This is the second of two posts about the school ground as a place of Wonder during recess especially.
What do children say about their school grounds? As was mentioned in Hidden Curriculum I, twenty-five years ago, a British team of researchers surveyed 216 school children, aged 5-12, about what they valued and did not value in school grounds in terms of their use for play and recess. Their observations are cause for quite a paradigm shift!
Wendy Titman's 1994 book Special Places, Special People describes the study's findings, summarized in this statement: "Children consistently expressed a preference for natural areas,
regardless of their experience, culture or home location... [And c]hildren expressed
clear preferences for those areas which were not designed for them." p.
41
Surfaces
In terms of possible elements of a schoolyard, grass was overwhelmingly preferred over tarmac. Said the children, "The
only parts we can use are tarmac and concrete. You can't really play
football on it, because you can't dive on that stuff. We can't even play
leapfrog without being told off because we might hurt ourselves."p. 44
"Grass
enabled a different range of games, particularly those that involved
body contact... Grass also presented opportunities for finding things.
'When you really look at it, study it, you find there's all sorts of
other stuff there and it's really interesting.'.. Whilst most schools
visited had grass, use of it was generally heavily restricted. 'We've
got a lot of grass, but we can't use it ever. Teachers won't let us go
on it because we'll make a mess.'" p. 48,49
Trees
"Trees were
essentially symbolic of climbing. Even very young children and those who
had never climbed a tree seemed able to distinguish between types which
were "good climbing trees" and those which weren't! The value of trees
for climbing seemed to lie in the unpredictable challenge they offer and
as a result children were adamant that climbing trees was quite a different experience from climbing play equipment.
Children
were very affected by the appearance of trees. Some types were
generally felt to be "spooky" and "scary". The fact that trees change in
shape and colour was appreciated by children as a constant source of
stimulus.
Trees were also highly appreciated because they provide shade and shelter and "bits" you can collect and do things with.
Children were keenly aware of trees as living things and of the symbiotic and ecological significance of trees..." p. 51
Flowers
"Flowers
were symbolic of the value of aesthetics... Flowers were also symbolic
of the degree to which the grounds and the school were cared for...
Where children had been involved in planting and tending flowers, their
sense of ownership became symbolic of their relationship to the school
as a whole.
Most schools visited had few flowers, either because none
had been planted or they had been vandalised. Where flowers did exist,
the children had not planted them. In one school children had planted
flowers and the [grounds maintenance people] had dug them up. One school provided
opportunity for every child to have a small garden of their own or to share and many did!" p. 53
Mud (!?)
"Mud
was symbolic of pure fun for most kids... However,... many were very
inhibited by the cultural prohibition against getting dirty...
[G]ardening was a highly prized activity, partly because it carried
'permission' to get dirty. For the children there was a clear
distinction between 'good' dirty and 'bad' dirty: 'smelly is bad but
messy is brilliant'". p. 55
Bushes
"For children in our research
bushes were not important as bushes but hugely important as symbols of
'the den'. Bushes held little aesthetic value for children. They were
seen as plain green and boring... However, bushes provided for children
the main opportunity to hide and have dens... Dens provide
privacy and a sense of security; a place where children can get away and
think; a place of retreat to 'lick their wounds'; to look out from on
the rest of the world.
Children all agreed that dens cannot be
provided, they have to be 'found' or 'made' by the children.. This need
was so strong that the ability to find places to make dens and the
permission to do so was read by children as being indicative of the
school's understanding of them and their needs.
In the majority
of the schools visited, concern that supervisors should be able to see
the children at all times precluded their having dens. Where bushes
existed, these were often used as dens, albeit 'illegally'." p. 57
Playground Equipment
"Fixed
play equipment was symbolic for the children of a recognition by the
school of some of their play needs. However, the equipment itself often
failed to meet these needs.
Generally, the most popular equipment was that which allowed children to adapt it, to make new meanings around it and subvert or change its apparent intention. The greater the potential of the equipment or item to be changed or manipulated the better." p. 61
Seating and Shelter
"In
the schools visited, children generally sat under or on something not
intended for the purpose... Where seats and benches had been provided
they were often placed in unattractive locations and were either not
used or used for everything but sitting on. Where appropriate seating
existed [as part of nooks and crannies], this was heavily used and valued." p. 63
"The
provision of shelter in the grounds was another element which, for the
children, signified that the school and the grounds were meeting their
needs....[During rain,] children were generally unanimous in their
preference to be outside rather than inside at playtime. Whilst many
children said they quite liked playing in.. "gentle rain", they were not
usually allowed to do so. They were also aware of the value of shelter
in providing shade from the sun." p. 63
What is the Hidden Curriculum of your school grounds?