Hah, from the lines (after following the link from that blog post to the Guardian article to the PDF of the insurance "union"[1]
> Risikoförderung, das heißt die Aneignung von Risikokompetenz, ist ein zentraler Baustein der Sicherheitsförderung, auch in der frühen Bildung. Wenn man möchte, dass Kinder lernen, sich sicher zu verhalten, müssen sie lernen mit Risiken umzugehen. Ohne Risiko keine Sicherheit. Das Zulassen von Risiken und Wagnissen gehört ebenso zu einer kindgerechten Sicherheitsförderung wie das Reglementieren und Verbieten. Es ist deshalb insbesondere in der frühen Bildung erforderlich, den Kindern Risiken, zum Beispiel im Rahmen der Bewegungsförderung, anzubieten, die sie grundsätzlich mit Hilfe ihrer Kompetenzen bewältigen können (Abbildung 1). Die Einbeziehung von Risiken und Wagnissen darf aber nicht dazu führen, dass Verletzungen der Kinder in Kauf genommen werden.
deepl'ed:
> Risk promotion, i.e. the acquisition of risk competence, is a central component of safety promotion, also in early education. If you want children to learn how to behave safely, they have to learn how to deal with risks. Without risk, there is no safety. Allowing risks and hazards is just as much a part of child-centered safety promotion as regulating and prohibiting them. It is therefore necessary, especially in early education, to offer children risks, for example in the context of physical activity promotion, which they can basically master with the help of their competencies (Figure 1). The inclusion of risks and hazards must not, however, lead to the acceptance of injuries to the children.
the blogger understood "Insurance companies demand!".
"for example in the context of physical activity promotion, which they can basically master with the help of their competencies "
I vaguely remember reading about a study of kindergarten (barnehage) children in Sweden. It found that children who attended inner city kindergartens had poorer coordination, self confidence, and socialisation than those who attended rural kindergartens. The principal difference between the two type of kindergarten was that the inner city ones had paved playgrounds while the rural ones had grass, mud, puddles, and trees. The rural children suffered more frequent minor cuts and grazes but were less likely to be put off playing outside.
This agrees with my personal experience of having three children attend kindergarten in a very small town in Norway. At the end of the winter the playground looked like the Somme but the children (both boys and girls) were still playing in it; thundering around on trikes, climbing, and falling off, various bits of equipment, having the time of their lives.
I'm an expat in Germany. I don't think the deepl translation captures the nuances quite correctly. As I understand it, the original is about accepting injury as a matter of routine, not about accepting it at all.
I also called the city to report a loose screw at a playground once. The first question was "where?" and the second was "danger of injury?". I don't remember the exact wording, but it was clear to me that someone would be sent PDQ if there was, and it might wait a few days it not. I'd guess the author of the first paragraph might be thinking about maintenance etc., not about whether to build tall structure at all.
Please correct me (with citation) if I am wrong: The headline is complete BS / clickbait. The article refferences this story-piece from the uk-guardian about german certified playgrounds (by professionals from TÜV) that are assumed risky by people who don't do certifications in a mix with a study about kindergardens and accident types (yes, they have playgrounds, too, but kids spent their time there in various activities). No Insureance is demanding anything. At least not verbatim if at all. (Yes, I live and work in Germany & am a guardian of a 7 year old).
Climbing is an interesting one for me too. When our child was two+ I'd let him climb as high as he was capable of. I'd stand under him when he got "too high", but basically if he could climb high, and wanted to, I'd let him.
My only restriction was that I'd always help him down, but I'd never help him up. If he wasn't capable of reaching higher ropes, or branches, then I'd not assist him at all. I'd just say "If you can't reach it's too much for you". But I'd always be on-hand if he said "Daddy I'm stuck" or "Daddy down! down!"
I didn't realize for several months that when his mother was taking him to the park she said "Not so high", and limited him quite significantly.
I know head-injuries can be very (very) serious, but I was kinda surprised at the number of parents who'd say no. (For that matter broken arms and legs are serious too, but I guess I figured they probably wouldn't happen.)
To his credit I've never seen him fall, although these days I wince at times when he jumps from higher distances than I think are prudent.
My first kid grew up on carpet, spent a few months between crawling and walking. My second grew up on wood floors, spent a week between crawling and walking, before walking _all_the_time_. Definite eye-opener wrt risk competence.
What they forgot to mention: virtually all children in Germany have decent health insurance with extremely low deductibles (privately insured, due to well-paid or self-employed parents) or none (publicly insured, which would be the vast majority), neither of which is subject to the parents’ employment.
> Risikoförderung, das heißt die Aneignung von Risikokompetenz, ist ein zentraler Baustein der Sicherheitsförderung, auch in der frühen Bildung. Wenn man möchte, dass Kinder lernen, sich sicher zu verhalten, müssen sie lernen mit Risiken umzugehen. Ohne Risiko keine Sicherheit. Das Zulassen von Risiken und Wagnissen gehört ebenso zu einer kindgerechten Sicherheitsförderung wie das Reglementieren und Verbieten. Es ist deshalb insbesondere in der frühen Bildung erforderlich, den Kindern Risiken, zum Beispiel im Rahmen der Bewegungsförderung, anzubieten, die sie grundsätzlich mit Hilfe ihrer Kompetenzen bewältigen können (Abbildung 1). Die Einbeziehung von Risiken und Wagnissen darf aber nicht dazu führen, dass Verletzungen der Kinder in Kauf genommen werden.
deepl'ed: > Risk promotion, i.e. the acquisition of risk competence, is a central component of safety promotion, also in early education. If you want children to learn how to behave safely, they have to learn how to deal with risks. Without risk, there is no safety. Allowing risks and hazards is just as much a part of child-centered safety promotion as regulating and prohibiting them. It is therefore necessary, especially in early education, to offer children risks, for example in the context of physical activity promotion, which they can basically master with the help of their competencies (Figure 1). The inclusion of risks and hazards must not, however, lead to the acceptance of injuries to the children.
the blogger understood "Insurance companies demand!".
Ah, nice trope in the making.
[1] https://publikationen.dguv.de/widgets/pdf/download/article/1...