No Rules During Recess Makes Students More Engaged in Classroom

© 2013 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

When pupils at Swanson Primary School in Auckland, New Zealand, go out for recess, they can play as they wish, including climbing trees, riding skateboards and scooters, sliding in the mud, playing bullrush (a running and chasing game) and doing whatever other activity they dream up. That's because there are no longer any playground rules at the school.
Since the rules have been eliminated, the school has seen a drop in bullying, vandalism and serious injuries, and an increase in concentration levels in the classrooms.
The school's principal, Bruce McLachlan, dropped the playground rules as part of a university experiment. "We want kids to be safe and to look after them, but we end up wrapping them in cotton wool when in fact they should be able to fall over," McLachlan said.
Two years ago, the Swanson school agreed to be part of a study by Auckland University of Technology and Otago University, that was intended to encourage active play by children. McLachlan, however, took the experiment a step further by eliminating the recess rules completely.
Initially, some of the Swanson teachers were skeptical of the no-rules move, but when the university study results were released, teachers and researchers alike were amazed by the results.
"The kids were motivated, busy and engaged," said McLachlan. "In my experience, the time children get into trouble is when they are not busy, motivated and engaged. It's during that time they bully other kids, graffiti or wreck things around the school."
The kids, in fact, were so engaged during playtime that fewer teachers were needed to be on patrol.
There was even a financial benefit to the school. With many safety rules no longer in effect, the school was able to abandon plans to upgrade its playground with costly new equipment. Instead, the kids started playing in a "loose parts pit," using their imaginations to create activities from such items as old wood, used tires and a scrapped fire hose.
It should be noted that, although formal and specific playground "rules" were dropped, there were still informal and more generic rules in place. For example, fist fights would presumably be halted by teachers -- at least if they lasted any significant length of time -- and students would not be allowed to steal from other students. In addition, children playing games would likely adhere to -- or appeal to -- the rules of the game. The difference appears to be in the lack of specific rules against free-form play activity, and the lack of rules imposed by the school authorities when kids self-organized games.
The study is over, but Swanson Primary School has made the no-rules practice permanent.
One researcher on the project commented that society's obsession with protecting children "ignores the benefits of risk-taking."
Writing in The Atlantic about Swanson School's no-rules practice, writer and former teacher Jessica Lahey said that many American school administrators do not feel they have the freedom to eliminate playtime rules. "Parents drive our nation's tendency toward more restrictive playground rules because parents are the ones who sue schools when their children get hurt," she said.
Lahey, who has worked at five different schools, said she loved watching her students frolic on the playground, but "did not love having to intervene every time an elbow was thrown or a first-grader jumped off a moving swing." But she said she felt she had no choice. "Our playground rules were clear. Children were to be watched constantly and closely in order to prevent injuries, and history had shown that when an injury did occur despite these precautions, teachers and administrators were often to blame for failing to intervene earlier."
Still, she hopes that the no-rules change might eventually gain traction in the United States.
More on this story can be found at these links:
School Ditches Rules and Loses Bullies. TVNZ
Recess Without Rules. The Atlantic
The Big Questions
1. In terms of the Christian life, what things, if any, do you consider "rules"? If you believe that there are only a few rules for Christians or none at all, what helps you decide how to behave in new situations? To what extent, if any, does it matter who (or Who) is laying down the rules? How does knowledge of who is making the rules affect the validity of the rules and your own propensity to obey the rules?
2. When it comes to significance, are all "rules" the same? Does the source of the rule make a difference? Why or why not? Legal philosophy divides laws into "rules" against things that are bad in themselves (malum in se) and those that are illegal merely because they've been prohibited by someone claiming authority (malum prohibitum). Does this distinction aid in considering the story about Swanson Primary School? Why or why not?
3. Where have you benefited in your faith from your own risk-taking? How does risk-taking fit in with following Jesus? What is the biggest risk you have taken as a Christian? What were the results?
4. Because you are a follower of Jesus, are some of society's rules not needed in your case? If so, which ones are unnecessary and why? Do you find some of society's rules to be invalid -- or even opposed to Jesus' teachings? If so, how does that affect your obedience to those rules? When have people assumed you would do the right thing because you are a Christian? When have you made the unspoken assumption that someone else would do the right thing because he or she was a Christian? What was the result?
5. What is the spiritual effect on you when you are not "motivated, busy and engaged"?
6. What rules should be kept in place for children? Why? When you were a child, were there any protections by teachers/staff against bullying? Were you bullied? Were you a bully? What do you think the result would have been if the Swanson School rules had been in place at your school?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Judges 17:6
In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes. (For context, read 17:1-6.)
This comment occurs twice in the book of Judges: once here in chapter 17 and once at the very end of the book, in 21:25. As such, the comment appears as "brackets" around the intervening material. During the time of judges, there was no king, and thus no central government, and apparently not much in the way of local government either. In fact, it was a time with no enforced rules. The people had the law of Moses, but with no enforcement, people did more or less whatever they wanted, and as a result, all sorts of boundaries were crossed that should not have been.
Read the material in chapters 17 through 21 and you will find accounts of people appointing their own priests, tales of idolatry, a land grab by one tribe from another, a story of terrible abuse of a woman resulting in her death, internecine battles and a capturing of virgins who were forced to be wives of the men of one tribe. No rules indeed! And no boundaries either!
Questions: Would you want to live in a society without rules? Why or why not? What are some negative uses of laws, rules or boundaries? What are positive uses? Where do Christian adults find their behavior boundary lines?
Matthew 23:23-24
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel! (For context, read 23:1-36.)
The verses above are a snippet of Jesus' much longer denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees for their legalistic practice of faith -- their turning of what was meant to bring fullness of life into a restrictive set of rules that brought only narrowness of life. Clearly, Jesus saw that rule-keeping without attention to "the weightier matters of the law," including "justice and mercy and faith," was a dead-end street.
Questions: What makes some of us prefer rule-keeping over attention to justice, mercy and faith? Name a rule that has set up barriers to justice and doing right.
Mark 2:27
The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath ... (For context, read 2:23-27 and Matthew 12:1-13.)
This verse comes in a story where Jesus' disciples disobeyed a specific rule against working on the Sabbath. Jesus himself also disobeyed that command (in the Matthew account) by healing a man with a deformed hand -- on the Sabbath.
We might presume that the Pharisees accusing Jesus and his disciples of rule-breaking had good intentions -- of following God's commands. We might also presume that those imposing specific rules and effectively micromanaging kids' playtimes at schools have good intentions. Even so, the slavish obedience to these sorts of rules can be harmful, either immediately or in the long term.
In the Swanson Primary School case, the rules that were dropped were, one may assume, intended to be for the sake of the children, but were at the root made for the sake of the school staff's liability. The actual needs for children's development and maturity were ignored until the rules were removed.
Questions: What are some instances where you've encountered rules that were made not for your (or society's) benefit, but really for the benefit of the rule-maker? What are some instances of rules or legislation that you've supported that may be for your own benefit (or to please yourself), rather than for the actual benefit of others?
Galatians 3:23-24 (NIV)
Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. (For context, read 3:21-26.)
Born a Jew, the apostle Paul had high regard for the Law of Moses, but once he became a Christian, he realized that the law itself was not the final word. Rather, he saw it as an educator or "guardian" to teach us right and wrong. The Greek word translated here as "guardian" referred in Paul's day to a trusted household slave who was responsible to watch over his master's son. The guardian's duties included accompanying the boy to school, making sure he attended to his studies and keeping him out of trouble. The time would come, of course, when that son reached adulthood, and from that time forward, he no longer needed the protective and corrective care of the slave.
The NRSV uses the word "disciplinarian" instead of "guardian," which is also a valid translation of the Greek word. Paul's implication here is that the law "disciplined" Israel until faith came, but "we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian" (v. 25, NRSV).
Some theologians believe this means that the Law of Moses teaches us to distinguish right from wrong and righteousness from sin until we internalize such boundaries. Paul said that living by faith in Christ Jesus, which is the "adult" stage that no longer needs the law as a guardian/disciplinarian, makes persons "children of God" (v. 26). Others believe that the Law of Moses has a purpose of bringing us to the realization that we are sinful -- we have broken the Law -- and that it is only through Jesus' righteousness that we are judged "not guilty" before God.
Questions: In what areas do you feel you have achieved some spiritual maturity? In what ways do you have some spiritual growing up to do? In what areas do you believe the law continues to show you your sinfulness? How and why? How, specifically, do we help our children learn where the moral boundaries are?
Matthew 22:35-40
... one of them ... asked [Jesus] ... "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (For context, read 22:34-40.)
Here Jesus essentially boils all of the Law of Moses down to two commandments, and even those two are very specific in terms of "do this" and "don't do this." Loving God and loving neighbor are the broad principles. A great many actions and behaviors can fit into those two commands. Perhaps we would do better to think of them as touchstones against which to examine our actions: "Is what I am doing honoring of God and loving toward my neighbor?"
Questions: When have you used these two commandments as guidance for some action on your part? When have you dropped some planned action after deciding that it was neither honoring of God nor an expression of love toward your neighbor?
2 Samuel 11:1-3
In the spring of the year, the time when kings go out to battle, David sent Joab with his officers and all Israel with him; they ravaged the Ammonites, and besieged Rabbah. But David remained at Jerusalem. It happened, late one afternoon, when David rose from his couch and was walking about on the roof of the king's house, that he saw from the roof a woman bathing; the woman was very beautiful. David sent someone to inquire about the woman. (For context, read 11:1-5.)
These are the opening lines of the story of David's adultery with Bathsheba and his eventual murder of her husband. Notice that the narrator makes a point of telling that this happened at "the time when kings go out to battle," but that David didn't go. The narrator seems to be telling us that David's great sins occurred during a time when he was not motivated, busy and engaged.
Note too that this was not a case where there were no rules. In David's day, the Ten Commandments were known, yet David broke several of them -- coveting his neighbor's wife, committing adultery, committing murder.
Question: Since most of us have some leisure time, as well as some times when we are on our own, how might this Bible story serve as a warning for us?
For Further Discussion
1. What sometimes leads you to violate boundaries such as good taste, Sabbath observance, personal modesty, moral uprightness, etc. that you have previously accepted?
2. Would you encourage the school where the young children in your life attend to eliminate playground rules? Why or why not?
3. Comment on this, from one of the researchers on the New Zealand experiment: "Children develop the frontal lobe of their brain when taking risks, meaning they work out consequences. You can't teach them that. They have to learn risk on their own terms. It doesn't develop by watching TV, they have to get out there."
4. Should we as Christians need any rules? What rules did you grow up with? What does it say about us as churches that we often compile complex systems of rules for weddings, funerals, building use and even worship? What rules at your church bother you? Which do you approve of?
5. Every four years, one denomination organizes a national youth conference. Although there are time slots where options are offered, for the most part, youth go from breakfast to Bible study to worship to small groups to lunch to workshops and more worship and more activities and dinner and evening activities. There is little or no down time. By contrast, every two years the same denomination organizes a national conference for older adults. There are many options offered -- worship, entertainment, Bible study, electives, crafts, activities -- but nothing is mandatory. Is it fair to offer the freedom to make choices (as seems to be what is happening in the New Zealand recesses) to senior adults but not to youth? Why? Have you known adults, youth and/or seniors who require constant supervision? And vice versa, that require none? Are there those who come to your church who seem to follow their own agenda, neither attending worship, nor Sunday school, nor any other programmed activity? What do you think about such choices? What should churches do with regard to providing options?
Responding to the News
This could be a good time to consider what rules are in place in your church's children's department or program, and to evaluate their effectiveness.
Closing Prayer

O God, help us to so internalize your word that we live willingly and faithfully within the boundaries you have set for our well-being and the well-being of others. In Jesus' name. Amen.