Do We Need a Rule to Play Nice?

In You Can’t Say You Can’t Play, Vivian Gussin Paley makes a thoughtful, careful case for creating the rule: “You can’t say you can’t play.”  I first thought this rule was an excellent idea.  Surely it could be initiated with kindergarteners, further developed in the upper grades and perhaps extended even to adult society.  What better age to instill such a noble precept?  Upon further reflection, I have doubts.

Much of life in kindergarten revolves around making friends and learning through play.  Sometimes those friendships and that learning are disrupted by rejection.  When children play games, Paley explains, they create “bosses” who choose who can play and who cannot.  Those who are rejected may find others with whom to play, may play by themselves, or may retreat to their “cubbies” to cry or sulk.  This is a distressing situation, resulting in hurt feelings and loss of learning time and learning experiences for all. 

Paley leads her children through a process to examine their own actions, feelings, and morals.  She asks them if they think they should make the rule.  She enlists the thoughts and approval of her peers at an event in Arizona.  Their response is “First they try to convince the children to be kind and let one another play.  But if that doesn’t work, they help the one who is rejected find another playmate.”(p. 27)  Paley asks children in the upper grades what they think and receives mixed reactions.  Finally she decides to impose the rule.

After a period of learning and testing the children accept the rule.  Paley reports increased harmony and better interactions among the children.  They extend the rule to include the process used for selecting actors for their regular school plays and experience good results there as well.  Paley’s kindergarten class is a better place.  She closes the book with an incident wherein third graders, who had merely discussed the possibility of the rule, establish an all-inclusive Friday playground party.

I think Paley did a wonderful job teaching her children how rejection hurts and why acceptance is better for everyone.  Perhaps her discussion of a rule requiring acceptance was a good vehicle for teaching this lesson (as with the third graders).  But I think her peers were correct.  We should encourage acceptance and help rejected children gain acceptance elsewhere.  We should stop short of adopting the rule.  I believe there are situations where rejection is appropriate, i.e. when a child refuses to play fair or refuses to cooperate.  How can we force acceptance of a violent or abusive classmate?  It is not sufficient to say that the teacher can override the rule in such situations.  A rule needs to stand on its own.   I also believe each child has a right to choose with whom they play in public as well as private situations.  Teachers should teach children how to make those choices on their own, not remove the choices by imposing a rule (as Paley did in her kindergarten).  If a teacher creates a learning situation she can impose partners.  But if a situation is really play, then children need to make their own choices.  If they don’t learn to make good choices in kindergarten it will be more difficult to make those choices in the future.