Dear Penny,
The reason zero tolerance of war or weapon play has remained for so long is because it is right. It's important not simply to consider children as isolated individuals. You imply that any interest developed by a child should be encouraged rather than contained, but this ignores the fact that play with war toys can lead to behaviour that dominates or intrudes on the play of other children. Those who work in childcare have to balance the needs of all the children in their care.
I disagree with you that simply because we don*t always succeed in preventing children playing with guns we should abandon all our efforts. What is more important is that we, as parents and carers, help direct children towards more positive play opportunities. Zero tolerance of war toys will not by itself produce a less violent society - but there is no reason to give up one area where we can make a difference.
Best wishes,
Anne Longfield,
Director, Kids' Clubs Network
Dear Anne,
While I'm sure we would both agree that the original intent of zero tolerance - to minimise aggression and promote non-violence - is right, surely concerned and reflective practitioners must constantly challenge strategies conceived to achieve these aims if they are ineffective? I am not advocating that we should allow children to play with manufactured toy guns. My research is concerned with children being allowed to construct weapons from play materials as props for play, and to initiate war and superhero scenarios.
Concerns about the management of potentially disruptive play, which can intimidate and distract others, have been prominent in upholding zero tolerance. Far from advocating a laissez faire approach, which privileges one individual at the expense of others, I'm suggesting we engage with children*s interest in this area of play and support their imaginative development so that they can move beyond media-imposed scenarios, while maintaining clear boundaries around aggressive and intimidating behaviour. Children in my preliminary research were allowed to point weapons at the ceiling, walls and floor, but not at each other. For children with no other entry point into imaginative play, it seems crucial that we hold the door open for them. Once children have come through it, their imaginative play grows beyond their initial area of interest and aggressive play diminishes.
Since I first published this research, I've been inundated with requests to speak with early- years practitioners who are feeling uncomfortable and dissatisfied with the limitations of a zero tolerance approach and wish to develop new strategies. I'm not suggesting a blanket approach to replace zero tolerance, but I hope I am stimulating practitioners to become reflective about their approach. Over the next year, I will be evaluating this work, and the signs so far are that there is much positive work in progress. Like you, I have certainly not given up working towards a less violent society. It is precisely this which fuels my research.
Best wishes,
Penny
Dear Penny,
I'm pleased you agree with me that children should not be allowed to play with manufactured toy guns. But allowing a loophole, where they are allowed to make their own to play with, weakens the message that guns and violence are unacceptable. The central issue is the danger that children become accustomed to violent play and that this affects their development. In the wider culture of TV and computer games, violence is often linked to success. Violent play with toy guns should not reinforce this. Instead, there must be a consistent and universal message that guns and violence are unacceptable. Children like and need consistency from the adults who care for them. As research from the Girl Guides published this week shows, children's primary role models are parents. When parents set down consistent guidelines about war play, they send a very clear value judgment that will resonate through the years as children grow up.
Nurseries should reflect this consistent message from parents. To allow children to create and play with toy guns in a nursery, when they are not allowed to at home, can create doubt and uncertainty in a child's mind, muddying the development of their value system.
Regards,
Anne
Dear Anne,
I'm sorry that you do not seem to have taken on some of the central points I made. Over the last two years of my research it has become clear that significant numbers of practitioners, parents and carers feel that zero tolerance is no longer an adequate response to their experiences of war play. In fact, zero tolerance may have become an avoidance strategy for adults, whereby they do not have to deal in more complex ways with the experience of violence that very small children bring into our settings.
I would suggest that greater developmental damage is caused by leaving children alone with these frightening and disturbing influences, and that to do so is an abnegation of our responsibilities. By engaging with their starting points we can more effectively bring to them an understanding that violence is unacceptable, and develop a repertoire of approaches to conflict resolution. My preliminary research indicates that to relax zero tolerance in a managed way can lead to a reduction in aggression. That, surely, is an avenue of enquiry worth pursuing. Parents are a key feature in this debate. The most conclusive evidence available to us so far on the development of adult aggression shows that parental physical punishment of children and their attitudes to aggression are the most significant influences. Children are not receiving consistent messages from all parents and carers: quite the opposite.
Allowing war, weapon and superhero play does not have to lead to an escalation in violent play, nor does it prevent us from tackling real aggression in a clear and consistent way. Children are far more able to discriminate between fantasy and reality than generally assumed. Violence and conflict are realities. We can help children to face them, and develop their abilities to deal with them peacefully.
Yours
Penny
Dear Penny,
We both share the desire for children to grow up in an environment free from violence. We both want children to be free to develop their potential through play and learning. We also recognise that parents are the main influence on the development of a child's attitude to violence. But we must continue to differ fundamentally over the inclusion of war toys in play. I do not want to exclude play with war toys to satisfy my own attitude to guns - I do it because I want children to realise that violence is not a necessary or desirable part of life. Play is a child's way of coping with life and developing emotionally and intellectually - but the content of that play can sometimes reinforce harmful attitudes learnt or experienced elsewhere. Let us agree that the best childcare allows children to escape from parts of their lives that cause them emotional or physical pain. Instead it helps them develop their full potential in a reassuring, secure environment free from violence or representations of violence.
Best wishes,
Anne