Reconsidering “No Touch Policies”

I am a rarity, being a male teacher that works in early elementary education. If you don’t believe me, take a look at the staff photos in your children’s yearbooks. High school and middle school teachers tend to be a mixed bunch, but when you get to the grade 1 teachers, chances are they are mostly female.
Teaching kindergarten and early elementary students requires a sense of nurturing and caregiving - not often associated with males. Needless to say, males entering into the industry may be under more scrutiny for how they go about giving this care. Particularly, concerning the issue of touch.
With growing concerns over well-publicized cases of child abuse in out-of-home settings and increased concerns regarding liability, some schools are now enforcing strict “No Touch Policies”. This is an understandable reaction by parents, teachers, and administration. As a teacher, my students safety and well-being is a top concern and I understand it. However, implementing such a policy has significant negative consequences regarding physical, cognitive, and social development, especially in the kindergarten and early elementary settings.
Anyone with children of their own, or who have been around children of this age group for any significant amount of time knows that these children touch everything around them, including teachers and other students. In fact, they often seek out touch and hugs. So why do they do this?

Many studies indicate that touch is a basic life sustaining need, necessary for healthy development. Frances Carlson, author of Essential Touch: Meeting the Needs of Young Children, believes touch is as necessary as food or water for young children to thrive and grow physically, cognitively, socially, and emotionally. Tiffany Field, director of the Touch Research Institute at the University of Miami School of Medicine, believes physical contact is important throughout our lifetime. Her research indicates positive touch stimulates pressure receptors under the skin, lowering the heart rate, slowing the breath, decreasing stress hormones and boosting the immune system. Similarly, In The Connected Child, written by two research psychologists specializing in adoption and attachment, the authors describe the positive effects of a loving and firm hug. They report that a hug slows down the heart rate and the blood pressure, which causes a relaxed state. In addition, the hug even curbs stress hormones such as cortisol, facilitates food absorption and the digestion process, and stimulates the release of serotonin, which counteracts pain.
Considering these studies, is it any wonder that kindergarten and elementary children occasionally feel a natural need to seek out positive touch or hugs?
Also, by implementing a strict “No Touch Policy” in schools, children will be missing out on developing important social and emotional cues. For instance, some “No Touch Policy” schools have banned children from touching each other during recess. Many students, particularly boys, can learn a lot from this type of rough-and-tumble play. When children participate in rough-and-tumble play such as play fighting, climbing over each other, or rolling around they are actually learning. Rough play helps children understand the limits of their strength, explore their changing position in space, and find out what other children will and

won’t let them do. Rough play also helps children work out social relationships as they play roles, take turns, and sort out personal boundaries.
This reminds me of a story I once heard from a parent. This parent had one biological son and one adopted son, both around the same age. The biological son had been participating in rough play for as long as she could remember. She had reason to believe her adopted son had not been exposed to rough and tumble play before joining the family. The result was that when the two boys got together to play, the adopted son often went from “appropriate play” to “way too rough play” very quickly. He had not had the experience of rough play to help him determine what was and wasn’t acceptable play. Alternatively, her biological son was well aware of the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable play. He about been allowed to develop self- regulation skills through touch.
I feel sympathy for teachers in schools that have enforced strict “No Touch Policies”. It must lead to great confusion in dealing with situations that just a few years ago would have been considered as everyday ways in which adults care for young children. Perhaps looking at a common occurrence that happens regularly in schools will help clarify my point.
A kindergarten student forgets to go to the bathroom before the long bus ride to school and for some reason felt nervous in class and did not ask to be excused. He wets his pants. Traditionally, a teacher could quickly and discreetly take the student to the bathroom and help the student with changing into his extra set of clothes (Not by physically taking off his clothes for him, but rather offering some encouraging verbal support and perhaps helping with a button or zipper), much to the gratitude and relief of the student. A teacher dealing with the same situation in a “No Touch Policy” school would have a much bigger problem to deal with. Depending on

the policy, the teacher may have to flat out refuse to help the child, quite likely causing confusion to the student. The teacher may have to find another adult “to supervise” him while he helps the child, adding to the embarrassment and shame of the child. The teacher may even have to call the parent of the child to come and help with the problem, causing the student to have to deal with wet pants for an unknown amount of time. I’m no expert, but in my understanding of child development, the less of a big deal we make out of this situation, the better. I’m not so sure involving more people and creating more shame and embarrassment would be beneficial for the student in this case.
As I mentioned before, I understand that these policies have been put in place in order to curb cases of child abuse in schools and that’s commendable. But I can’t help but feel that by enforcing “No Touch Policies” all we are really doing is reinforcing a generalized sense of mistrust amongst adults. Is it necessary for all teachers to feel like potential abusers in need of round the clock surveillance? The National Association for the Education of Young Children doesn’t seem to think so. In a position statement they advise, “ No-touch policies are misguided efforts that fail to recognize the importance of touch to children’s healthy development.”
So then, if we recognize the importance of touch for children’s healthy development, but also want to curb cases of child abuse what should be done? You may notice that I didn’t mention any teaching strategies regarding touch. I feel that these techniques feel forced and contrived, and might, rightly so, weird children out. I do however think that if I child in elementary or kindergarten seeks out touch, such as a hug, that they should not be shunned away. We need to remember that this is quite healthy and natural for young children. Parents and teachers should also talk with children about healthy touch vs. unhealthy touch. Parents and

teachers should be informed about the positive effects of rough-and-tumble play, and teachers should still supervise carefully to insure things don’t get out of hand. Also, parents, teachers, and administration should all maintain a clear and continuing dialogue concerning when touch is appropriate. Of course, schools should still take all precautionary measures when hiring teachers, such as performing a criminal background check. Finally, having professional adults learn to trust one another again, instead of working in an environment of suspicion and fear, would create an overall more positive and nurturing school environment for all.