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."

7 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. Re:that wasn't 'no rules' by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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)

  2. Re:that wasn't 'no rules' by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  3. Re:that wasn't 'no rules' by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  4. Re:that wasn't 'no rules' by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.)

  5. Re:that wasn't 'no rules' by jittles · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  6. Re:that wasn't 'no rules' by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:that wasn't 'no rules' by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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'.