I like this philosophy. They aren’t saying ‘no sharing’ actually, but they are saying that it isn’t good to force the kids to share, and this makes sense to me. The kids should learn that no one has to hand you something, and it won’t kill you to wait your turn.
And the kids can learn how to develop a healthy altruism as opposed to being treated as if they wouldn’t ever share without being forced.
So, I was pretty easily sold on this idea.
Now, please share your opinions on the matter. Or, don’t, I won’t force you.
ETA: I should point out that the daycare has replicas of all the toys. I think this is a brilliant touch… I can just see the quizzically cocked-head response of a toddler who was ready to have a tantrum about a toy he didn’t really want in the first place, just to have that toy handed to him in his left hand as he was trying to pry it out of the hand of another kid with his right hand.
People in general could stand to be nicer to each other, teaching childeren to play together and share their toys is a start. ‘Forcing’ them to share sounds dumb, I would suggest ‘encourage’.
I totally have a no-share policy in this house. You want the thing, wait till the person who’s got it is done with it. Except in the case of scarce and really desirable resources like computer time, in which case sometimes there is a turn-taking system. Or something inherently two-playable, like a big box of lego or play-doh, where I’d split it down the middle.
We have plenty of stuff to play with in the house. In fact, pretty much anywhere that’s even remotely geared to kids is going to have lots of stuff to play with. Kid can’t think of anything else at all that they can play with apart from something someone else has got? They need to be helped to develop a better imagination…
I’m trying to wrap my head around the misuse of language in that article. If I had a toy and someone comes up to me and wants that toy for their own use, that’s not sharing-that’s taking. Now if I had a toy and someone comes up and wants to use it together, that’s sharing.
I’m cool with a “no taking” rule, which is what they seem to be going for. But to call it a “no sharing” rule muddies the waters.
Well, I wouldn’t be thrilled with a preschool that took toys away from kids before they were done with them, because another kid was waiting. Certainly my girls’ schools didn’t do that.
I am a fan of “waiting for a turn” for two reasons: the delayed gratification learning for one child, and the possibility for learning consideration for the other (when the kid playing with the toy gets to the point of it being less fun, he gets to experience making someone else happy by passing it on).
stpauler, the wording may be off, but if you are familiar with the preschool, daycare set, you may notice that the word ‘sharing’ is very often used to mean
I am playing with a toy. You want it. I am encouraged to give it to you. Not right NOW, necessarily, but I am expected to give it to you soon. If I don’t, then I’m not sharing nicely. My ‘turn’ is now relative to your desire to have my toy.
The ‘no sharing’ policy would mean I get to keep my toy till I’m done, and I won’t get scolded for ‘not sharing’.
You’re right of course, that use of the word “share” meaning “give it up” is a bit of an abuse of the English language. Sadly though, that really is how a lot of parents these days use the word. “Oh Benny, won’t you share your car with Ruby?” Meaning … stop playing with it and give it to her to play with. Of course, having got the car Ruby generally plays with it for about 30 seconds and then wanders off to something else, mission accomplished.
There is the problem. It is not sharing, it’s rewarding greed. Sharing would imply an equal distribution of the resource, generally impossible unless each child is allowed about 30 seconds to play with the toy.
The process is not only about teaching children to share (which is important), but also about how to correctly ask.
If a boy takes a toy from another boy, that’s bad. He needs to be taught how to vocalize his desire for the toy in a socially acceptable way.
Ideally, the act of ‘asking nicely’ will result in some positive feedback. He’ll get the toy! Maybe not now, but when the other boy’s turn is over. Eventually that expectation of positive feedback will lead to the boy understanding that it’s always better to ask than to take. Very important life lesson.
Sharing at this age level isn’t just about an equal distribution of resources - it’s about learning how to function in a community. Playtime is when these kids learn how to be people.
edit: On reading the article I see that I’m more or less restating it. So… yeah. Good article. “Sharing” does not mean “immediately giving up the toy.”
Yeah, but maybe he WON’T get the toy, Johnny. And he needs to learn that lesson, too. Timmy may decide to play with the truck until it is time to go home, even if asked nicely. You have to deal with that reality, Molly, and find the other truck or another toy.
I support it, however replicating all the toys sounds like a shortcut to ensure none of the kids have a reason to cry - which is less about the children and more about the teachers. It doesn’t solve the issue of kids learning bad habits on how to hog things or overstay their welcome. I would dump the replica idea and simply impose time (or some type of) limits to ensure children understand nothing good lasts forever.
What concerns me more than forced sharing of inanimate objects, is forced ‘sharing’ of ‘feelings.’
I’d prefer a policy of limited sharing. If a kid’s playing with a toy, there’s no reason why that toy should be passed on to another kid.
But let’s admit it - some kid are just greedy little bastards. Their idea of “playing” is to gather as many toys together as they can hold in their arms and tell everyone “these are mine!” They’re not playing. They’re just hoarding toys to deny them to other kids. Kids like that needs to have sharing enforced upon them.
It’s a matter of which message you think it is more important to send. Nothing lasts forever vs. You don’t always get what you want.
Some things DO last forever. One day, most kids will find themselves with material possessions that no one can take away from them. So, I think the message that wins out should be, “You don’t always get what you want”. Don’t enforce ‘turns’ and just allow the child to decide for himself if he wants to give the toy to the other kid. Hopefully, the kids will develop a true desire to WANT to share. I hate to sound Randian about this, but I do believe that the kids may surprise us, if we give them a chance.
I think the replica thing is good. We aren’t trying to frustrate the children, right? We are just trying to show them that you can’t infringe upon another person’s experience…you are free to go find the identical truck. I bet most kids don’t want the identical truck…they really just felt they were entitled to interject into the other kids fun with the original truck.
I would love to sit in on this daycare and observe how it actually plays out.
I don’t know about this. On the one hand it seems like it could be a good way to teach children that they can’t just go take whatever someone else has, but on the other hand it also seems to ignore the fact that sometimes kids are dicks who will use a toy literally all day long just to lord over the other kids that they can’t have it. Teaching kids that they can’t just take things from other people is important but so is teaching kids that a group functions better when everyone has equal access to resources. Letting little Tommy know that everyone wants to play with the See’n’Say so he needs to be mindful of that and give it up to go play with the blocks eventually is important too. Stepping in with doubles of toys is a good way to make sure everyone gets a turn on a specific toy but then that teaches the lesson that you don’t ever have to be mindful of another person’s wants or needs because someone else will come in and take care of it to keep you from making a fuss.
To keep a child from hogging a toy all day long you set a specific time limit. I’ve seen the idiotic sharing concept described here, it’s just a way for aggressive kids to take toys away from the others. As someone said above, the kid asking for the toy is the one that needs to learn about sharing.
I think the replica toys are the perfect solution to ‘hogging the toy all day long’. I don’t think kids have the reasoning skills sharp enough to see through the replica angle. I don’t think there is a danger of them taking away the layered message of “Oh, there are replica toys so I don’t have to be mindful of other’s needs because someone will just step in to keep a fuss from being made”.
I think we may be giving the kids a bit too much credit there, pbbth. I don’t want to underestimate kids, but I really do think the double toy plan is right out of their reach of taking the wrong message.
I have a “you can choose to share or not to share, but don’t fight over it” policy in my house. The minute I hear fussing from my twins that so and so won’t let them play with whatchamacallit or so and so took my whatchamacallit, the whatchamacallit becomes mine until they can work it out. The threat alone of taking their whatchamacallit away because of fighting is often enough to get them to either choose to share and play together or to stop asking their sibling to play with the whatchamacallit they probably didn’t even really want in the first place.
