Mothering › Forums › Education › Learning at School › Is this teaching relational aggression in preschool? [B]Real update with conference report[/B]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is this teaching relational aggression in preschool? [B]Real update with conference report[/B]

post #1 of 44
Thread Starter 
For anyone interested in the outcome of our conference: the date has been moved from Mon 21st to Fr 25th.

While we are mostly very happy with the play-based/developmental pre-school DS started at last year, there is one policy that has me worried.

During free play, children will mostly play either board games or play in one of the "corners" (dolls' corner, building corner, reading corner etc). Children have to "ask in" to games and corners: the first child to pick out a game from the shelf or to enter a corner gets to say who can play too and can exclude anyone they do not want to play; however, once another child is in, the child can then "include" others until the max amount of players for the game is reached, or the "corner" is full (four kids to a corner). On my day as "visiting parent", I have noticed quite a bit of excluding going on and it looks like immature power play to me - I spoke to one of the teachers in the short after-conference, but while she listened respectfully, she did insist it was about teaching children to set boundaries. I think it is teaching children exclusion and relational aggression, too and suggested they at least balance the message with teaching inclusion as well. I have carefully written out my thoughts in the questionnaire they ask you to fill in about your impressions. I am also planning to bring it up again with the head teacher (who happens to be teaching DS' class) at a general end-of-year-conference I asked for.

What can I do in the meantime to make this easier for DS, who seems to suffer from this policy? DS has again complained several times about children "being nasty" and "saying no" (ie not letting him play/enter the corner) or telling him to "go away". One of the problems seems to be that he is very verbal for his age and wants to play with older children, preferably girls, who I suppose do not take him quite seriously. The other day he explained that he wasn't allowed to join in to the building because he'd destroyed something he wasn't supposed to, and that he always wanted to do what A (almost five yo girl) was doing but did not have the muscles to do it yet". We've asked A to come play at our house and while it went ok it is clear that he is not quite socially ready for the way 5 year olds play. He hasn't been asked back so far, nor has he been asked back by other girls, 3and 5, we've had to play. (To be fair, the weather has been foul and has only recently turned, and everyone's been like "let's get them together when they can play in the garden again"- ITA).

Mostly he mentions being excluded by a 4 yo, K, who I met and who appears to be very forward and bossy, a bit of a leader in the group who enjoys her position. Funny enough, when I visited in class she was the first to ask whether she could come play (and sleep!) at our house. I told her I'd speak to her mom - not a success, the mom, completely different from her daughter, I think a recent immigrant, wears a hijab, does not usually look up and say hello, did not appear to quite understand me at first, was very reticent, and referred to warmer weather and maybe have the playdate at her house.

Today K and DS were playing together when I picked DS up and I told DS again to ask her if she wanted to come play and ask her mom about it, who wasn't there yet - DS would have loved for her to come right away, K first quizzed me about the attractions at our house on offer...I told her again to make sure to ask her mom. I'm happy to take him there too but can't very well offer!

I'm stumped what else to do. It is heartbreaking when you see your child struggling socially. (Not that he does not get the genes for that from both sides of the family, as DH and I have ruefully concluded).

Am I asking too much? Trying too hard? Obviously projecting? Does he just need more time? It's almost been a full school year now and I still feel he is not really part of a group but often excluded...
post #2 of 44
I"d be livid if this were the policy at our preschool.

I'd ask how they make sure that it's fair and that all children get to try the areas they want.

Can you ask what developmental theories and research this practice is based on? If they can't back it up, I'd want to know why they're doing it.

In our preschool/daycare, the rule is: You can say that you want to play alone, but if you're playing in a group and there's room, you have to let others in. You may not exclude. There's enough covert exclusion as it is (dd bore the brunt of that 2 years ago, and it was hard).
post #3 of 44
That's really a horrible policy. Vivian Gussin Paley, one of my absolute favorite early childhood people of all times, has a great book called "You Can't Say You Can't Play." It's pretty much the antithesis of what you've explained here.

Quote:
Through many such discussions, Paley and her students decide to test the rule, “You can't say, ‘You can't play,'” which results in a very changed dynamic among the kindergartners.

“I can't believe that the transition to the new rule is so straightforward and easy,” says Paley after the rule has been in place for a week. “When the children are reminded of the rule, they comply so readily that it is as if they've been rescued. From what? Perhaps from the ordeal of deciding whether or not someone can play. ...

“Each time a cause for sadness is removed for even one child, we all rise in stature. ... When I was in a first-grade classroom 55 years ago, it would have been an enormous relief to me if the fat girl with only one dress had been treated kindly.”
Article here

I would start out by having a meeting with the teacher and the director and pointing out that this type of Lord of the Flies preschool setting is hardly developmentally appropriate. And maybe get them a copy of the book. I'm really sorry. It sounds like a tough situation for your little guy.
post #4 of 44
I would be furious about a policy like that. I like the book You Can't Say You Can't Play also and I think that the teachers may like it to if you recommend it. The author talks about her struggle with herself before deciding to implement this rule and how wonderful it was after the rule was implemented. She addresses it in a way that really makes sense and speaks to the pros and cons of a system like this.
post #5 of 44
Yep, relational aggression. In fact, the very definition of relational aggression.

Having a rule that the first person playing the game can decide how many players they want, since some times you just want to explore the pieces for a bit, or you want to play the 3 player version and not the 6 player version, that's fine. And should be handled by the kid saying "I'm playing game X and need 3 more people, who wants to play with me?"

And the exclusions your ds has experienced is the preschool version of bullying. Innocent experiments with power at this level, but the precursor to worse unless the adults are responsible and actually teach social skills.
post #6 of 44
This topic and the title of the book "You Can't Say You Can't Play" begs the question, should children always be expected to play with any other child who wants to play with them? I have to admit that I struggle with how to deal with kid friendship issues in the classroom.

I also find that there is usually a reasonable explanation for why a child is being excluded. NOT that exclusion is okay and the right way to deal with things, but often the exclusion is a result of something that child has done and the other children have decided that they will no longer tolerate it. For example, I had a group of girls that would often play together but then they got sick of one of the girls always bossing them around and telling them what games they HAD to play. They didn't want to play with her anymore. I wouldn't want to hang around with someone who was always bossing me around either.

It's a real challenge getting the children to deal with disagreements, hurt feelings, etc. in more productive ways. Retaliation, exclusion, and let's not forget tattling always seems to be the "go to" reactions for kids. The bottom line in my opinion is that most kids are not well equipped to problem solve peer conflicts and I'm not even sure that's it's developmentally appropriate. Maybe it is and I'm just missing the boat on how to empower these kids (I'm talking 6 and 7 year olds mostly). It's exhausting.

Book suggestions are welcome!
post #7 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantRice View Post
This topic and the title of the book "You Can't Say You Can't Play" begs the question, should children always be expected to play with any other child who wants to play with them? I have to admit that I struggle with how to deal with kid friendship issues in the classroom.

I also find that there is usually a reasonable explanation for why a child is being excluded. NOT that exclusion is okay and the right way to deal with things, but often the exclusion is a result of something that child has done and the other children have decided that they will no longer tolerate it. For example, I had a group of girls that would often play together but then they got sick of one of the girls always bossing them around and telling them what games they HAD to play. They didn't want to play with her anymore. I wouldn't want to hang around with someone who was always bossing me around either.

It's a real challenge getting the children to deal with disagreements, hurt feelings, etc. in more productive ways. Retaliation, exclusion, and let's not forget tattling always seems to be the "go to" reactions for kids. The bottom line in my opinion is that most kids are not well equipped to problem solve peer conflicts and I'm not even sure that's it's developmentally appropriate. Maybe it is and I'm just missing the boat on how to empower these kids (I'm talking 6 and 7 year olds mostly). It's exhausting.

Book suggestions are welcome!
I hate the word tattling. When kids are having a problem, like not knowing how to deal with someone who is bossy, they need to be able to come to the teacher for help. That isn't tattling, that is seeking help with an unbearable situation. I think schools should do more to help kids with all of the social skills though, not just not excluding kids because you are right that sometimes there is a reason why they don't want to be around a child. Teaching them when to come to you and helping them with social skills in addition to not allowing exclusion seems like a good solution.

I just read a great book called Raising a Thinking Preteen and I loved it. The author focuses on understanding your own emotions then what others may feel in different situations. She also puts out the I Can Problem Solve program for teachers to use in the classroom which spans from Preschool to Late Elementary School. I think that in conjunction with expectations for how we treat each other in the classroom are good.

http://www.thinkingpreteen.com/

Outside of school, during recess, or during extracurricular activities I don't think that kids need to include everyone or play with kids they don't want to be around. Kids also need time to explore who they are and be with people they genuinely connect with. In the classroom though I think it is important that kids learn how to keep the classroom a positive environment for everyone by teaching social skills and problem solving skills that all kids can benefit from.
post #8 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantRice View Post
This topic and the title of the book "You Can't Say You Can't Play" begs the question, should children always be expected to play with any other child who wants to play with them? I have to admit that I struggle with how to deal with kid friendship issues in the classroom.

I also find that there is usually a reasonable explanation for why a child is being excluded. NOT that exclusion is okay and the right way to deal with things, but often the exclusion is a result of something that child has done and the other children have decided that they will no longer tolerate it. For example, I had a group of girls that would often play together but then they got sick of one of the girls always bossing them around and telling them what games they HAD to play. They didn't want to play with her anymore. I wouldn't want to hang around with someone who was always bossing me around either.

It's a real challenge getting the children to deal with disagreements, hurt feelings, etc. in more productive ways. Retaliation, exclusion, and let's not forget tattling always seems to be the "go to" reactions for kids. The bottom line in my opinion is that most kids are not well equipped to problem solve peer conflicts and I'm not even sure that's it's developmentally appropriate. Maybe it is and I'm just missing the boat on how to empower these kids (I'm talking 6 and 7 year olds mostly). It's exhausting.

Book suggestions are welcome!
The actual skills might not be developmentally appropriate, but being guided in the skills is.

The girls who didn't like the other girl bossing them were just as much in need of help with social skills as she was. She needed help giving other kids a chance to direct the game, they needed help to suggest she give them a turn.
post #9 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapphire_chan View Post
The actual skills might not be developmentally appropriate, but being guided in the skills is.

The girls who didn't like the other girl bossing them were just as much in need of help with social skills as she was. She needed help giving other kids a chance to direct the game, they needed help to suggest she give them a turn.
And helping children find their voice to express this stuff instead of just allowing them to be passive aggressive (or aggressive aggressive, depending on the preschooler, LOL!) and refusing the child the right to play is part of being a caring teacher.

It's been years since I have been in a preschool classroom, but one thing I do remember-- classrooms are shared space. No one child has a monopoly on the block corner or dramatic play area. Children, even small ones, are remarkably good at framing and recognizing that different social situations have different rules. I think it's important to have a sense of shared space and community in a classroom setting, and that can't happen if children are able to exclude one another on a whim.
post #10 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Girl View Post
I hate the word tattling. When kids are having a problem, like not knowing how to deal with someone who is bossy, they need to be able to come to the teacher for help. That isn't tattling, that is seeking help with an unbearable situation.
I guess in my mind tattling is when going to teacher is the FIRST attempt to solve a problem, rather than the last. The majority of the time when a child comes to me to tell me something along the lines of "Jason pushed in front of me and didn't say excuse me" I ask them if they told Jason that they didn't like that and the answer is usually a sheepish "no". It concerns me when they go straight to the teacher because it tells me that they think they need an adult to solve all their problems. Sure, sometimes they do need an adult, but I think it's important that they also feel competent enough to make their own attempts to solve their problems.
post #11 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapphire_chan View Post

The girls who didn't like the other girl bossing them were just as much in need of help with social skills as she was. She needed help giving other kids a chance to direct the game, they needed help to suggest she give them a turn.
You're definitely right about this.
post #12 of 44
I would turn in my resignation letter to the school with a copy of one of those books or articles and head to the next preschool. I can't even believe that more than one person might think that was a great idea.

Kids at that age are already experimenting with being the boss and exclusion. They don't need the adults to facilitate the game.
post #13 of 44
In regards to the OP's post. This policy does sound like it is setting the stage for exclusion being used as a social weapon of sorts. I would definitely try to find out what theories they are basing their approach on. My hunch is that the teachers just thought it up and decided it give it a try.
post #14 of 44
We have a policy at our private school (3ys - 5th grade) that games are "elastic" and can stretch like a rubber band so that anyone who wants to join in can play. I can see how that could be tough for certain kids if there was a bossy one and a submissive one, but honestly, we've been there for 5 yrs now and I've never seen it come up. Usually if there's a kid who's too bossy the other kids just don't want to play with him or her. In the preschool, there is an emphasis on inclusion and the teachers do supervise and direct play as needed, but they have a big playground with lots of space to explore, too.

I would not like the OP's preschool's policy.
post #15 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantRice View Post
This topic and the title of the book "You Can't Say You Can't Play" begs the question, should children always be expected to play with any other child who wants to play with them? I have to admit that I struggle with how to deal with kid friendship issues in the classroom.
I struggle with this issue as well, and I'll admit that I'm not sure where I stand. I see merits to the argument that everyone should be included, but I also understand that it isn't fair to force someone on others either.

My son got into trouble this year because he was mean to another child. My son told this little boy several times that he didn't want to play with him, but the other boy wouldn't accept that. He insisted that DS play with him until DS exploded. I talked with him about how to handle problems (mainly - discuss with the teacher before you get enraged), but at the same time, when you don't want to play and have said that 5 times, why should you be forced to? (This was Legos, so a perfectly acceptable solitary pursuit.) It wasn't even this boy in general. He & DS are friends. It was this one day that DS wanted to be alone during free play, and shouldn't that be an option, too?

In the case of the OP's preschool, I wouldn't have a problem with the policy for on-going games, board games or something the children have made up. I do have a problem with the idea that an entire "corner" can belong to the child who showed up first. That seems over the top.
post #16 of 44
It's the opposite of the policy at our middle school. At our middle school, a child can sit at any open seat during lunch. Children already at a table are forbidden to tell a child who wants to sit at the table that they can't, and it follows that seats cannot be saved.

They started this rule because of bullying behavoir where some children ended up wandering around during lunch not being allowed to sit anywhere because all the seats were "saved."

This is a very big deal at our school because of the past history (which happened before my kids started there). Evidently things were very ugly because now telling a child they can't sit down is considered a form of bullying.
post #17 of 44
Thread Starter 
Wow, so much support! I would love to answer every post individually but am really overwhelmed. I was honestly afraid I was overreacting to this, but it seems my gut feeling that this is a detrimental policy for very young kids is right. Thank you all for your thoughts.

I am also struggling with the question whether one should "force" children to play, but in reality, children at this age have so little choice whom to play with anyway! I think the question of "forcing" friendships really becomes salient at elementary age only. Preschoolers will play with their parents' friend, with the neighbour kids, with the kids in their preschool class simply because they are there. After all, they have very little choice to actually physically go in search of different playmates (not that elementary age kids have all that much choice, come to think of it, but I'd say they have a lot more control about playmates outside of school - as in saying "in school I have to play with M, but in the afternoons, I want to play with S only".). And I agree that of course a child should be able to play alone if they want to, but not hog a corner or activity for this.
Case in point: DS told me about asking another girl whether he could join in doing one of those hammer-and-nails activities, had his little board all ready and the other girl, nice kid, but not quite three, kept saying no - of course she would, she's two, that's what two-year-olds do! It's not about not wanting to play together, it's a parallel activity, every kid working on their on board, but about sharing the box with those little wooden whatsits she happened to have taken out first. So, in the end, he hit her. That's what three-year-olds do. Of course I told him he wasn't to hit but to go to the teacher if he couldn't work it out with her, but really, if the teachers take their own policy seriously, their hands are tied and they'd have to tell him that he has to accept a toddler's whim. How absurd really.

I do like what several of you have pointed out: that the classroom is a shared, "public" space (and the toys are "public" toys" as it were) and that limits to letting a child play should be the natural limit of the activity, not just the whim of the child who happens to start an activity or enter a space. After all, I observed them playing by themselves in the building corner, the lego table too - it's the space and the toys the policy arbitrarily empowers a child to make decisions about, not their own boundaries or whom they want to play with. I'd even say the policy is unneccessary not only for the "corners", but also for the board games -after all, they are governed by tight rules and if a child starts breaking the rules of the game, the other children can ask for help. I agree that it is harder to have hard-and-fast rules about stuff like free cooperative play in the garden, but maybe it is not all that necessary either, as long as the excluding isn't "institutionalized" any more. Like in Linda's example, sometimes a school needs a really tough rule about inclusion simply because the exclusion has become so bad, but it does not mean every school needs such a rule.

Several of you have wondered how come the teachers would even come up with this. I cannot imagine there is a whole lot of developmental theory behind this (beyond the explanantion one of them gave me that it was about teaching children to "set their own boundaries"), I rather suspect that they like it because empowering the kids arbitrarily this way keeps order in the classroom and fights about who gets to play where and with what and with whom to a minimum - after all, most kids (and parents!) seem to accept those rules without question). I do like that their classrooms are calm and structured, but they should not keep it up with facilitating power play among the kids. The more I think about it the more unsavoury this policy feels to me.

Switching preschools at this point is really not an option for various reasons (if we gave up his place at this public preschool for not liking the policy we would not get a place at another public preschool - and even if we did, they might have other policies we would not like - and the one private option is literally ten times as expensive, has policies I know I do not like, and we might not get a place either). So I will try very hard to get the teachers to change their minds about this at the conference I want to set up. Thanks to you, I will be going in with a lot more conviction!

I have looked at the "You can't say you can't play" approach and while I personally like this approach a lot, I think it might be asking a bit too much flexibility from them to move from a total "exclusion policy" to a total "inclusion" policy (and I would not get other parents' support!") but I am hoping for some changes to the hard and fast "corners" and "activities" exclusion policy

Any more thoughts about how to approach this best would be appreciated!
post #18 of 44
I thought of something when I read your post-- when I taught, I had several "quiet corners" where children could go if they wanted to be alone. They were beanbag chairs in a quiet corner. We sometimes also used this as a "time in"-type space if a kid needed some room to collect themselves. If a child wanted to be alone, they can grab their toy/book/activity and go to the quiet corner. You could probably also do this with a small table.

There are lots of ideas out there for managing early childhood learning centers, which are generally based on the idea that (a) only a certain amount of children can safely and comfortably fit into a play area or (b) the center is so popular that you want to make sure all kids have equal access. When I taught, depending on the culture of the classroom, I would limit either time or number of children in a center. But again, this was a teacher initiated thing, not something the preschoolers were allowed to decide for themselves. Anyway, there are some examples of this sort of classroom management here.

Good luck with your meeting!
post #19 of 44
General statement:
I am a public school teacher and I use board games to teach social skills in my fifth grade classroom. It is amazing how clumsy the kids are setting up a game, teaching a game, setting personal boundaries, losing a game, choosing who to play with and who not to play with. They are mean, they are unsure how to say "no" when they are being bullied into something, and I think independent play is super important.

Now...
#1. I don't think ANYONE (regardless of age) should ever be mean.
#2. I think it's okay to say no sometimes in life, because not all kids are joining in with the right approach, and both sides need help in handling the situation sometimes.

The solution?

I really think saying "you can't play with us" depends on each situation. Most of the times it is not necessary, and there is a room for one more. And if there isn't, are the kids kind in their rejection "sorry, I promised K. we'll play together, but you can join us next time"? Is it always the same kids "I really don't want to play with T."? Then you step in and try to help them see each other's point of view, how it can be hurtful to be rejected. What are their reasons? Is the rejected kid ruining the play for the rest of the group? Then it's worth pulling them aside and telling them "you know, they are worried you will start throwing things around i you lose like the last time, how about you promise them you won't do it, and see what happens". And then encourage the group to give the kid a chance. Is it because someone always plays this game, and now a new group really wants to play? What happens when the kid has to move on?

I think it's really a case by case scenario, and it's silly to institute a mandatory rule on something like this. Sometimes it's not okay to say no. Sometimes it is okay. At least that's how I see it. The kids just need some guidance in general direction of conflict resolution "do you think that's a nice thing to say? how would you feel if someone said no to you? why do you think they are hesitant about playing with you today?" etc. They are pretty good at getting hints.

In op's case, I don't like how the situation was handled. If the kids are not treating each other nicely, there is no excuse for the teacher not to step in, regardless if it relates to the game or not. It doesn't mean micromanaging, but rather directly teaching the skills the children might still be lacking.
post #20 of 44
Thread Starter 
Annette, thank you for the link. Interestingly they use these approaches (for instance the kids pegging a clothespin with their picture to the picture of the activity, a "dream room" with cuddly pillows for alone-time) too, for the centers outside the classrooms (in the hallways and main hall) and it works very well. They have the tools in place, and I really do not want to give the impression that it is not a very well run preschool with a lot of emphasis on teaching social skills (and that it would be irresponsible on our side to leave DS there instead of looking anywhere else). It is this one policy that stands out as misguided to me, and I understand PP's bewilderment on why they seem to be so enamoured with it.

Like I said I assume it is because it works very well too: by eliminating a certain kind of conflict from the classroom, but to the detriment of the children's social and emotional development. Oriole, your perspective has made one very valuable point clear to me that wasn't so clear to me before, but which I think PPs like sapphire chan, WantRice and Annette have touched on too: that the rigidity of this policy actually inhibits teaching social skills. No reason for the excluders to think about/try to articulate their reasons (after all, they may be valid, like your example of the child freaking out after losing!) or to take the rejected child's feelings into account, as in wondering whether a child feels unhappy at being rejected and whether that's ok. No reason for the rejected child to wonder why the rejection happened and whether there is anything he could do differently. Children should be encouraged to negotiate, facilitated by the teacher. In the instances DS told me about, the teacher might say "you know, I do not see why it would bother you if DS got to use the hammering game as well, and the game is for everyone - you can work here and he can work there and the box can be in the middle of the table" or "how about if you get to be the chief engineer who gives the instructions because you are older and DS can promise to follow instructions and to try very hard not to knock over the building" and the kids can take it from there and learn how to work out things. If they just have to take "no" for an answer, this won't happen - the rejected child can try to negotiate, but the other child does not even have to listen! Great point to make at the conference (I hope!).

I think this is why the rigidity of "you can't say you can't play" (as much as I like it myself as a child that has known a lot of rejection!) should be amended by "unless there is a very good reason"! I really like it as the default position, but sometimes there can be a learning opportunity for all.

And I really need to get the teachers' perspective on whether DS is excluded as often as I fear. It's just that, like any three yo, he so rarely talks about his day at preschool at all, that these instances he does talk about (and brings up both unprompted at bedtime and whenever he seriously does not want to go, which happily is rare these days) really strike me, even though it is not all that often. I am sure part of it is that he is a real sensitive little guy - and just not used to being told no at home without being given a good reason if he wants one. If I can't come up with one I rethink my policy (even though these days, saying "I'm too exhausted, please ask your papa" sometimes has to be good enough, lol!)

I want to thank you all again for joining me in this very nuanced discussion! This is such a strong group of thinking mamas!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Learning at School
Mothering › Forums › Education › Learning at School › Is this teaching relational aggression in preschool? [B]Real update with conference report[/B]