Free Play Network text only homepage
This page with Graphics | News | About the Free Play Network | Join | Links | Search | PLAYLINK
Policy & Consultations | Playwork in Practice | Adventure Play | Play & Design
Back to the index for Have your say
Playschemes are often resource hungry facilities that run the risk of providing for a few children at the expense of the many, whilst adventure playgrounds can get a reputation for being only for the tough kids and so scare away others.
Cambridge City Council has switched funds to cheaper more flexible services such as deploying play workers to lead play activities in local parks.
Ought we to be looking to provide a service for the greatest number of children or are there other considerations? What ought they to be? What is your view?
For further information see: Play on the Range, by Chris Snell.
"I was disturbed and disappointed to read the report of new developments in play in Cambridge...I was involved in some of the early developments of adventure playgrounds in London, Stevenage, Cambridge and Peterborough in the 60s and 70s... [R]eading that the Cambridge playground had been closed as part of city play policy was upsetting.
"I don't believe that the play needs of Cambridge children are much different from those communities which have adventure playgrounds, So I wonder where they engage in such activities as building dens, lighting fires, art and craft work and all the myriad of free-play activities indoors and out which properly supervised play facilities enable, not to mention the extensive community development which goes along with voluntary managed playgrounds. I realize that the New Ark [where Donne has been involved for many years] is unusual in the wide variety of facilities on offer, but even the most basic adventure playgrounds have much more to offer than play staff operating in parks, most of which were never intended for this purpose. It seems to me that the Cambridge scheme is designed to serve the needs of the local authority rather than those of the children."
"The closure of the Adventure Playground [in Cambridge] was a big deal at the time - obviously from your report the Council feels that it made a good decision and is offering a service to many more children...
"[I]t would be helpful to know the answer to a few other questions too. Are there any down sides to the changes? Has anything been lost in the transformation, and if so what? Is the new service providing for the same kind of kids as before?
"I haven't visited Cambridge so I don't know what was lost
and whether the gains were worth it... we need an independent view
from someone whose going to bring play values to their analysis."
"I think that there are some very valid arguments on both sides. I am a great proponent of street play and of engaging kids in places that they like to be rather than enticing them into places we think they ought to be. Not only do you reduce the natural reticence of walking over the threshold, be it an adventure playground or community centre, but you are not colluding with the notion that children should be kept out of everyone else's way and off the streets.
"The argument that adventure playgrounds are an expensive resource that only caters for (however we want to define them) tough kids can also be very valid. In general it was certainly true of the playground I used to work on; nice parents didn't want their kids to go there and some kids were too scared to come in.
"That said of course many of the playgrounds are in tough areas so it sort of follows. There is also some mileage in the argument that a peripatetic service like the Reccy rangers can be much more responsive to children. At the micro level, it has no buildings or space to defend (Cambridge rangers have an arms length relationship with the Parks dept and so do not see themselves as needing to defend say fixed equipment) and can thus respond much more flexibly to conditions and requests; on the macro level they can change provision and move it about in response to the changing population of an area or the expressed needs of the children they are serving. This is possible but much more difficult with fixed provision.
"Having said all that, I am not fully convinced by the utilitarian 'greatest good for the greatest number' argument. If we accept playwork as entertaining children for a time and interesting them in some new activities then all is fine, but I think that it ought to be much more than that. At the level that the Reccy rangers are working there appears to be little opportunity for building challenge into the play and although they report that they have a regular following at each site, it is not really a basis for building the kind of supportive relationship that happens in more permanent facilities. The development of that kind of emotional support can be extremely important in a child's life, particularly in time of crisis and the supportive adult encouraging confidence in their abilities can transform a child's self worth. In addition, whilst playschemes and adventure playgrounds cannot claim exclusivity, it has been suggested that a child's resilience to stress and mental health problems in later life is related to their having a special play space when they were a child.
"So whilst I would not suggest that adventure playgrounds
are a universal panacea, I feel that the Reccy ranger service provides
a very limited range of what I would expect from a play service
and has a rather shallower view of Play than my own. But essentially
the nub of it all is whether we provide a high impact service for
a small number of children who most need it or a lower level service
for a much greater number. Ideally of course, and Cambridge council
itself would agree, we would be able to provide both."
Do you have a comment on 'Traditional' play facilities or Reccy Rangers? If so, fill in the response form below. Selected comments will be published on this page.
© 2003 PLAYLINK.