We all know of the importance of love to human development. In 1953, John Bowlby told us that love in infancy is as important to mental health development as vitamins and proteins are to physical health. Murray (2013) talks of an internal view of professional self being crucial because it is based on individual values and informs practice. She argues that this internal view is what allows Early Years Lead Professionals to practice their profession with integrity. This raises a question concerning whether having the freedom to care with passion and love is critical to inspiring professionalism (Moyles, 2010) and whether personal values and principles are an integral part of their development of professional identities. The research I am currently undertaking boldly posits that love should be recognised as a professional standard in the Early Years Sector.
At a recent Early Years Conference, in Midlothian, I asked around 70 Early Years Practitioners and Lead Practitioners a number of questions:
1. How do you respond when a child says "I love you"?
2. Why are practitioners so reluctant to use the word "love"?
3. What can we do to make it more comfortable for practitioners to use the word "love"?
4. Love, a professional standard or not?
The results showed surprising results. What was of crucial importance to my study was that Early Years Professionals overwhelmingly reported that they did feel that love was a major part of children's development and that they wanted permission to demonstrate the love they have for the children in their care.
The first question I asked was "how do you respond when a child says "I love you" in the early years setting. Everyone asked responded in a positive way. There was no one who said they wouldn't at least respond in a kind and caring way. Out of 67 responses 42 replied in a way that responded kindly to the child, "I think you're special and I like you too"; "What a lovely thing to say, Thank you, I think you are lovely too"; "I love it when you come to nursery too" being amongst the response. In contrast 25 confidently said they would respond with "I love you too". One respondent said that they would always say it back as they didn't want a child to feel rejected.
The second question I asked was in response to the planned interviews which I carried out with Lead Practitioners from different early years settings during my research study. I asked why practitioners were reluctant to use the word "love"? This one presented some interesting responses, which if I am honest I was not expecting to find. My initial guess would have been a fear of child protection issues. However, whilst that did figure in the responses, it was by no means the biggest reason as to why practitioners were reluctant to respond using the word "love". There were a few different reasons, these are listed below, starting with the most quoted reason first:
1. Worry about what parents will say or think.
2. Misunderstanding of what is meant by love
3. Not in Occupational Standards
4. Different interpretations of love
5. Child protection - words such as fear and scared used.
I found it fascinating that child protection was not high on the list of worries, further questioning will determine why, however I suspect that it is because staff already have confidence and trust in the robust systems in place to safeguard both the children and themselves. But this is only me surmising that this may be the case. Several people identified the fact that "love" not in the professional standards was an issue, with staff repeating that if "love" was built into the standards then perhaps they would feel much more comfortable in being more forthright about their love for the children in their care.
There were other issues raised by this question, however the main ones are listed below. One practitioner confidently said about their setting "we are not reluctant to use the word 'love' and that comes from relationships with the children and parents and also knowing the children". Many of the participants stated that perhaps personal upbringing, experience, family all perhaps have an impact on how they feel about demonstrating their love for the children they care for. Others worried about favouritism or about getting too close. However, the most important three reasons, according to how often they were mentioned, are the first three on the list above. Getting the parents to understand and to be comfortable with the idea of another care giver loving their child and also to give practitioners permission to love the children by somehow including in the national care standards then we will be starting to move in the right direction.
This brings me to my third question. What can be done to make it more comfortable for staff to use the word "love"?. It is without surprise, to me anyway, that staff feel they require permission to use the word "love" through inclusion in care standards, codes of practice, policies. One participant said "If it (love) was written into the guidelines, people would feel more comfortable". There were several comments supporting this suggestion, with a number of practitioners suggesting that it should be added to "documents, policies, codes of practice". Another practitioner suggested that "It should be made a standard so people don't have a hang up about this. It (love) is a very important part of attachment and development". There were other comments around language used, communication and how love can be shown and not necessarily need to be said, "It (love) should not just be a word. It can be conveyed in a million ways, a smile, a touch on the arm". But the common thread throughout all the comments was that love is important in the care of young children and a way must be found to enable practitioners to demonstrate and speak about love freely. Essentially, they want to be given permission to love the children in their care.
Several of practitioners spoke about "professional love" which is something which Dr Jools Page discusses (2011), with one practitioner suggesting that "Professional Love comes part and parcel when working with children". Which makes me think that perhaps there are a number of different kinds of love that if we were able to define in a much more concrete way then the worry that practitioners have regarding parents misunderstanding the love that is shown to their children may be less of an issue. By far the most concerning thing was that parents might "take it the wrong way" when a practitioner reciprocates the love given to them by the child. Bowlby (1953) talks about Mother-love, which is perhaps an outdated phrase now but could be replaced by Parental-love. Practitioners also talk about there being a different kind of love for family members, other than those in their direct family, such as nieces and nephews. Perhaps therefore it would be useful to define love in a variety of ways which gives guidance for everyone who is involved in that child's life. The worry about this is that we take what is a natural emotion and "manage" it to the point it is not recognisable (Hochschild, 1983) and as one practitioner offered "if it (love) is a standard, will some people use it as a 'get out of jail free card'", by which I am surmising she means that it could be used as an excuse for people who may wish to harm children.
Which brings me to one of the other worries surprisingly, as I mentioned earlier, was not as high on the list of concerns as I thought it might be, child protection. Out of 61 responses only 10 made comment about child protection and safeguarding. Words such as "fear", "scared", "judged" and "protection" were common amongst the responses with these words being linked to "misunderstanding" of what was meant by the love shown by practitioners to children. Two responses questions further demonstrations of love "I can say "love" but not appropriate to kiss? wrong?" another making comment "Children sometimes want to kiss me which can also make me feel vulnerable as historically this would have been frowned upon.". This is an area which clearly needs further investigation, which I intend doing in my PhD study, however it does appear clear at this early stage that practitioners and lead practitioners do feel love for the children they care for and would like to demonstrate it freely and without concern: "We need to feel free to say this (love) and do cuddles and know it is the right thing to do. Our children love cuddles and are very tactile".
Finally, I asked the conference delegates, whilst they were enjoying a cup of tea and cake, to posit their thoughts onto a white comments table cloth. The final question "Love, a professional standard, or not? your opinion". Twelve practitioners made comment on this cloth with comments ranging from "Yes, but professional love" and "yes, absolutely" to "Love is a major part of a child's life".
I am confident from my early research findings that staff really do love the children and want to be free to express that love in whatever way they feel appropriate without repercussion or misunderstanding . Whilst I asked the question "what do you say when a child says 'I love you'?" I did so because the conference was on Valentine's Day, however, my research is not so much about the answer to that question but more why staff feel reluctant to answer. I am curious as to why "love", when clearly such a fundamental part of early development in terms of attachment, nurturing and brain development, is a concept we are scared of admitting to for a variety of reasons. My argument is not that we should all be fluffy practitioners who go about telling everyone we love them, but that we as a professionals have the freedom to give the children the love that is needed for their holistic, healthy development. And it would appear from my early research findings that staff feel they need permission to do that, and the suggestion is that love be defined clearly in professional codes of practice and standards. What I am doing with my research is challenging you to think about that idea.
I'll leave on a final comment from one practitioner at the conference:
"I wouldn't be doing this job if I didn't love all the children".
I challenge you to bring the love back into childcare.
Jane Malcolm
23/2/17
(I hope to complete my PhD study 'Love, Passion and Professionalism: The EarlyYears Lead Professional' by December 2019).
References
Bowlby, J (1953) Childcare and the Growth of Love. Pelican Books.
Hochschild, A (1983) The Managed Heart: Commercialisation of Human Feelings. London: University of California Press.
Moyles (2010) Passion, Paradox and Professionalism in Early Years Education. Early Years: An International Research Journal. 21 (2): 81 - 95.
Murray (2013) Becoming an early years professional: developing a new professional identity. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 21 (4) 527 - 540.
Page, Dr J. (2011) Do Mothers want professional carers to love their babies? Journal of Early Childhood Research. 9(3) 310 - 323.
Zeedyk, Dr S (2016) Our Human Need for Love: Why it's the problem and why it's the solution. How childcare policies are undermining our children's capacity to love. Blog Entry. www.SuzanneZeedyk.com
