During my junior high days in the early 1980s, I experienced a learning culture that was far more permissive in the promotion of student risk-taking than perhaps what some children might get to experience today.
I recall, that situated in the centre of the gym there swayed a 25-foot-long, three-inch diameter climbing rope. It was connected to an eye bolt on a steel girder high in the ceiling. A small two-inch-thick foam mat served as both the launching pad and landing pad for climbers. For some students this rope would boost their confidence to new heights. For others, the gym rope would become their nemesis. In time, the rope would fade into safety guideline obscurity.
Physical education is a key component of curricular programming across Canada. The promotion of fitness, a healthy lifestyle, as well as instilling conceptual and procedural knowledge of physical literacy in children frame the learner outcomes. In seeking to mitigate the sedentary disposition that has pervaded today’s society, keeping children active and immersing them into opportunities for both structured and free play, are at the forefront of recent programming and research.
Consider the work of Gull, Goldstein and Rosengarten (2018) who, in studying the benefits derived from tree-climbing, observed that children who are provided opportunities to engage in “risky play” grow socially, emotionally, cognitively, creatively, and have increased resiliency.
Over the past 20 years, there have been many curricular changes that have brought about the end of certain activities deemed too risky for children. Climbing a gym rope to the rafters is but one of many casualties of policy. Gone, too, are the trampolines, gymnastics apparatus, and in some jurisdictions one of the most Canadian things you could do: canoeing!
There is such a fear of litigation today that the list of allowable activities that students may engage with is a diminishing commodity. Field trip forms, waivers, and risk aversion in general seek to wish away the twisted ankles, bruised knees and friction burns that I certainly got as a kid. Children cannot even climb a tree let alone cross the street to a park without the direct supervision of several adults. Perhaps the culture of fear has created a deficit in resiliency?
According to Brooks and Goldstein (2002), resiliency is having the strength needed to address challenges and adversity. Strength in this context could apply to both physical and/or mental. Mastering the gym rope required solid upper body strength and a growth mindset.
In thinking about the range of activities that I did in my Grade 8 PE class “back in the day,” I feel that our teachers believed that we could and would learn from our experiential learning associated with risky play activities. We do not teach this way today. Kids do not play the way we got to play when we were young.
In so many ways this seems unfair, even unjust. We have layered so many protectionist policies and liability mitigating regulations into programming that it is cumbersome for a teacher to take a PE class rock-climbing, cycling, or even across the street.
Yet, PE programs today do seek to rekindle student resiliency, foster perseverance and promote inclusive physical literacy. Thus, many resources are being invested into play therapy and play programs that purpose to: get kids moving, get them interacting with peers, and get them to achieve higher levels of fitness. This is great!
As an educator, I reflect upon my Grade 8 rope climbing experiences: overcoming obstacles and finding new ways to reach goals. After all, is it not success that we want for our children?
To help our learners today learn the ropes of resiliency, perhaps we just need to go back to having that iconic “old school” artifact known as: the gym climbing rope!
Tim Cusack is an educator, writer, and member of the naval reserve.
