Risk Management in Childcare Services

Risk Man mountment in fryc be ServicesAdults argon approach with a dilemma on the ace hand, children need opportunity to be surveil competent exercise a encounter managers on the other, bigs ready the responsibility to keep them safe.Critically assess whether this dilemma evoke be managed within the delivery of works for children.Risk way has become a high connect in childc ar service. Increasing changes in policies and procedures to tick that fortunes ar minimized invite resulted into children non been given the same opportunities that we would pack had as a child when we were exploitation up. Over fresh old age increasing attention has been foc hired on childcare services to deoxidise risk and ensure children are kept safe from danger.In this sagacity I hope to identify what is risk and looking at how parliamentary law has changed over the years. I pass on look at both the dilemmas faced by both parents and childrens services, looking at the how anxiety has changed the idea of risk management.The subject of risk management is causing slap-up use up in the childrens services. Practitioners face the dilemma of given children opportunities to seek season at the same time ensuring that they are safe.When looking at risk we earn to consider what is a risk? We face risks in usual life from the meaning we get up. When heading to work either in the car or walking it is a risk as we whitethorn control a car accident or get knocked d throw. clawren from the moment of birth face risk when educateing up. A baby whitethorn choke on their bottle or a toddler whitethorn fall when taking their first steps. The severity of the risk depends on the consequence.In our current order of magnitude parents pay become more than anxious when delivering the children to explore and bring step forward ab come on risks. Todays generation have travel from allowing children the opportunity to experience risk to the extreme where children are shel tered from risks by not allowing them to have the same challenges and opportunities we would have had at a teenaged age. Stover et al., 2013 evaluates asome very valid reason to why this may have come about. It has looked at how parents have become more anxious on where at that tush child symbolises or goes and the quality of independence they have, ensuring they are safe from risk and harm. Over resent years it can be seen how attitudes have changed and children are spending more time under adult supervision execute area, non- risk environments or indoors in what is seen as safe and secure, transposition adventures play. Childrens play has moved from the positive play alike cognise as risk play where children developed motor skills, control through and through physical rick, learn new skills and develop assertion. When looking at comments do during schooling guide 13.4 discussing wherediscussing where we played at 11 years of age it can be seen that we were given as ch ildren were given more freedom and parents did not have the same concerns about risks as they do today. With growing up in the country side it was regulation to take risks and was seen as a safe place for children to develop to their full practical skills. We were rarely questioned about where we played, alone rather we had more fears of organism caught by our parents and get in trouble. When looking back on my childhood and growing up with my six siblings, I can also state that we did not have either serious accidents due to the risk play rather than the normal bumps or bruises that every child faces.In todays society attuides have changed due to growing changes and trends in young children today. They are not allowed to explore the fields or visit friends without adult supervision. It can be even said that children today are not as extraverted and street wiseh but rather spend more time acting with the latest technology or game. Modern technology such as internet and influe nce of media has escalating fears in parents and therefore made them more intrusive or is it simply of the mistakes we learned as a child and we are being over proactive? Furedis (2001) work on insane parenting cited in Gladwin and Collins 2008 cover issues on how these changes result from parents lacking the effrontery and rather than set boundaries being their childs best friend. be we as parents defend or children or is it our own fears we have of them set about risks. It can be critically argued that yes while parents are seen to lack confidence in todays society parents are under a lot more pressure with keeping up with media and how children are unfastened today to media trends e.g. Through hearty media, Facebook, mobile phones. When I was growing my time was spend outdoor with friends creating our own play.It was also interpreted to my attention the expression by Stover et al., 2013 (2013) on how parental responsibility has changed from children not having freedom to protect them from risk, but also society has changed to where children today are seen as humane capital. Children are not given the opportunity to play but rather institutionalising children to education. It can be critically argued that while yes this has been seen over recent years but it has changed around again, that while education is an important human face of live studies has shown that children need play and the value of play is the developmental rock for lifelong learning. Piaget cited in Springate and Foley (2008) research has an important conclusiontusion to this as he believes that not only the play is important but involving children in risks contributes to a childs development.As citied in Maynard (2007) Encounters with forest school and Foucault article learning guide 13.3 shows how two different approaches on risk taken in play. When looking at the forest schools created by McMillians Sister and the video cultivate 2 on Risk both using a work force off approach allows children the freedom of play and learning to risk manage. Children on the video also have the responsibility of looking after their own health and well-being. Comparing this to our schools today while there has been develops on the vastness of play in the childs development and through the Plowden history cited in Springate and Foley (2008) we have changed to a play based curriculum uniform Foucault suggests in learning guide 13.3, teachers unsounded centering on the common sense that we must keep our children safe from harm. In my own setting yes we use the hands off approach but will interveneal before a children comes to risk for example when on balancing beams and unsteady we will befriend rather than allowing the child the risk of falling. While Foucault suggests that teachers like to keep index and maintain control through not being allowed to take break down in risks and adventures play I have to critically disagree. As an archaeozoic years leader I feel tha t its not being in control but rather the pressures we have to follow. We are protecting or children from risk and not allowing them the freedom due to the extreme pressures put together in place from the social care trust regulations (2012) coming from the Children distinguish (1995) and it could be said we are keep ourselves safe. Like Power (2004) cited in Gladwin and Collins (2008) states it the uncertainty of grapplen what is right and wrong. As practitioners we carry out risk assignments on a daily basis however we still are responsible if something goes wrong.In my own setting children are be given the opportunity in the outdoor area were we have adventurouses play. We have having types of challenges where children can climb and learn how to be safe. Children make mud pies and have learned that its important to wash our hand after so they dont become ill. We have had no serious injuries beyond the usual bumps and bruises which we would expect with any young child. While we do allow this type of play children are limited to the extent of risk play we can interpret. We are located beside a lovely glen where the river runs alongside the playgroup, we are un able-bodied to have logs untreated in cutting of infection or children being able to stand on steps to see the river in case they fall. I feel that this is a shame as it limits their susceptibility to explore and learn thorough the natural environment.Unfortunately due to the borderline standards (2012) and regulations we are unable to experience the adventures play in our local timberland where children can experience climbing trees and explore in the natural environment. This is seen as a high risk to children and the safe ratio is seen as also low. I have to critically disagree as it is a cracker-barrel area and its a safe environment but children are being neglected from the experience like the forest schools these risks gain where children learn about keeping safe through the natural envi ronment. It also defines the sanctioned poser of the UNCRC(1989) citied in Foley (2008) where children have the right to play.As pre-school teacher we are inclined to put away the sharp edge object, not allowing children to run and ensuring that benches and tables are bleached to reduce risk. We have to ask ourselves are we predate the children or ourselves. Do children learn from protecting them or would it not be better to turn risk into a learning experience for children? Lindon (2003) citied in Gladwin and Collins (2008) studies believes that involving children in risk allows the child to understand why we cant do something and allows them to value the harm it can convey, giving children the determine of life and making their own decisions. I feel that while this is vitally important and we should allow our children more risks again it relates back to adults protecting themselves in case of serious injuries.While we are restricted to how much risk we allow our children and have an implication on practice it can be critically argued like Power 2004 citied in Gladwin and Collins (2008) in well-kept has come from failure within the health services. While Both social workerss failing the system causing deaths to children e.g. Victoria Climbie (2003) and Baby P citied in Blewett and Foley (2008) and other high profile cases, but also hospitals where deaths have accumulated due to lack of services has affected the freedom of our childcare service like playgroup, after schools etc.. and what was seen as good risks have been come into the sort of putting children at danger.These high profile cases have led to governing body relooking at Legislation. Government published green papers Every Child matters (2003) Lord Laming report identified changes needed introducing the childrens Act (2004) citied Blewett and Foley (2008) in which made developed the child protection register. UNCRC give children the right to grow up in a safe environment free from treat an d neglect. In 1997 New Labour government relooked at the health services and while child protection was still and main concern it also came into play the identification of children at risk. Through the Assessment framework (DH et AL2000) citied in Blewett and Foley (2008) give more responsibility on practitioners to report any concerns on child protection issues. While this has been a break in the system for safe guarding children and has joined together multi agencies it has left increased concern for childcare services. Practitioners are worried about getting it wrong or likewise missing something. This again results to adult reducing risk to children in their care to not only protect the children but themselves.While this is the case it has been equally as important for these changes to happen as children today are more aware of what is right and wrong. Stanger danger has become a focus in child education Scott et al. (1998), cited in Gladwin and Collins, (2008), points out it is such a big worry when the objective risk is so tiny clear demonstrates the distortions of popular risk perceptions. While this has had great impact on making children more aware the NSPCC have campaign on underwear rules has been of great impact in terms of abuse as it also someone makes children aware that a person we know can also cause use harm. Therefore as adult we have to empowering children to speak out about abuse whenever it is within the family or by people they know and trust.In conclusion to looking at risks and what is seen as risk management it can be seen that while society today has left more concern for both parents and practitioners there has been tremendous work do in this area. While we still face the challenges of known how fear we can provide opportunity for children to be confident learner, creative and learning from their mistakes and being able to explore freely under supervision but without the direction of the adult, we have to also look at our work as practitioner. Sandseter Hansen (2012) identifies some pertinent points where it is seen how practitioners look at how risk decisions are made by the adult as they are managing their own anxieties rather than the risk. Policies and procedures preducces are in place to help safeguard ourselves, but as practitioner we have to be able to define what is a safe risk and when does it become a danger.It can be seen that a lot more work is done with children through different school programmes like the school bus in learning guide 13.3 it gives children the opportunity to learn about risk taken and making the right decisions in life. As disused earlier this will help with parents anxieties about their children. Professionals working in partnership with other agencies and organisations will help to ensure the safe guarding of children.BibliographySpringate D Foley P (2008) Play Matters in Collins, J and Foley P (eds), Promoting Childrens Wellbeing Bristol, The polity / Milton Keynes, Th e receptive University.Gladwin M Collins J (2008) Anxieties and Risks in Collins, J and Foley P (eds), Promoting Childrens Wellbeing Bristol, The Policy / Milton Keynes, The Open University.Blewett J Foley P (2008) Staying unhurt in Collins, J and Foley P (eds), Promoting Childrens Wellbeing Bristol, The Policy / Milton Keynes, The Open University.KE312 Working together for children Activity 13.3KE312 Working together for Children Video get dressed 2JournalsStover, S. (2013) Odd alliancesWorkingtheorieson unintended consequences ofearlychildhoodeducation in Aotearoa, New Zealand .Australasian of Early childishness vol.3, no p4-8. 5p. in stock(predicate) at http//www.open.ac.uk/Sandseter, Beate E, Hansen.(2012)Restrictive Safety or Unsafe freedom? Norwegian ECEC Practitioners Perceptions and Practices Concerning ChildrensRiskyPlay. Child Care in Practice., Vol. 18 Issue 1, p83-101. 19p.Available at http//www.open.ac.uk/Internethttp//www.nspcc.org.uk/help-and-advice/for-parents /keeping-your-child-safe/the-underwear-rule/the-underwear-Sinead Bartley (C6449275)Page 1