Helping People grow!

Abstract
Early childhood educators are reporting more violence from children in learning centres and kindergartens in New Zealand. Research based on attachment theory suggests that the reason for this may be the lack of secure attachment to parents or caregiver. This raises issues for early childhood as to whether they should condone more than 20 hrs a week childcare in their practice. Early Childhood and schools need to have sound policy for dealing with abusive behaviour or risk condoning such behaviour at a formative stage in the child’s life. Strong boundaries are needed for the behaviour and profound respect is needed for the emotional condition and causes of anger in children.

I am concerned about the rise in the levels of anger in children under 5. Additionally I am concerned at the aggressive manner in which this is being expressed.
We are not accustomed to thinking of violence being a problem in pre-school centres of either learning or caring. It has been easy to ignore due to the small size of the child and the ease with which we can distract behaviour or minimise the damage done by a small person. No data is available on the incidence of violence in early childhood education in N.Z. Much of my work recently has been in professional development training of early childhood educators. I have had an increase in requests for assistance in dealing with these issues and there is a reporting by experienced teachers of an increase in child violence and the severity of that violence. This leads me to ask what has changed to cause such an increase and to reflect on the conse quences for our community if this is not remedied.

Simultaneous to the increase, early childhood educators have reported an increased expectation for early childhood education to take on a childcare function so that parents can maintain full-time employment. Teachers also report that the most difficult children appear to be the ones who spend most time in childcare or early childhood education. I have considerable respect for the intuition and wisdom of experienced early childhood educators and so follow their lead to a starting place to this problem. U.S. research endorses this view.
Children with greater exposure to non-maternal care during the first 4.5 years of life were rated by their pre-school and kindergarten teachers as more aggressive assertive and defiant than same-age children with less exposures. (Dworkin in Belsky, 2002)

Outbursts of anger are associated with insecure attachment as the child responds to the betrayal of its needs. Inadequate intimacy and empathy are features in avoidantly and chaotically attached children and adults.
An avoidantly attached child may give the impression of independence (Ainsworth cited in Karen 1990). Anger and self-centred behaviour become a pattern in having needs met (Howe, et al 1999).
Karen (1990), suggests that “Without intervention or changes in the family circumstances, attachment patterns in infancy persist.” (p.37).

The child may see him/herself as worthless, and this will remain her/his ‘blueprint’ (Klaus, Kennel & Klaus, 1995). After over 20 years of researching in the area of child development and attachment, leading US researcher Jay Belsky is of the evidence-based opinion that 10-20 hours per week is the maximum childcare that a child should have without showing detriment (Belsky, 2002).

Children who spend more time are at risk of developing avoidant, ambivalent or chaotic relationship styles. These styles extend into adulthood. Maine has developed adult measurements for such relationship patterns, some of which increase the likelihood of the person feeling angry and choosing aggressive responses to those around them.

An early childhood educator at AUT, writes the following from her experience:

” The mother comes into the childcare centre early, opens the door, pushing her child inside. She puts his clothes and nappies, which are in a plastic bag, on a hook. She closes the door behind her and puts the child into the centre, closing the gate behind him that cuts off the centre from the reception area. He stands there looking at his mother but does not move or talk. The mother then tells the staff member that she is late and has to go quickly. The staff make comments that she is too early and, anyway she needs to sign her child in by law. She makes a fuss, and signs the books, looking unimpressed. She then waves to her child, not saying goodbye. He does not talk either, and is shown to an activity by a teacher.

The child ‘ parallel’ plays with others, meaning he plays next to other children but does not engage with them, use eye contact, or talk. He seeks time to himself most of the time. He gets angry at other children and teachers, but mostly has bursts of anger when attention is drawn to other children. His anger is quickly stopped when a teacher intervenes and he quickly goes to another activity, leaving the object he was upset about.
The end of the day is near, and all of the other children have left for the day. His mother arrives, late and looking flustered. Signs the book and calls out, “Come on boy” and waves for him to come. A teacher gives her a bag of wet clothes, as he is beginning to toilet train. “Useless”, she says, as she goes to get him (he will not come to her). She grabs his shoulder, steering him out of the centre doors.

This young boy also attends a full-time day care as well as the community crèche. His mother and father are together. Both work full time corporate jobs. He is the only child. Parent/teacher conversations are held every now and then, sometimes after hours, but conversations usually become directed towards the parent. The conversations about their child usually get turned into a conversation about the parents themselves, as much as the teacher may try to direct the conversation towards the child’s needs.

When asked by the parent, how the child was, the teacher replies that he was very busy and shows her his work. The parent says, “Oh that’s good, he kept me up all last right and I’m tired.” No art work or photos of the child are ever taken home by either parent, and the parents have a name for themselves amongst the other parents for parking in the handicapped space. When a goal sheet is sent home to determine a goal for their child, the sheet comes back very late with statements such as, “Should learn to go on the toilet because he makes too much mess. He’s very difficult.”

The following appears evident:
The child is insecurely attached to his mother, father and other caregivers.
The attachment style is avoidant.
His parents are emotionally unavailable for him and likely avoidantly attached also. They additionally appear to be narcissistic.
The child will likely, without intervention, parent the same way creating an intergenerational cycle.
The boy is angry and has good reason to be angry. He is entitled as any child to have his basic needs met.
The likelihood of him choosing to hurt others is increased by his environment and the powerlessness of being a small child. We are responsible as a community especially because we as a community will carry the child and the adult.
This sets up a pattern of hurting others that can remain through his life.
This could be a girl or boy.

Such an example is becoming more common. Of more concern is the likely response by the teacher to the child. In an attempt to understand and care, teachers are enduring kicks to their body, punches, damage to property, hitting of other children, and being told to “fuck off.” Such tolerance of behaviour is, I suggest, condoning of the behaviour. Even though the child is too small to seriously injure, and is suffering himself, the condoning carries a message that such abuse is OK. If we add 20 years to such a child we will likely get an entirely different result. An intervention now may save much pain and social resource time later.
Essential to dealing with this issue is the need to separate out the anger that the child is clearly feeling from the behaviour that she/he is inflicting on others. Strong boundaries can take the form of setting up clear rules and expectations in centres so that a non-violent belief and boundary is established firmly in a developing psyche. Consistent responses to any infringement or non-conformity need to be established and reinforced.
All children and teachers at the centre have a right to be ensured safety, so supervised separation of the child may need to take place. To fail to act to prevent hurt to others is in fact abusive of others entitlement to safety in our homes and community.
However, I hold that it is also abusive to fail to attend to the child’s anger. In 22 years of working with anger in relationships I have not encountered any child who has not had a good reason for feeling angry. Once we have separated the anger from the abuse we can attend to the anger as a signal of hurt, loss or fear and extend compassion and listening. Unfortunately that compassion is often extended to the violence not the anger.
It is an essential right of every child to have his/her anger listened to. As adults in a community that stand for love and respect of children this is a duty of all adults in association with the child. Furthermore we often need to work out for the young child what it is that they are feeling angry about, then put words on it for them. The child may well be able to tell the teacher that she/he is angry because someone disrespected their painting, but will be unable to tell the teacher that they feel angry because “my parents don’t stay close and safe to me and love and value me enough.” It is our job as professionals to decode the signs and evaluate wide contextual data so that we can establish the cause of the anger, sadness and distress. Professionals however need the training to be able to make such deductions.
The next task is to solve the problem of powerlessness that is taking place. This may involve helping retrieve “Jamie’s felt-tips”, but it may also involve finding a way for a parent to realise that their child is not getting enough attention to form the attachment that she/he is entitled to. The child needs to have basic human needs met not just for the child’s present, but also for their later life, and the good of other children and the community.
Many kindergartens are now under pressure to do all-day sessions to meet the parent’s needs for all-day childcare. This is an ethical issue that needs to be grappled with. Do we want an education centre that increases children’s well being and learning skills or do we want a day-care centre that gives a learning environment but supports the failure of our society to supply a child’s core relational needs. Do we want materially well-off children or happy children?
The increasing anger of children in our early education system sends us a warning about how we are meeting their needs and rights. To fail to listen means more potential violence in the future, at ages and stages when they are harder to change and the results are more damaging to others.

In summary, there appears to be more angry children in our pre-schools and thus later in our schools. There appears to be an association between this and inadequately attached children who are not getting sufficient attention and time with parents.
Such children are more likely to choose abusive behaviour to others due to their powerlessness and lack of alternative skills and communication. This can become patterned. Some early childhood educators are tolerating this behaviour in their attempt to help. Understanding their anger and putting things right helps but tolerating violence does not.
Aggressive behaviour affects other children in care also. To tolerate abuse to others, ourselves and the children in our care is abusive to others now and in the future.
To fail to listen to children’s anger is devaluing and therefore abusive of their vulnerability. The lack of sufficient parental attention and care of children by parents is negligent and therefore abusive. To support the practice of more than 20hrs a week care is condoning such negligence.

This has implications for government funding of childcare. It need not mean that women have to spend more time out of paid work. The challenge is for fathers to take advantage of the opportunity and release themselves from the duty of provision to enjoy and their children and give them the attention, care, love, and attachment that they need, as well enrich their own lives. Fathers are the available resource and the parent who needs to hear this challenge.

Cases will no doubt be multi-causal but there appears to be increasing inadequate attachment in some children and this requires sound research for the sakes of our children.

In the meantime early childhood educators need to:
Stop violence with clear boundaries and consequences, and consistent appropriate responses.
Listen to the child’s anger with full attention.
Track back to the child’s distress and put words to it if needed. Try to bridge the gap between home and centre and win parent’s co-operation.
Strategise to put the situation right and ensure that the child’s needs and rights are met.

In short, as a Kaumatua said succinctly at the end of one of my workshops,
“If you don’t have time for your kids, don’t have them.”

By Warwick Pudney. Senior lecturer,
School of Psychotherapy, Health Faculty, A.U.T.

References:

Belsky, J. Quantity Counts: Amount of Childcare and Children’s Socioemotional Development. Developmental and Behavioural Pediatrics. Vol 23. No.3. June, 2002

Belsky, J. Campbell, S. Cohn, J. Moore. G. Instability of Infant-Parent Attachment Security. 1996. Developmental Psychology, Vol. 32, no.5, pp921-924

Howe, D., Brandon, M., Hinings, D. & Schofeild, C. Attachment theory, Child maltreatment and family support. 1999. London: Macmillan Press.

Karen, R. Becoming attached. 1990. Atlantic Monthly. February. 35-70

Karen, R. Becoming Attached, First relationships and how they shape our capacity to love. 1998. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

Klaus, M.H., Kennel, J.H. & Klaus, P.H. 1995. Bonding. Canada:
Adision- Wesley Publishing Co.