Risk assessments - little ones using older resources

[sarah707]

A childminder asked me recently whether she should let her little ones use paint, chalks, crayons etc when they all say they are not suitable for under 3s.

These are my thoughts...

It’s hard to know what to do for the best sometimes when resources say they are for over 3s and the little ones want to use them.

You need to balance the risks against the benefits of the child using them.

The answer, like most things these days, is in your paperwork! You need a risk assessment in place.

Here's an example...

The hazard is the paint...

The risk is choking or poisoning...

The danger (worst case scenario if children are left alone to explore) is probably around level 3 medium...

The control is you as you monitoring the children and supervising their use of the paint. Also you are using non-toxic paint...

The danger with the control in place is level 1, low.

The benefits of painting are...

Cll - children are learning to communicate through art;

Psed - children are expressing their emotions through being creative;

Pd - children are using their gross and fine motor skills... etc.

Do the benefits outweigh the risks?

Yes when the children are properly supervised

Hth

[Toothfairy]

Thanks

[Heaven Scent]

I would be very dubious about allowing little ones to use/play with toys/equipment that have a higher age range recommended by the manufacturer after the case where the minder had parental permission for a 5 year old to use a trampoline who then fell off and broke his arm and when the parents took the case to court because the insurance company wouldn't pay compensation the judge ruled that the minder was negligant because the manufacturers recommended that it was usitable for children under 6 yrs and he ruled that Ofsted strike her off. I now feel we are treading on very thin ice when it comes to this sort of thing - what choices we make for our own children is another thing altogether I feel now that a precidence has been set in law we now all need to be very very careful.

[sarah707]

I know where you are coming from and I totally agree with things like large garden equipment.

However when little ones want to paint, do you say no because the brushes and paints are for over 3s only?

If the little ones want to do chalking, do you take them away because the chalks say suitable for over 3s?

if the little ones want to look through a magnifying glass to see a snail do you say no because the magnifier says over 3 on the instructions?

I go back to what I was saying... you are the best control and if you are there supervising then children are not in danger.

I have been reading a lot about risky play of late and attended a very interesting speech by Helen Bromley.

She says a number of things such as...

If we do not allow children to experiment while we are there to keep them safe, they will simply go off and do things by themselves, probably in a corner and rushing, and are more likely to hurt themselves.

Also she was adamant that we have to trust them and enable them to learn about risks... again with us there to monitor them and give them safe boundaries.

otherwise she asked... how will they ever learn?

[sweets]

if under 3's only played with the toys recomended for them, they wouldnt be stretched and they would be very bored!

everything decent is for over 3's! if they are supervised and toys are checked then i think its fine.

[Pauline]

our local Sure Start centre and the local school both provide play sessions for our childminding group, toys are never the appropriate age range in my opinion.

SS have real staplers and real hole punches on the play 'office' table!

Majority of toys would probably say for over 3's on the box but of course we never see the packaging so it is hard to know if they should be playing with things or not!

Common sense at the end of the day I suppose.

[huggableshelly]

I keep reading this post and thinking but thinking hurts too bad.

our risk assessements, common sense and childs abilities along with parental permissions should cover us all for many items.

I did have a 12 ft trampoline but only had afterschoolers at the time, when I had younger ones I bought a small toddler one as the big one was for over 6 only. Its gone now, neighbour has it as older ones lost interest and younger ones needed more space to play, but I did let an almost 6 year old on it.

I wonder what my 2 year old would say if I told her she couldnt paint again now until she was 3! its time for the toy manufacterers to reassess their age brackets and add suitable for under 3's with adult supervission, this will then ensure we are fully covered for any insurance claims too!

[Chimps Childminding]

To be honest the number of things that have unsuitable for under 3 on them due to small parts - very often don't have small parts. I think manufacturers are just putting that on to cover themselves!! Surely common sense and supervision are the main factors. Plus we generally know our children well enough to know whether one 2 year old is mature enough play with something, where another 2 year old may not (ie putting things in mouths etc).

[Mouse]

You'll probably find that most of the toys etc that say "not suitable for under 3s" are actually perfectly OK. There is a whole lot more testing needs to be done for something to be labelled as safe for under 3's, so manufacturers don't bother.
It doesn't mean the toys aren't safe, it just means they haven't been tested to that level. Putting "not suitable for under 3's" saves the manufacturers a lot of money.

So, you've got to use your common sense and judge the risk for yourself.

[TheBTeam]

Same here, I wouldnt let a small child on a trampoline supervised or otherwise, but supervised use of crayons and paints etc is i believe perfectly acceptable.

I wouldnt leave them unsupervised with paint to protect my house!

[Heaven Scent]

Look, I agree with what you are all saying - but I do worry about the stupidity of that judge putting a precidence in law - its opened a huge can of worms and more or less renders our insurance invalid if a child under 3 either injures themselves or becomes ill when using equipment labelled unsuitable for under 36mths etc. We are in a no win situation - I also don't know what kind of MAD minder would leave a child of this age unsupervised and at large with paints, crayons etc. can you imagine the mess you would come back to!!!

I suppose that by mere virtue of the fact that homemade floop and playdough have no age range on it then its neither suitable nor not suitable. I think the only hope we all have now is to go down the garden and get colours from nature and make our own totally edible natural paints

Anyhow, I feel more an more stiffled with all of this and more and more vulnerable.

I'd like to see all of our inspectors faces if we told them that the u3's dont engage in lots of activities because we feel we are not insured to allow them to do it.

[Chimps Childminding]

I agree Celeste, unfortunately the world has gone mad!!! When we were kids no one thought anything of us climbing trees, playing in the brook, playing on building sites etc and if one of us had an accident, it was just that AN ACCIDENT. We were often gone from first thing in the morning till tea time, without mobile phones, and had a great time - grazed knees as well.

With adverts on the tv now about compensation for injuries everyone wants to blame some one. There are lots of things my sons did when they were little that I wouldn't allow a mindee to do as times have changed so much!
I wont have a swing because i worry about accidents with more than one child about, I would love a larger slide, but am worried about someone falling off it Even things like tennis racquets have me with my heart in my mouth

I will just go and buy bubble wrap in bulk and make sure no one gets hurt - making sure I don't suffocate them wrapping them up of course

[BlondeMoment]

I keep reading this post and thinking but thinking hurts too bad.

our risk assessements, common sense and childs abilities along with parental permissions should cover us all for many items.

I did have a 12 ft trampoline but only had afterschoolers at the time, when I had younger ones I bought a small toddler one as the big one was for over 6 only. Its gone now, neighbour has it as older ones lost interest and younger ones needed more space to play, but I did let an almost 6 year old on it.

I wonder what my 2 year old would say if I told her she couldnt paint again now until she was 3! its time for the toy manufacterers to reassess their age brackets and add suitable for under 3's with adult supervission, this will then ensure we are fully covered for any insurance claims too!

I found finger paints that said exactly that in Aldi! Yay Aldi!

[Mouse]

I took a close look at my bottles of paint yesterday. It said not suitable for under 3s as the lid on the bottle could be a choking hazzard. So, it wasn't the paint that was the problem, but the bottle itself.

And looking at some new ELC toys I bought, it gives a suggested age range (ie.18mths-4yrs). That must be different as it's not saying it can't be used by under 18 months or over 4s, just that it's recommened for those ages. There was no warning that it shouldn't be used by under 18mth olds, so I'm assuming it's OK for a 1yr old to play with it

[Blaze]

our local Sure Start centre and the local school both provide play sessions for our childminding group, toys are never the appropriate age range in my opinion.

SS have real staplers and real hole punches on the play 'office' table!

Majority of toys would probably say for over 3's on the box but of course we never see the packaging so it is hard to know if they should be playing with things or not!

Common sense at the end of the day I suppose.

I was on mark making training & the trainer made the suggestion of hole-punches & staplers - I raised the age / stapler question & was told it was perfectly acceptable for 3-5 year olds & younger Lo's at our decretion - just do a RA!

[TheBTeam]

I was on mark making training & the trainer made the suggestion of hole-punches & staplers - I raised the age / stapler question & was told it was perfectly acceptable for 3-5 year olds & younger Lo's at our decretion - just do a RA!

I think there was a thread some time ago on this, i think there is a difference between allowing a 3 year old a stapler (even with you able to walk away for brief periods), he isnt likely to kill himself with it, just make a couple of holes in a finger! But if he were on a trampoline and fell that could be a bigger accident.

I try and assess the extent of any risk, i would allow a 3 year old a stapler for an activity and would be pretty close by, but until i know what he does with it and knowing the child in general I wouldnt leave him and let him have complete freeplay with it.

[mamasheshe]

all i can say i supervision supervision supervision children can do most things safely with supervision no problems

[samanthat6987]

I think that you should be guided by the child, if the child is ready for those activities and toys then they should be allowed to others wise you are not meeting their individual needs.