When working in varied settings, a common frustration voiced by passionate practitioners who are invested in authentic play opportunities is the simple lack of time to deliver… In my 2021 work titled “A Curiosity About Links Between Adventure Playgrounds, Loose Parts, Playwork Approach, a State of "Flow" and Children’s Wellbeing”, this issue was discussed in the sense that not only was a lack of free time available, but also its steady decrease over time in Western countries.
“…the amount of time children have to use the limited spaces available has also declined. This reduction in play time is largely attributed to increased importance being given to schooling, and other adult directed activities (Gray, 2011). According to Gray (2011), in the United States, a combination of the school day and the school year increasing at the same time as recess or “play time” decreasing correlates with other Western countries. Armitage (2001), accounts that since 1971, play time in English and Welsh schools has nearly halved and Evans (2003) states that in Australia, a substantial decrease in the length of recess time, much of which is taken up by mandatory eating time, is typical”.
As a play advocate the first thing I would push back against is this reduction of time itself. When querying the reasons and intent behind reducing playtime for children the most dominant theme is simply a benign lack of appreciation for play and its fundamental importance to children’s lives and development. This would seem like a bold, even zealous (and I’ve been called it) statement to make… However whenever new pressures on teachers and educators arise through curriculums and frameworks it is almost always free, uninterrupted, unadulterated play that takes the cut. This evidences the hierarchical importance given to play under other pursuits, but at what cost? Risk aversion, largely subject to distorted perceptions of risk also lead to an impoverishment of learning and play opportunities for children (Gill, 2007). Of course, these decisions are made with the intention of doing good, educating, teaching, developing young minds… But what if by removing play, we remove the time that children need to develop any realistic capacity to put into practice any of their taught powers? Social, emotional husks filled with some academic information… Is that what we want for our children?
The suggestion, “providing more time to play”, comes across at first as an over simplified answer to the aforementioned conundrum. Upon suggesting this very approach, I have been told frankly it would be impossible. There is not enough time. Other things are more important. What would need to be sacrificed as a result. If there was not evidence to suggest this could work this would be a difficult question to answer empirically, despite much intuition and gut telling me it was so. However, there is evidence. Several schools we have been working with have significantly increased play time in their school day. This time has come from classroom time and the results… Well, they are sensational across the board. There is a huge amount of data showing that through increased play time, and an assumed ability to practice in their play, children are becoming more socially and emotionally apt. This has led to, in several cases, massive reductions in aggressive behaviour leading to suspension and office referral, higher school attendance rates, and improved general wellbeing of children. The compounding nature of these three things flows directly into to the classroom ensuring that although time in explicit teaching environments may be less, it is optimised and as a result the school I am referring to have noted significant academic improvement in their cohorts. This has been achieved all through, in addition to a genuine appreciation of play, the creation of more time for it.
In a regrettable absence of time there are some suggestions pertaining to the physical space I would suggest to perhaps enhance the opportunity for children to engage in play, and achieve “play flow”… One way to achieve this is by being very aware of, and potentially to enhance the play space in question with quality play cues. In their pivotal 1998 “Colorado Paper”, Gordon Sturrock and Perry else defined a play cue as, “the lure or invitation from the child to the surrounding environment to join in play productions of one sort or another” (Sturrock & Else, 1998, p. 13). Human to human play cues happen without much prompting, in fact try and stop them! However, the environment is something we can deeply consider to ensure it is optimised through our hunches and intuition to best cue or invite a play return. Now even as I write this, I hesitate on phrasing it as if to suggest I would want to “speed up” the chance that that a cue would entice a child to play as this is laden with subjective opinion on what children should be doing. However, increasingly when engaged in play spaces that children can engage with for only short periods of time, optimising the play value, and the quality and number of play cue presents as a reasonable way to support the play process.
Some suggestions to ensure a space is well primed and ready to “cue play” that have worked very well in settings we have supported include:
· Loose parts: To preach the old favourite loose parts are variable and adaptable meaning the environment is constantly changing. This ensures surprise or at least an opportunity for it in each play setting which is very conducive to engagement.
· Leave out loose parts: Even better than loose parts, leave out loose parts. Leaving loose parts out ensures a space instantly cues engagement. Children either reengage with the relics of previous play frames, or, continue with their own play frames and narratives from previous play sessions. Leaving loose parts out, despite unpopular for mostly aesthetic reasons, also ensures more TIME is available to play, and number and variety resources (a crucial element in the Theory of Loose Parts) can be enhanced (Nicholson, 1971).
· Mystery and a chance to discover: A large flat oval offers little chance of discovery. I am sure many readers can appreciate the innate desire to know what was around a corner, through a tunnel, under a bush. Harness this innate desire to discover.
· Lean into trends: The latest trends and fads often perplex adults because they are not their latest trend and fad. At the end of the day however we all collected and fawned over something… Knuckle bones, marbles, dolls, yowies and tazos may have been supplanted by Pokémon cards, bayblades and other such paraphernalia, but the innate desire to have them has not. Nothing will cue play better than the things that children are already intrinsically interested in.
None of the aforementioned strategies can ultimately replace time as a critical need for children and play. However, perhaps some careful planning, reconsiderations of what really matters, and combining time and these ideas, could be of huge benefit the children we work with.
Angus Gorrie
Armitage, M. (2001). The ins and outs of school playground play: Children's use of 'play. In J. Bishop, & M. Curtis , Play today in the primary school playground (pp. 37-58). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Evans, J. (2003). Changes to (primary) school recess and their effect on children’s physical. Deacon University.
Gill, T. (2007). No Fear: Growing Up In A Risk Averse Society. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.
Gorrie, A. (2021). A Curiosity About Links Between Adventure Playgrounds, Loose Parts, Playwork Approach, a State of "Flow" and Children’s Wellbeing. International Journal of Playwork Practice, 2(1). doi:doi.org/https://doi.org/10.25035/ijpp.02.01.01
Gray, P. (2011). The Decline of Play and the Rise of Psychopathology in Children and Adolescents. American Journal of Play, 3(4), 443-463.
Nicholson, S. (1971). How not to cheat children: the theory off loose parts. Lanscape Architecture, 62, 30-35.
Sturrock, G., & Else, P. (1998). The playground as therapeutic space: playwork as healing. The Colorado Paper, (pp. 1-28).
