- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topic Streams
- Get Help
Mental Health
Addiction
ADHD
Anxiety
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Eating Disorders
Insomnia
OCDPersonality
Passive Aggression
Personality
ShynessPersonal Growth
Happiness
Goal Setting
Positive PsychologyRelationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
SexEmotion Management
Anger
Procrastination
StressFamily Life
Adolescents
Child Development
Elder Care
Parenting
SiblingsRecently Diagnosed?
Diagnosis Dictionary
- Magazine
- Tests
- Psych Basics
- Experts
Because neighbors don't know one another as they once did, parents' fears of "strangers" in the neighborhood has helped to cause a sharp decline in children's free outdoor neighborhood play. Here is a proposal for bringing neighbors together and creating safe, neighborhood play-and-learning centers that everyone can enjoy. We may actually do this, as a pilot project, in a neighborhood already selected. Please read on, and supply your ideas for improving the project. Read More
Catalyst
It sounds like a wonderful idea, but it seems to me that the initial invitation to the community would be crucial. The participation rate would essentially make or break the idea.
How would you convince people to come out and support the development of the centre? I would imagine that depending on how the invitation is delivered would strongly influence whether people are willing to break routine and come out to participate. If a substantial portion of the community is not involved from the get-go, it may risk seeming more like a regular community centre run by others than a project in which they have a substantial stake.
The idea seems like it would work great once it gets going, but I am concerned that getting it going may be difficult. I would recommend focusing on finding avenues for getting the word out for quite some time before the initial meeting. For instance:
1. Determine where different demographics within the community get and share information. This may include newsletters for local religious institutions, foreign language newspapers in the city, internet forums frequented by teenagers, websites geared toward children, local restaurants, weekly community publications, etc.
2. Get the word out through all of these avenues in a way that focuses on the potential benefits to each target group. Tell kids of the possibility of a new place to play, teens may like the idea of having computers they and their friends can use for free, parents might like to meet other parents in the community, and young adults might like to have a place to get together with friends.
3. Try to get the idea out for a few weeks before actually setting a date for the first meeting. If people start talking about it, you could have word-of-mouth on your side. I am no expert in marketing (you may wish to consult one), but it may help in getting the initial participation rates up.
Provided you can get enough people out initially and they walk away with a good impression, understanding that this can benefit them personally, then I think it's far more likely to succeed.
Best of luck with the project,
Alex
Early community involvement is essential
Thanks, Alex, these are very useful thoughts. My view is that this project will only go forth if the people in the neighborhood demonstrate enthusiasm it. I have no interest in being an outside "do-gooder" imposing something onto people who aren't excited about it. We are talking about a relatively localized neighborhood, a few square blocks. We would try to tap right away into whatever friendship networks already exist, and we would try to identify any already existing neighborhood leaders. A first step might be some sort of leaflet going to each door saying something about the possibility of such a project and indicating a way of expressing interest (through email or phone call). From that we might gather together a group of people who could help with planning the initial meeting and could help spread the word about it. I think we would ask people to come to all meetings with their families, so kids are involved from the beginning. I envision this as a project where kids might provide much of the motive force. -Peter
Ridiculous
As a homeschooler, I take my kids to the park when we have good weather. But, depressingly, there's hardly ever anyone there.
I don't think it's instructive to *ask* these clueless parents anything, no less why they behave like they do. Safety reasons? That's bull.
Where I live, on Boston's tony South Shore, only nannies and grandparents take small children to the park. The moms/dads send the kids to pre-school and might figure they get their outside time, their *socialization* there. When the children get back they are exhausted (as mom might be from her precious yoga class). It's TV time!
I also think there's an extent to which many harried parents just can't *deal*. Going to the park involves an iota of foresight, PACKING LUNCH, and perhaps making the little one, God forbid, nap in the car or in a stroller.
Once the kids turn 5 they seemingly never go back to community playgrounds. Their time has been fully co-opted by government school and its extended intrusion, aka *homework* (which wouldn't be so bad if the brats learned anything). Then it's *organized sports*. Soccer starts at age 4! Video games are soon to follow.
Basically, kids don't play together freely because they aren't *free*; because parents are docile sheep.
The only *solution* to Mr. Gray's problem is more home-based education.
Go down south to some areas with large homeschooling communities and you'll find plenty of mixed-age, unorganized play. Massachusetts, dying state that it is, is hardly the center of the universe.
City Repair/ Placemaking
Here's a great resource from a group called City Repair based on their practical experience over many years accomplishing some of what you propose.
--
Enjoy,
Don Berg
Site: http://www.teach-kids-attitude-1st.com
Free E-book: The Attitude Problem in Education
Thanks, Don
Thanks, Don. Great websites--yours as well as the City Repair site. I will be in touch.
-Peter
Community Centres
We have a lot of community centres in Canada, and some of them include some of the elements you are describing here. In Toronto, for many years there was a centre that was opened up for free play and community connections during the day once a week. Children and young people had access to space, woodworking tools, toys, and lots of other things. Many homeschoolers met there, and kids played and worked while adults talked, prepared food together, etc.
In Victoria we have lots of beautiful community rec centres. The problem is they aren't really set up to just let people come use the space for free play, most of the time. A few of them have "community rooms" with toys and things, but the issue is always money. All these spaces have to be rented, and they are not cheap. I was stunned to see that the lovely teen room at a local centre charges $200 per hour. I had just been thinking it would be great to let my 14-year-old get some friends together to go there when I saw the price. So the beautiful rooms sit empty.
Importance of access
Thanks, Kelly. Your experience in Victoria points to the importance of easy access. We want this center to be something that kids in the neighborhood can easily walk to without their parents. It should be freely accessible at any time during the day or early evening. It should be built for use and flexibility over beauty. -Peter
Hi Peter, lovely idea
Structured activities run by adults and children's "free play" are not incompatible. There are always shades of each in each (there are shades of adult structure in your own project, for example).
Anyway, who's to say the kids are not having more free play than we used to, but simply indoors, out of your sight?
From the survey you cite: ([1]Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 5, 68-80)
"85 percent of the surveyed mothers identified their
child’s television viewing and computer game playing as the number one reason for the lack of outdoor play."
Not scary strangers. They're not telling us they keep their kids in. They're saying their kids won't go out!
Plus internet, plus mobile phones. Kids are way up on their technology. My kids look at me funny when I tell them when I was young we used to hang around a telephone box outside "down the avvy"!
WHAT A LOSER! I can't think of a single school kid I've met who would prefer to have it how i did when I was young. I mean, I had no mobile phone, no portable music, no internet? Dull.
I can, however, think of plenty of adults who think they had it better (though never easier) when they were kids.
Steve
Fear of crime
Steve,the very next sentence in the article, after the one you quoted,says: "In addition, 82 percent of the mothers identified crime and safety concerns as factors that prevent their children from playing outdoors."
I have nothing against computer play; in fact I applaud it. In my textbook I present evidence suggesting that such play is part of the reason for the worldwide increase in IQ. However, among the children I know, computer play is not incompatible with outdoor play. Kids at Sudbury Valley do both, as do most other kids I know who are free to do both.
I have also observed that children enjoy computer play even more, and little kids seem to learn even more from it, when they play socially. That is why I hope the community center will include public computers and play stations. That is also very consistent with Sugata Mitra's research in India, which I discussed in an earlier post.
-Peter
fair point :)
However, you did claim
"When asked why they don’t let their children play freely in the neighborhood, most point to safety concerns."
Whereas 85% of the surveyed mothers [1] identified their child’s television viewing and computer game playing as *the number one reason* for the lack of outdoor play. Crime and safety concerns were only identified "as factors" in this survey. It would be interesting to see how high crime and safety concern registered on the list, but but it is not true that "most point to safety concerns" as the reasons their kids don't play on the street.
It may sound a bit picky, but I think it's relevant if you want a really buzzing, active community centre, as "some children may actually prefer sitting and watching events unfold on television to playing outdoors and creatively thinking of ways to entertain themselves (Benesse Corporation, 1999)".
I think the idea is essentially a really good one, and I wish you good luck with it. I particularly like the notion of community involvement in the build.
If I were you I would also think about opening it to non-residents of Grayville, for a user fee. This way you could subsidise activities and spread the word. (but then again that would be a decision for your community comittee to make)
It doesn't take long for community stuff to get damaged or vandalised. In well loved parks by us, you regularly find grafitti, smashed glass, drugs paraphenalia and other unsavoury litter. Even if most people in the community buy into this project, you might still get those young people who would deliberately alienate themselves from it, and perhaps try to sabotage it. It might take some time to change cultures like these
Steve
Vandalism
Vandalism is a serious concern. It it interesting to me that there has, over the years, been essentially no vandalism at the Sudbury Valley School, despite the fact that the kids of all ages are free to roam at will. I think part of it has to do with the democratic judicial system and part of it has to do with the sense of ownership of the school that everyone has there. You don't vandalize your own property. That is why community ownership, and all the spirit that goes with that, is so essential to this project if it is going to work. People can't see it as just another park, provided by the city or some outside group. The kids especially have to be owners of this center. -Peter
Hi Peter
"there has, over the years, been essentially no vandalism at the Sudbury Valley School, despite the fact that the kids of all ages are free to roam at will."
Is it in a very secluded or affluent area? Your inner city site will be much more prone to abuse from those not buying into the project, I think.
In UK we have a strong anti-establishment culture, as I'm sure you do in US. This anti-establishment culture is probably actually part of the establishment, now I think about it. In Drama we call it "the licenced fool". In olden days, the kings employed "fools" at court to exercise dominion over anarchy (the fool is allowed to openly criticise the king).
"The Fool does not follow any ideology. He rejects all appearances, of law, justice, moral order. He sees brute force, cruelty and lust. He has no illusions and does not seek consolation in the existence of natural or supernatural order, which provides for the punishment of evil and the reward of good." (Jan Knott, Shakespeare, Our Contemporary)
In contemporary literature we exalt the anarchic child figure (eg, Huck Finn, Just William, Denis the Menace). Our teenage culture - music, fasion, language - is a consistent and licenced act of rebellion, and the teen years are mythologised as rule breaking and rebellious times.
Vandalism is a natural act of rebellion, free play and anarchy. In seeking to eradicate it we might well be continuing to institutional our children into bland conformity (albeit an institution and a conformity devolved to neighbourhood level)?
Just thinking out loud
Steve
BTW, are you familiar with Swift's "a modest proposal"?
:)
"Inner City"
Your implicit argument goes something like this, when we draw it out explicitly:
First, about your question about the placement of Sudbury schools:
Sudbury Valley has a great diversity of income, parental education, and ethnic diversity -- about in proportion the the County of Middlesex, where the school exists, and where (unlike any traditional school in the area -- whether they attract parents with more or less money) there is no vandalism.
There are Sudbury schools that exist in the heart of metropolitan areas around the world. And those schools, too, find themselves free of vandalism.
But, I also want to speak to this "inner city" fallacy. The "therefore" part of your implicit argument. At least among US academicians, "inner city" is a term used to make class / race / income distinctions with out sounding like a bigot.
The claim is an inherently prejudiced one. Even if it were true that only some "privileged" have had an opportunity to attend Sudbury Model schools, that is no argument in favor of the positive claim that "some" people are not "good enough" / "rich enough" / "white enough" to thrive in a school like ours. Without a defense of that positive claim, as well as proof of the first, false assumption in your syllogism, your argument falls flat.
It is the same racist assumption that led some late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century British hotheads to have said about African or Arab nations "the people there are not ready for democracy."
Are you really, seriously, suggesting that people in the city, or in a depressed economic climate, are better able or less able to make use of basic liberties and freedoms? If you are going to make a reactionary statement like that, you better have very clearly documented evidence showing that persons of some social or economic or ethnic background are indeed special cases. Without that, your words are only words of racial and class warfare.
--Scott
Hi Scott
Honestly Scott you do make me laugh! However, you must stop trying to make up my arguments for me, you're really messing them up and coming to some faulty conclusions. It's not very fair on me that you misrepresent my position.
Your argument may well be, "prejudiced" "bigoted" "british hothead" "racist" "reactionary". However, it is your argument, not mine, isn't it? It has been concocted in your own head, with no basis whatsoever from me.
You conclude
"Are you really, seriously, suggesting that people in the city, or in a depressed economic climate, are better able or less able to make use of basic liberties and freedoms?"
The answer is of course no. This is a ridiculous conclusion.
I speak only from experience when I say that the schools in poor areas where I have worked have regularly suffered from vandalism, break-ins etc. The more affluent area schools I have taught in have suffered far less. I really don't know how you arrived at your above conclusion about "liberties and freedom", but it's plain wrong.
I'm fairly certain that there are strong links between crime and poverty. I am likewise sure that inner cities suffer from more crime that suburban and rural areas. Again, this is borne out by my personal experience, but if you really doubt this it true, I'm sure you could do your own research. I would be fascinated if you were suggesting that there is not a link between a)Poverty and crime b) Cities and crime.
Anyways, let me say I am very impressed that you suggest your SudSchools cater to such a diverse set of incomes. I had presumed that the fee of $7000 per year would somewhat restrict the access to lower income families. So you'll have to forgive me for not taking your words at face value!
I would be interested as to how you manage the diversity you claim with such expensive and restrictive fees. I would be very keen on answers to the following questions, to help me judge for myself whether you are as diverse as you reckon:
What percentage children have English as an additional language?
What percentage are from minority ethnic groups?
What percentage have special educational needs?
What percentage of your children are financially assisted?
Incidentally, doesn't Peter's own research into Sudschools mention something about affluence possibly being a factor in the findings?
Steve
BTW, how long have you known Peter, as a colleague or otherwise?
Another inner city comment
Steve,
Fresno First Baptist Church is located in the heart of a city with a population of a little over half a million people. Once upon a time, the church was on the receiving end of vandalism. That is no longer the case.
They didn't implement new security measures or hire a battalion of armed guards. They simply made an effort to help the people in their immediate vicinity in ways that mattered to them. Once the church was seen as being focused on helping the community, the members of the community started looking out for the church.
Being located in an inner city would not in and of itself make a school the target of vandalism. In fact, as long as the school is helping children who live in the immediate vicinity, I would expect the students and their families to be rather protective of the building and property.
I totally agree
"Being located in an inner city would not in and of itself make a school the target of vandalism. In fact, as long as the school is helping children who live in the immediate vicinity, I would expect the students and their families to be rather protective of the building and property."
I'm not arguing that city=vandalism. Reclaiming or establishing neighbourhoods along positive, grown-up lines is bound to result in more stability and security.
I think, with Peter, that the "fear of crime" is also worse than the crime itself in terms of causing lack of community spirit.
You say
"Once the church was seen as being focused on helping the community, the members of the community started looking out for the church."
I agree, religious centres are (or should be) the real heartbeat of a community. So are schools (or so schools should be).
Communities and neighbourhoods that are self aware and well organised, where people have great ownership of the space, etc. are bound to be safer places with fewer acts of violence on person and property. It stands to reason.
In Newcastle we regret the demise of the Nana-culture, where close-knit families have lived for generations in their tribes, and everybody had relatively little problem adhering to the social norms of the clan, as personified in a wise old Nana figure.
Steve
purple thistle
Hi Peter,
What a wonderful opportunity you have to be a part of this project. Here's a community center of sorts that may give you some ideas:
http://www.purplethistle.ca/
Colleen
Purple Thistle
Colleen, are you involved with this center? It looks interesting. It is apparently oriented toward a more narrow age range (age 15 to 30) than we are looking at,and more oriented toward classes than toward free play, but I'm quite interested in how it is administered. -Peter
Purple Thistle
Hi Peter
Purple Thistle is run by Matt Hern, who also has some great ideas about schools as community resources. I made reference to some of Matt's ideas/books in a response I wrote to an earlier blog post of yours - I used his example about library use.
I think it would be great if the two of you connected.
Jutta Mason
Jutta was the one who started the community centre in Toronto I described above. Here's an article about her and it. http://www.ideasthatmatter.com/people/2001jutta.html
Thank you
Thank you, Kelly. After reading this bit about her, I've put Jutta Mason on my list of people who we might try to recruit as advisers to this project, if we go forth with it. -Peter
More on Dufferin Grove Park
http://www.pps.org/info/design/success_toronto
I would think the size of the
I would think the size of the neighborhood involved is an important thing to figure out. For neighbors to take personal responsibility of the center and feel comfortable about safety there, its range probably can't be too big, or else it may become just a standard rec center. But, too small and it becomes exclusive, and possibly underused, like the rec rooms in most apartment complexes I've lived in. This range may be different in larger cities compared to small towns, wher everybody kind of knows each other. But, places like those would be less in need of such a place.
The rec center in Ketchikan, AK while I lived there very well used by adults and children alike. They had various classes and sports facilities. Two things that struck me as working very well were a walking/running track that circled the upper level of the basketball courts and a toddler play area with big padded things to climb on. The track ended up being a very social place -- moms would push strollers around it and talk, while in the outside lane runners would run. The toddler spot was nice because it was blocked off as kids' domain, but there were benches nearby for parents to sit and supervise. The center was almost exclusively indoors because Ketchikan is relentlessly rainy (and hence, the popularity of the track), but the spaces worked quite well, and are certainly adaptable to outdoors.
Some expert advice maybe?
I've started discussions about your plan on the sites of two groups that might be able to give you some expert advice:
Leaders for Communities (a project of NeighborWorks) and
The Placemaking Movement (run by Project for Public Spaces).
They're good people, and maybe someone can help.
Thank you, Leo
Thank you, Leo, I look forward to any thoughts that appear on these sites. -Peter
Some preliminary research
Peter, I did a little research for you today, and think I can refer you with some confidence to a nonprofit called KaBOOM!. I summarized my findings here: http://ourblocks.net/kaboom-empowering-neighborhoods-and-restoring-play
I hope this helps.
Leo
KaBlOOM
Thank you, Leo. I'll look into this. -Peter
Neighborhood-based play
Pete:
I run a blog (Playborhood.com) and am writing a book about making kids' play in neighborhoods happen. I've written about three different models for creating a neighborhood hangout for kids:
1) my front & back yards in Menlo Park, CA: one family (not community-based), front & back yards
2) Share-It Square in Portland, OR: community-based, front yards & street
3) N Street retrofit co-housing community, Davis, CA: community-based, back yards
Note that all these are totally private efforts, with no involvement by governments. That's the way I think these efforts have to be, at least for now. Governments are wayyy too slow-moving and non-creative.
On the other hand, these approaches differ on whether they're community-based or not (mine isn't) and whether they're front or back yard-based. Regarding the former distinction, of course, having a neighborhood hangout where the entire community is bought in is always more desirable.
However, in most communities, pulling together the kind of consensus that is needed for a neighborhood hangout is just not feasible. Sure, you can cherry pick and find one community where it's possible, but then you've created a model that won't ever reach the large majority of kids out there who have totally dead-and-boring neighborhoods. That's why I decided to go it alone with my front and back yard renovations. We've gotten very good response from neighbors, so in the long run (a couple of years), we may end up getting the sort of community involvement you're envisioning up front.
Playborhoods
Mike, thank you for bringing my attention to your work. What a great idea. I'm especially attracted to your front-yard playborhoods, which bring the neighboring kids onto the yard. --I'd encourage everyone with a front yard and young kids to take a look at these sites. -- I agree about slowness of government. If our project is going to work, it has to be pushed by and largely supported by the local neighborhood. -Peter
Pessimist.
If the goal is to have children out in nature doing their own thing, then I don’t understand the purpose of this project. There are certain things that I think we just can’t change with best intentions or legislation. In our small community, we have libraries, community centers, so many parks and even boys and girls clubs. We have virtually no kids playing outdoors in the neighborhood.
What needs to change are parents attitudes and schedules. The prevailing attitude is this false belief that the younger we start kids at anything, that they will have an advantage over others. I see this everywhere. My seven year old just started Karate. Most seven year olds already have orange or blue belts! A girl I know dropped out of gymnastics because she started at age eight and was in the class with the four year olds! I find this so ridiculous. I think parents need to let children be children. My five year old is always gripping about not being able to go to Karate or dance class. Our rule is there are no “classes” until the age of seven. They do however play outdoors and I tend to follow where their curiosity leads. This is certainly not the norm.
It’s very difficult for parents who work 40 hours or more a week to find time to let their kids just be. The idea that time cannot be wasted is so prevalent. When my husband and I both worked, our schedule was something like this; up, breakfast, take kids to school, go to work. Pick kids up in the afternoon, have them do hours of homework (this was 5th and 6th grade) wash up for dinner, read and off to bed. Day after day, we had the same schedule. The weekends were usually spent working on some “big school project.” Now President Obama wants the school days to be even longer. I guess parents will be picking their kids up just in time for dinner. (Get out your crock pots) While I think this idea is noble and true, I don’t think it’s going to change a thing.
Post new comment