Stop Means Stop

Our society has a problem with understanding the concept of consent.  The Stanford case is only the most recent public example of a culture that fosters sexual harassment and sexual assault.  The Stnaford rapist obviously disregarded the notion of consent, but there were many in the media and legal system that also did not seem to understand that no one has the right to touch or interact with another person without permission.  I have been thinking about this situation for a while, but since this blog is geared toward those who work with young children, I didn’t think I would address it here.

 

But when I look at the problem as a cultural phenomenon, I realize that all of us have a responsibility to do something.  In closer reflection, I see that there is something I can do.  While preschoolers have different types of interactions than adults, they are also deal with the issue of respecting others and their belongings.

 

 

We have the guideline “We Take Care of Each Other” in my classroom.  This guideline covers any type of play or interaction.  I can’t take a toy from someone else just because I want to play with it.   I can’t say something that hurts another child’s feelings, even if I didn’t intend to hurt them.  For example, preschoolers love to rhyme words, but I can’t call Chuck, “Truck” if he doesn’t want me to.  Even if he thought it was funny earlier in the day.

 

 

 

One of the ways children learn to take care of each other is roughhousing.  

Some teachers will stop children if they play rough so they don’t hurt each other.  I think this is a missed opportunity for children how to learn to respect each other.  If two children want to roughhouse, they are taking care of each other when they roughhouse, meeting the need they have for physical play.  However, if one child wants to play rough and tackles a child without asking, that is clearly not OK.  That child is not taking care of the other child.  The child must ask first.

 

If Sandra and Kenneth knock over Latifa’s block building while they are playing rough, they are not taking care of Latifa.  If Sandra and Kenneth move to the mat where no one is building, they are taking care of each other.  If Kenneth says, “Stop,” at some point, Sandra needs to stop.  If Kenneth decides to resume the roughhousing, he will let Sandra know.  It’s not a question of whether the play itself is “right or wrong, but rather it is a question of whether children are respecting each other.  Stop means stop.

Often children will say, “Stop,” frequently if they are new to roughhousing or if their play partner is new.  They are testing whether this partner is trustworthy.  Do they stop when I ask?  Usually after a short pause they will play rough again.  As they gain trust in another, they usually pause the game less often.

Sometimes children don’t even need to say, “Stop.”  They express their desire to stop by crying or cringing a bit.  In this case, not only do the other play partners stop roughhousing, they also check in.  Are you OK?  Can I help you?  Do you want a hug?  As teachers, we may have to teach some children to check in with others, but most children pick up on it fairly quickly.

There are some children who are not yet able to read the body language of others.  They may continue to play rough despite a child tearing up.  It might be easy to simply not allow these children to play rough, but I think these children are precisely the ones we need to teach by giving them more opportunities to play rough.  The teacher can describe the body language.  “He’s scrunching up his face, try not pushing so hard.  Now he’s smiling, he liked when you knocked him down.”  Children can learn with this direct instruction.  If these children don’t learn to read body language, they are at risk of being rejected by other children.  These rejected children have less opportunity to gain social skills and often end up exhibiting anti-social behavior later.

The last thing I would like to say about children learning to respect others and asking for consent is in regards to interactions with adults.  Our culture often has an expectation that children must hug certain adults such as relatives.  If children hesitate, they are told they must hug Auntie.  I think it is seen as a sign of respect toward the elder, but it shows little respect for the child.  I think it sends the message that children don’t get to decide who touched them.  This is hardly a message we should be sending.  You can ask if  child wants to give a high five, or you can ask if the child will give a hug with you, but then leave it up to the child.  Don’t admonish them if they say, “No.”  No means no.

Teachers of children all ages have an opportunity to change the value of consent in our culture.  We just have to start seeing it as something we teach.  There may be no greater lesson.

Advertisements

Kids Will be Kids

 

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

“Boys will be boys.”

Usually this refers to the way some boys engage in rough-and-tumble play for much of the day and girls don’t. When I talk to other teachers who allow and encourage rough-and-tumble play, I get a very different picture. We all agree that big body play or rough-and-tumble play seems fairly mixed gender-wise. I have 8 boys and 2 girls in my preschool class this year, but about half the time someone asks me to get out the mats for roughhousing, it is a girl. When kids are piled on top of each other, there are girls and boys in the mix.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

There is research that shows that girls are more likely to engage in rough-and-tumble play when the teacher does. It has been my experience that kids also participate in activities that the adults around them clearly love. It makes sense to me that if a teacher has fun roughhousing, most kids will participate regardless of gender.

000041251

As I work on my book on rough-and-tumble play, I keep thinking about gender, both the gender of the children as well as the gender of the teachers. I am always reluctant to talk about gender and behavior. I think that boys have certain tendencies and girls have certain tendencies, but there is a lot of crossover. In her book Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School, Barrie Thome observed young elementary school students. This age group is known for segregating themselves by gender, but Thome found that the vast majority (80%) of boys played with girls and the same percentage of girls played with boys some of the time.

Thome refutes the notion of separate “boy culture” and “girl culture.” Children may show a preference for others of their own gender, but it is not exclusive. This thinking of separate cultures with distinct behaviors can quickly cause adults to become essentialist in terms of gender.

For example, in Wired to Move: Facts and Strategies for Nurturing Boys in an Early Childhood Setting, Ruth Hanford Morhard suggests teachers “give boys opportunities for physical contact,” but then goes on to say, “Make sure the boys understand this kind of physical contact is fine with boys, but not with girls.” This otherwise excellent book makes the mistake of conflating a tendency of boys (and girls) into an absolute truth about the genders. There are boys who would not be OK with this contact and there are girls who would enjoy it. And yes, there are children that are perceived to be boys who may not have come to their full gender identity as a girl (or vice versa).

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

 

All children need the freedom to move their bodies in the way they choose while respecting the rights of others regardless of gender. This means that many boys will crash their bodies into other boys, but some girls may be involved in this type of play as well.

 

 

 

Having said that, I think that the idea of “boy culture” could be useful. Boys are expelled from preschools at a much higher rate than girls. They are referred for special needs at a much higher rate as well. Meanwhile the teachers are almost exclusively women (at least 95% depending on what statistics you use). I am not claiming that there aren’t women who “get” rough-and-tumble play. And I am not concerned about how much of a behavior is learned and how much is biological. I am merely talking about the teachers’ responses to the full body expression of many boys and some girls.

I also think that there is culture within the field of Early Childhood Education with a wide array of variations within this culture. There is a tendency to favor sitting and reading books over other storytelling media (storytelling, acting, video). There is often a rejection of certain types of play such as violent-themed play and roughhousing that is common among boys. The result is a culture clash.

None of this is intentional. Many of these teachers may not have had the need to move as much as many of the boys (and some girls) in their classrooms. I am not implying that teachers are intentionally not meeting boys’ needs but rather they are unknowingly using their cultural expectations to determine what is acceptable.

hanging upside down

This becomes more pronounced when looking at African-American boys. The vast majority of teachers are white women. The intersection of race and gender present some unique concerns. As stated, boys tend to express themselves with their whole bodies in ways that teachers often view as disruptive. When African-American boys are behaving boisterously, the teachers might not only view it as disruptive, but they may attach some intentionality to it. They may perceive a child as being aggressive when they play this way, or perhaps even defiant. I think white boys are given a little more latitude (boys will be boys) even if they are also scolded.OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

I think all teachers need to look at their own preferences and recognize that they may not “get” why kids do certain things. They may be uncomfortable playing certain ways, but they can do it anyways knowing that they are trying something from a different “culture” that can be appreciated and accepted. They can let kids be kids.