In early childhood education, play is seen as a natural and essential part of childhood that comes with developmental and learning gains. However, when it comes to children with developmental differences and disabilities, play can be viewed differently. Early intervention approaches can prime us to view children’s play patterns as an indicator of delays or deficits. For example, we might say a child doesn't know how to "play properly" simply because they are not playing in ways we consider socially acceptable. We may judge a child as withdrawn because they prefer to play alone rather than with others. Or suggest that a child is developmentally younger because they are energetic and exploratory rather than playing in more still and “functional” ways.

 

One reason for this is that the definitions, descriptions and categories of play we are taught about are based on neuronormativity, which is defined as the standard of expectations and norms that center a particular way of developing, learning, feeling, behaving and playing (adapted from Wise, 2023). When children act outside these so-called norms, their play and development can be deemed wrong, unacceptable or inappropriate. We may then be encouraged to intervene to correct, re-direct, re-shape and sabotage a child’s play. While this may be with the best intentions, the impact can be a denial of the diverse ways children exist within their play. We need to resist this way of thinking if we are to deliver meaningful and affirming inclusion.

​​​​

Play & Neurodiversity

​

There is an increasing understanding of neurodiversity in early childhood. Neurodiversity recognises that human differences and diversity are an inevitable feature of humankind. While this concept resonates well with early childhood, where we attempt to embrace the unique child and to be child-led, we are also confronted with the tensions of the wider educational agenda for all children to be measured against the same goals and outcomes. As a result, children's play becomes swept up by this agenda, whereby play is only deemed valuable if it is visibly and obviously contributing to prescriptive and standardised outcomes via learning through play.

​

Ultimately, if a child is considered delayed or impaired, their play is also viewed this way by default. The binary thinking that children play in the right or wrong way limits the diverse possibilities of play. So, we must broaden our understanding of it if all children are to truly benefit from play-based frameworks and curriculums.

 

Diversify rather than Define Play

 

Play is a notoriously tricky "thing" to define and describe, but that has not stopped researchers from attempting to provide definitions, features, stages and types of play. While this can be useful in providing us with the language and framework to talk about how children play, it can also cultivate the idea that there is a “right” way to play, or if a child does not play in the ways described, that they are failing in their learning and development.For example, many theories suggest that children should progress through specific stages of play, such as unoccupied play, onlooker play, parallel play, and eventually cooperative play. If a child doesn’t follow this sequence or prefers one stage over another, it’s often viewed as a developmental issue rather than simply a play preference. This can lead to unnecessary intervention, where we try to “correct” the child’s natural play style. Additionally, many traditional and dominant play theories don’t consider children with lifelong developmental differences or disabilities, leaving a significant gap in our understanding of the diversity of play experiences.

​

A-Z of Neurodiverse Play