[netsharc]

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!".

Ah, nice trope in the making.

[1] https://publikationen.dguv.de/widgets/pdf/download/article/1...

[kwhitefoot]

I think this part is the central point:

   "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.

[Arnt]

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.

This one, BTW: https://www.spielplatztreff.de/spielplatz/achentalstrasse-pi...