tires during that time. We would also take apart old/broken TV sets that were awaiting disposal, and other electronics. I had all sorts of fun fancy toys at home, but I always preferred being creative with random every day junk. You could satisfy all sorts of curiosity that you were not allowed to indulge in with your toys at home.

Re:that wasn't 'no rules'

[sjames]

Why not reduce the regimentation of society as a whole? The mass of SSRIs and other happy pills people are gulping down to avoid total withdrawal and/or suicide may be telling us something.

TFA isn't talking about declaring a 24/7 free for all, just including an unstructured break in the day. They're finding that it translates to better behavior and performance during the necessarily more structured times.

So give the weekends and vacation days back and things will go better during the week. Only regiment what actually requires it. Replace managers who use obedience to regimentation as a way to fluff their egos with those more oriented towards productive and happy employees.

Re:that wasn't 'no rules'

[AthanasiusKircher]

Yes. Now imagine how bad their toys must have been before, if tires are an improvement.

What a failure of imagination. I feel sorry for you. Tires can be amazing toys -- they roll, they bounce, you can climb through them, you can line them up and run through them in a funny way, they do all sorts of wobbly funny things if you don't just roll them... add water and/or sand/mud, and I can think of a lot more fun activities.

It seems like you've never been around a small child who found a large box to be the best toy he got for Christmas. He doesn't care about the fancy toy inside of it -- the box is more entertainment by itself.

Witness that a few times, and you'll understand why the new toys in the story were probably an improvement over some sort of static fancy approved "equipment" that probably was what was there before.

Re:that wasn't 'no rules'

[JoeMerchant]

I'll subscribe to your newsletter, but I don't think you've got a snowball's chance in hell of seeing this kind of change become mainstream in your lifetime.

There's a chaotic mix out there, and some of the larger, evidence driven organizations are finding just what you say - reduce regimentation and get more productivity for less cost, and they attempt to drive that through the company structure to make themselves more competitive in the marketplace.

There's also a tremendous holdover of WWII boot camp mentality about "sir, yes, SIR" being productive and efficient, and when the touchy-feely crap has a bad day that boot camp mentality makes a resurgence - usually from grass roots believers who can't stand seeing their subordinates screwing off without getting punished the way they did back in the day.

At least most of us have stopped beating our children regularly as a teaching tool.

Re:that wasn't 'no rules'

[0123456]

One of the best toys we had as kids was a huge cardboard box. On different days it would be a castle, or a spaceship, or an Moon base, or a cave, or... heck knows what.

Kids are quite happy to use their imagination, so long as they haven't had it beaten out of them by 'structure'.

20 years from now.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Alternative headline: "Let kids play, and they

[AthanasiusKircher]

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.)