Here is a sample “complete” response to the article…
In her article “Are we about to ban childhood altogether?” author Maggie Dent strives to convince parents and school teachers alike of the importance of childhood free play. Posted of the website ‘essentialkids.com.au’ it is evident that her target audience is those most concerned with the wellbeing and development of our children-predominantly parents and teachers. Dent employs a overall straightforward and authoritative tone, and by introducing herself as a ‘passionate advocate’ for childhood freeplay, it is clear to her audience that she possesses some vested interest in the issue presented, as well as a certain level of expertise highlighted by her various books and credentials at the articles conclusion. In response to the controversial banning of cartwheels at a Queensland state school and our modern attitude towards childhood risk-taking behaviour, Dent warns that ‘we may see fear-based thinking steal childhood altogether.’
The opening argument presented by Dent is that there are many benefits of having risk in our children’s lives, supporting her overall contention that childhood free play is essential to development. She introduces modern society’s cautious attitude towards risk taking by claiming that our ‘nanny state thinking’ may soon see our children discouraged ‘when walking or maybe even breathing.’ Here, she uses exaggeration to highlight the absurdity of banning activities that are completely normal and natural, and essential to life She presents a ‘slippery slope’ argument, attempting to challenge readers to see where their current restrictive thinking may lead to next. By describing our society as a ‘nanny state’, she evokes in readers the conservative thinking of the older generation, who often condemn the behaviours of the youth, an suggests that perhaps we have forgotten what it is to be young and free and have turned into grandmothers here to cuddle children like babies. Once establishing the ridiculous suggestions of banning activities with an element of risk, she adds the benefits that these ‘minor adversities’ bring, such as ‘emotional buoyancy’ and ‘resilience’, two concepts valued by parents and teachers alike. Many programs in primary schools currently work to develop resilience, such as ‘ Bounce Back’ and Dent here draws on this prior value to highlight what abandoning childhood risk is compromising. She points out that children learn by ‘embracing’ this risk taking element under adult supervision. She places “trained PE teachers” in quotation marks bringing to light how unnecessary it seems to have such strict control over children’s ‘lunch-time moves’ and to provide an element of sarcasm on the conservative nature of schools today. By doing this, Dent argues that all parents and teachers are fit to help our children develop.
After opening with this mildly condemning and disappointed tone, Dent moves on to argue the benefits of childhood movement in general by first quoting a ‘department response’ claiming they wish to prevent ‘playground injuries’, Dent questions the legitimacy of banning movement considered ‘beneficial and normal’ and states that to concede is ‘mystifying and ridiculous’. Here, she aims to alienate dissenters by pointing out that her point of view is ‘back by truckloads of research’ and ‘health professionals’, establishing her side as the one with expert support. She then lists firstly the benefits of ‘normal childhood movement’ and secondly the familiar activities that constitute this to make a link in the reader’s mind between the areas of childhood development they know to be positive and the familiar playground activities some seek to ban, and convince them to side with her that this notion is absurd. Inclusive language is consistently used by Dent, as she goes on to point out that ‘free play’ is what helps ‘our children’ gain skills for life, here appealing to parents and passionate educators- her target audience. To sum up this argument, Dent notes that these benefits can not be gained ‘solely through being passive’, appealing to her audience’s desire to be dynamic and engaged parents rather that passive ones. Finally, she throws in that these benefits do not come from interacting with ‘technology’, here capitalising on parents’ fears that their children will become addicted to technology and pointing out that perhaps this is the path we choose to go down once we abandon free play.
Following on from this, Dent reminds her audience that free play is already being compromised in our society today, and the consequences of this. She uses anecdotal evidence by stating ‘so many busy parents tell me’ of the time difficulties associated with outside play, to appeal to a familiar parental dilemma and to foreshadow her oncoming expert opinion by first establishing that childhood play has indeed been ‘declining’. She quotes ‘one of the world’s leading experts on play’, Dr Peter Curay, who links declining childhood play to rising childhood mental disorders. By providing this expert opinion, Dent uses the words of a person with superior knowledge on the subject matter than her audience to urge them to consider the dangers of banning childhood play by associating it with mental disorders, which are stigmatised and unwanted. She points out that ‘schools can support the need for physical play’, so as to provide a solution for this apparently impending problem of lack of play, and to convince her audience to have something to rally behind.
Lastly, Dent argues that we must abandon the growing mentality of having someone to ‘blame’ and let children play as they will. She begins by stressing that this mindset has been brought about by an overly cautious minority. She bolds the word ‘may’ to reinforce to schools that the risk of being held accountable is minimal. She then introduces this growing concept of a blaming attitude in regards to accidents by using another example of anecdotal evidence involving a child and a hose. Here Dent is able to make readers understand how ridiculous it is to ‘blame’ and consequently ‘ban hoses’ for these minor accidents, and compare it to banning cartwheels and even free play at school. She suggests we must instead ‘teach our children to watch where they put their feet’, using again inclusive language and simple symbolism to make herself appear practical and correct. She points out that accidents happen, and backs this up with her expert opinion of Tim Gill once more to argue that these activities are really nothing to be alarmed about and it is our stigmatisation and unnecessary fears that is causing more accidents. She shifts the blame away from the principal of the Sunshine Coast State School and suggests a hands-on, conversational approach with her target audience to combat these problems and encourage ‘adventuresome play with an element of risk’.
The visual material provided depicts a young boy happily engaged in a handstand. He has clearly chosen to play outside on the grass where he can be comfortable and free, and not boxed in by the implied institutions that restrict him, represented by a tall fence and boring buildings on either side of him. This further supports Dent’s contention that free play is essential to children’s development and freedom.
In the article ‘Are we about to ban childhood altogether?’ Maggie Dent uses a practical and authoritative tone to convince readers of the importance of childhood play and the risks we face by banning it in schools. By presenting a number of arguments and persuasive techniques it appears that Dent could have been quite successful in persuading her target audience of parents and teachers to ‘celebrate the odd bumps and bruises’ or risk stealing childhood altogether.