Upstart Guest Blog - Is Love really that scary?

As I have worked through my PhD I have found confidence in voicing my opinions about what it is I am researching. At the beginning of the process, you don't really know enough about what it is that you want to find out and it can be difficult and daunting to put yourself out there.

However, now that I am half way through my writing up I am gaining a real understanding of what it is I am researching and it has almost become a bit of a campaign! At a showing of the the Resilience film I made a point about how as ELC practitioners we are slaves to the rules and if the rules don't say we can love the children (not even that we can't just not that we can) then love them we don't. At the back of the room was Sue Palmer, author and chair of Upstart Scotland http://www.upstart.scot/upstart-organisers/. After the event Sue came up to me and we were chatting about how important love and play were to children's development and wellbeing. Sue then kindly asked me to write a guest blog for Upstart about my research and in particular love and touch. So I wrote my first official blog about my research, for Upstart and am very proud to say it has been received very well with some cracking comments on twitter:

There are one or two pupils who say “I love you” to me. I see it as connection and I’m glad they know I care.

This is brilliant.

Great discussion and a very emotive subject! I remember being at a conference sitting at a table with ELCC Managers and couldn't believe what I was hearing. It's ok to cuddle babies but not when they get to 3/4 or let them sit on your knee. Being an #unfeartie I argued against!

Fantastic.....guest blog

A thoughtful article, assisting us to be intentional when putting our kids front and centre of our policies and most significantly our practice.



Here it is, see what you think...

https://twitter.com/UpstartScot/status/1000344088812642304

Love has always been there...

4 years ago I started out on this journey researching love as part of the professional identity of the lead professional. My interest came from managers who I was working with at the time, as an FE lecturer, saying to me that they felt it was hard moving from being in a job where they could express love for the children in their care to being part of the new, emerging profession of early learning and childcare. They were becoming part of a degree led profession, which is a good thing, quality has improved with increasing underpinning knowledge and understanding and I do feel that finally ELC professionals are now being recognised among their peers in other parts of the ELC sector. However, they and I were worried that they were losing the most fundamental part of their job, love.

Love is not normally a word that is associated with professionalism. It would be unethical for a Doctor to say they loved their patients, you would not hear your Bank Manager say they loved you nor would your Optician share a loving moment over your discovery of sight after not going to get your eyes tested! But none of these professions have decades of academic research supporting the innate need for loving experiences with the humans they are working with. But there is this huge bank of knowledge around how important loving interactions are for children's all round development. The revolution which is sweeping the ELC sector at present, ACES is proof that professionals within ELC feel there is a need to be allowed to demonstrate love.

I firmly believe that love is already there, however my research data is showing that professionals have been conditioned by language used in policies and guidelines to protect them from the dangers of children being harmed. But if the ACES study shows us anything the children whose development and health has suffered has not been because they had too much love in their childhood, it was down to a lack of love in their childhood (amongst other mitigating factors). ELC Professionals are just that professional, they care very deeply for the children in their care and will do everything they can to protect those children from harm. Language in policies prevents love from being open in ELC. Words such as 'nurture'; 'care'; 'sensitivity', 'empathy' are all components of love but are being used to describe love because we are frightened to just say love. Children need love. Policy makers need to get past their fear of using the word love in their policies.

We have robust child protection guidance in practice, students are taught child protection in college, universities, there are training courses and refresher courses they can access throughout their career. And yes, sometimes the systems isn't always fool proof but for every child protection case we hear about in the media, there are many many more children protected on a daily basis that we don't hear about. There shouldn't be any children hurt, but the system isn't perfect. But does Lead Professionals in ELC supporting their staff to understand and be professional about love in practice lead to child safety issues? Or will we have stronger, happier, loving children instead because love has been brought back into the discourse of early learning and childcare?

I am searching for these answers, and whilst I am a bit stuck on one of my chapters at the moment, procrastination is a wonderful thing!

Love has always been there, we just need to make it part of the professional identity of the Lead Professional. Let them love the children.

"Naming the scary thing makes us feel safer"

Resilience - The Biology of Stress and the Science of Hope

Overview of the film and my opinion

"The child may not remember, but the body remembers"

"Researchers have recently discovered a dangerous biological syndrome caused by abuse and neglect during childhood. As the new documentary Resilience reveals, toxic stress can trigger hormones that wreak havoc on the brains and bodies of children, putting them at a greater risk for disease, homelessness, prison time, and early death. While the broader impacts of poverty worsen the risk, no segment of society is immune. Resilience, however, also chronicles the dawn of a movement that is determined to fight back. Trailblazers in paediatrics, education and social welfare are using cutting-edge science and field-tested therapies to protect children from the insidious effects of toxic stress - and the dark legacy of a childhood that no child would choose. (https://kpjrfilms.co/resilience/about-the-film/)"

https://vimeo.com/137282528 (trailer for documentary)

"Naming the scary thing makes us feel safer"

Through my work I had the opportunity to view the documentary Resilience: The Biology of Stress and the Science of Hope. I was keen to view it as many of the members of the organisation I work for, National Day Nurseries Association, have viewed it and like many nurseries across Scotland have found it hugely inspiring. I also wanted to view it from the point of view of an academic researcher.

First impression of the film were that I understand why people have been inspired by this documentary. With so many problems in the world which seem unfix-able, this research offered hope and a solution to many of the world's health problems. The science explained behaviours, the release of cortisone and adrenaline, the feeling of constant stress, toxic stress and how resilience whilst not something you are born with you can learn it. The documentary made the point that not many people don't want to do good things for kids, which is a point borne out in my own research.

The documentary went on to say that when building resilience skills we should focus on transforming the lives of the adults caring for children. There then followed a case study of a young woman who had experienced many adverse childhood experiences. Her situation was to say the least sad, upsetting and desperate. The support she received changed her, it almost fixed her. This is where the documentary began to bother me a bit. Dr Vincent Felitti and Dr Nadine Burke-Harris argued a strong scientific case in support of ACEs in true American fashion. It was a hopeful, uplifting film which showed many cases of children who had an ACE score of 4 and above and who had come out the other side better people as a result of interventions based on the science of stress. A question was posed "why are we waiting for them to fall apart? we need to be where the kids are" which made me start to think this all feels like we are trying to fix these children. Let's get them fixed before they fall apart. I'm not sure life is as simple as that.

Don't get me wrong, I am not criticising the intent behind this film, but my worry is that practitioners take this and create checklists whilst not really understanding the science behind the claims (Joy, 2018). Trying to fix children as if ACEs have broken them feels a very negative way to support children. Children who have had adverse childhood experiences need the opportunity to work out who they are with those experiences as part of them. Children who have had their rights taken away  through ACEs, need to have agency to realise those rights again. As adults we need to support children to realise those rights, no matter what age. That could be through play and most definitely should be through the demonstration of love. I understand the science behind ACEs is about how we can help improve the health of children who have had these experiences, however I was disappointed to not see a mention of play or love in the list of interventions.

Some of the interventions mentioned in the film were playful but were not self directed play. There is a wealth of academic research which supports the crucial role play has in the development of the whole child, it is their safe place to explore the world. In bringing ACE's into ELC in Scotland I would suggest bringing play to the forefront of supporting children to understand how ACEs have impacted upon their lives. The following appeared in a blog on the Upstart website called "The Silence of the Weans" (24/2/18) which demonstrates the power of play in building resilience:

"play is children's inborn learning drive - it's how evolution designed them to develop human capacities they'll need to flourish throughout life. 'Messing about' in the great outdoors develops children's powers of creativity, adaptability and problem-solving; it's also about how they hone their social skills of communication and collaboration with their peers; and it's essential for the development of personal qualities like perseverance, self-control and the emotional resilience they need for long term mental health and well being"

I am more comfortable with the idea that we try to fix the society that the child is in rather than fix the child. The documentary spoke of being trauma informed where the focus is not on what is wrong with you but what has happened to you. A sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree, however the medical nature of the documentary didn't sit well with me. In my research I have identified several case studies where Lead Practitioners shared early childhood experiences which have impacted upon the way the understand and show love in their practice with children in early years. Not all who had adverse childhood experiences showed reluctance or reservation around showing love to children in their care, in the same way those who had childhood's free from adverse childhood experiences did not all naturally show love and affection. These experiences certainly formed their understanding of love but there were also other factors. These case studies make me question whether a checklist of experiences is enough to say that a child will have problems when they are older. I just think it isn't as simple as that. 

I liked the phrase "Naming the scary thing makes us feel safer" that was used by one of the researchers featured in the documentary. This I agree with. In my study participants used 92 different words to describe love to avoid actually saying it. Many commented on not being "allowed" to love children, with many examples of practitioners saying Lead Practitioners had told them off for demonstrating love to children in their care. Frequently adhering to 'policy and guidelines' came up, in my study, as a reason for a reluctance to support love-led practice. And it is true there is relatively little mention of love in policies and guidelines, however it is also relevant to note that it is difficult to find a warning against loving children in policies. Maybe policy makers just need to 'name the scary thing' love and let us all get on with loving the children in our care. Love makes us nervous, nervous in case of child protection issues, but surely children who experience real love will learn to know the difference and build resilience and trust in adults who truly care and love them. 

These are bold claims, I know, and I genuinely agreed with the sentiment of this documentary, however, I would just caution against putting all our eggs in the one basket. Understanding how ACE's impact upon future health is an important thing, but there are many other ways of building resilience in children other than medical interventions. The facilitator at the Children in Scotland event where I saw the documentary made the point that many have said that this is "just the latest fad". I hope not, I hope people working with children and young people can find the courage to not only support children who have had ACEs but also to love them a little.  Love is a powerful emotion, it is not at all fluffy or romantic, it can change a child's life. So let's name the scary thing - it is just LOVE.

Read more about ACEs https://acestoohigh.com/

Reference list

Joy, Eileen (2018). The Problem with Checklists in Child Protection Work. Blog Re-Imagining Social Work in Potearoa, New Zealand. 

www.reimaginingsocialwork.nz/2018/03/the-problem-with-checklists-in-child-protection-work/

(accessed 28 April 2018).

Palmer, Sue (2018) The Silence of the Weans. Blog: http://www.upstart.scot/blog/ (accessed 1/5/18)