Safeguarding Children: Perceptions & Influences

the 'Unique Child' section (DCSF 2008), children are considered 'vulnerable' and it is the responsibility of adults to protect their physical and psychological well-being, as indicated in the Keeping Safe, EYFS Principles into Practice card 1 (DCSF 2008). As a former teacher in a maintained school setting with a focus on Early Years, I have witnessed various approaches to safeguarding children during my current role that are both consistent and inconsistent with my previous experiences in schools.

Using journal entries as examples, I will explore the ways in which safeguarding is interpreted by settings and how it affects children's learning and development. Specifically, I will use an entry from a Private Day Care Nursery in my Children's Centre Reach Area, where the children's ages range from 2 to 5 years old. This conversation occurred during a post-OFSTED visit.

The day care nursery for children between the ages of 2 and 5 received a recommendation from OFSTED to enhance their outdoor area to allow children to "climb up, over and through". I advised the manager that she had the option to apply for a grant to upgrade the outdoor area. I suggested that the grant money could be used to purchase equipment that would develop children's gross motor skills by promoting climbing. I recommended appropriate equipment options and asked for her opinion. However, she was hesitant to provide climbing equipment as she was worried about children injuring themselves.

She was cautious about creating spaces where children could hide and potentially harm each other, like tunnels. I proposed clear perspex tunnels to allow for observation, but the manager worried that the children could panic and hurt each other if they

got stuck. After careful consideration, the manager has agreed to buy equipment but remains concerned about potential consequences. As a precaution, two old trees that shed leaves in the play area will be removed.

The manager stated that due to the slippery leaf fall in the area, she needed to decrease risk for children who climb. When discussing the parents' potential reaction to a child falling, the manager expressed concern. However, despite understanding the manager's fears, we must acknowledge that children still need opportunities to take risks within a safe environment. According to the EYFS, children should have access to various equipment at varying levels, such as "overhead ladders and tunnels" (EYFS, Pg. 98. DCSF 2008). Reflecting on personal experience in school, Nursery children were exposed to higher and more precarious equipment compared to what is being considered by the manager in this scenario.

According to the Development matters guidelines in the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) of 2008, the children learned to identify their own limits and avoid hazardous areas and equipment, while also occasionally falling. The guidelines advocate for encouraging children to engage in daring play and learn to land correctly when jumping from objects.

The EYFS advocates teaching children about risk in a manner that enables them to learn about safety for themselves and others (2008). An important question that arises from this is whether there is such a thing as taking risks in a safe environment. Are our expectations influenced by past experiences? Could excessive protection hinder children in terms of making their own risk assessments and judgement calls, thereby preventing them from learning important skills and gaining valuable experience?

The question arises about

why safety is taken as an unquestioned 'truth'. Foucault suggests that the discourse on safety has become accepted as the norm through societal control. It is unclear if this acceptance is based on necessity or societal pressure. Moreover, there is a difference between what is deemed acceptable in schools versus the Private and Voluntary Independent Sector, possibly due to fear of consequences. Schooling is mandatory for children from 5 years old and professionals in childcare understand the natural development of children and how to best facilitate their learning.

From the viewpoint of teaching establishments, there is an acknowledgment and appreciation for the fact that children learn by taking risks. This approach also aids in their cognitive development in other aspects of learning. Encouraging independent thought is crucial for children and can be achieved by providing them with opportunities to build confidence and learn that encountering obstacles does not equate to failure. Additionally, it is suggested that difficulties that pose a challenge for one child may only be a hazard for another given the diverse abilities of children during their development (Stine 1997, cited in Stephenson 2003). Therefore, the opposite can also hold true - what might be viewed as a hazard for one child may actually provide the necessary challenge for another.

According to Stephenson's research on four-year-old children's behavior during playtime (Stephenson, 2003; Beate Hansen Sandseter, 2007), it was found that the majority of kids tend to take risks. Stephenson argued that when children face self-chosen challenges, they often overcome their fears and inhibitions, which results in an increase in self-worth and confidence. Removing potential hazards also removes opportunities for growth and development. However, in private

day care nurseries, the focus appears to be on providing care for children rather than challenging them. In a journal entry, one manager expressed concern about the consequences of allowing children to risk falling and potential parental reactions. Piper et al. suggest that current practices prioritize avoiding accusations and litigation over the well-being of children.

The discussion surrounding safeguarding in 2006 primarily focused on the vulnerability of children and physical risk. The pressures exerted by parents and authoritative entities like DCSF and OFSTED can make it difficult to take any risks or risk accusations of neglect. It is worth considering whether creating an environment devoid of risks is harming the development of children. Stephenson argues that removing all potential hazards from playgrounds can inadvertently eliminate opportunities for risk-taking, although some may view this as a small price to pay for safety.

Stephenson (2003) posits that the impact of this issue extends beyond a narrow focus on individual children's learning and is instead of greater consequence for those concerned with broader themes in children's education.