This is about comfort items, and the deeper meaning and benefits they can hold for children. But it’s also about their value, and how giving them up as children can affect us, not just as adults, but in much more elaborate ways as a society.

Comfort items for children are something that I’ve often seen being withheld from children for numerous reasons, none of which I truly see as being valid. When I talk of comfort items, I talk of anything that a child may view as important to them, and just as importantly “theirs”. This can be blankets, plush animals, action toys, anything.

Reasons I’ve heard given to children as to why they should return comfort items to their bags or not even bring them to a care setting at all have included some of the following…

“You’re too old for that now…”

“You don’t really need that…”

“You can have it at rest time…”

“You’ll get upset if you lose it…”

“The others will want their toys also…”

Not one of these, really, is a valid reason as to why you should deny a child the right to have access to something – anything – that brings them comfort. Believe me, if a child is well within their comfort zone where they no longer feel they need a comfort-item of any kind, they’ll put it aside of their own accord. But that recognition that they no longer need it should be their decision to make, not that of anyone else.

And I think we, not just as educators but also as a society, need to really ask ourselves WHY we push this impression upon children that they should give up things that are of comfort, things that are soft, things that bring joy. Because, personally, I think the intention behind any such push has its roots in very problematic ideals, something I’ll address at end of this piece.

As with many scenarios that I might discuss when they’re ones that children may face in care, I’d invite you to picture yourself in the position of those children whenever and wherever possible. And this topic is no different.

Imagine walking up to an adult in any situation and taking away their jewellery, their phone, their book, their coffee, or anything that they might find comfort in when their time is their own.

Try it the next time you enter a staff room where you teach and see how it goes, because I guarantee you it wouldn’t be a welcomed act on your part. And why? Because your co-workers have agency. Because you’re expected to respect that agency and their right to have what brings them comfort.

Children are no different. In fact, if anything, children are much more deserving of that agency. As educators we occupy a space where those children are made to occupy. If being in that space and feeling safe within it requires them having an item of comfort then, really, what point are we making by withholding any such thing from them? Because at the heart of it, we’re telling those children that what’s important to them is not important to others.

As for those reasons I mentioned that I’ve often heard offered to children about why any comfort items might be denied to them… rather than address the “reasons” and the “intent” behind them individually, I’d much rather talk about the benefits of allowing children to have their comfort items and what those benefits are. The reasons that some may use to justify “why” they withhold items of comfort from children are all too well known, I hope that highlighting the positives will in turn make clear what the negatives are in not allowing children access to their items of comfort.

Note: I’ll go into more detail at end of this, but the conflicting message you’re sending by withholding these benefits is also one that has much deeper connotations and influence than you might expect, not just to that individual child, but to all children, and even as far as the society they’re introduced to later in life.

Benefits & the Negatives of Withholding Comfort Items

• Security
Allowing a child access to something that offers them comfort informs them that they matter. That’s it. It’s really that simple! You’re informing them that their agency matters. You might think that withholding something of comfort from them builds up resilience, but I can guarantee you it doesn’t.

All this does is encourage and teach a child – who’ll one day be an adult – to internalise any discomfort they have and to bury it. You’re teaching them that they need to adhere to a social standard in what’s an acceptable means of self-regulation, and by denying them their own item of comfort, you’re also teaching them that these standards are not ones that belong to them, they belong to others.

• Identity
What a child views as integral to their sense of security isn’t just a means of them offering themselves comfort. It also speaks to what’s important to them personally, as an individual. Sometimes an item of comfort is also an extension of their interests, their personality… them.

Allowing a child free access to an item of comfort can also be their own means of presenting an extension of themselves, and one that they can present confidently. By asking a child to set aside what’s essentially a part of themselves, you’re telling them that they must hide a part of themselves. A part that’s important to them.

And if your main reason for doing so is because “no one else” has their own toys or comfort items out as it’s a general rule that’s been set, you’re also telling that child that their individual needs have to be tampered in order to meet a status quo that’s only there because it becomes an expectation of “fitting in”.

• Personal Responsibility
One reason often touted within educational settings of why children should have limited access to personal comfort items is that they might lose them, and that they’ll be upset or unsettled should they do so. This is, of course, very true. But there are ways to navigate this without demanding that the child has no access at all to their comfort items.

The learning environment of children should ideally be an organic one. It requires guidance, by all means, but I’d ask you to question why tracking down the stray possessions of a child in your care is a problem… Is it a problem for you? Is it a problem for the parents?

I’ve been on that end-of-day quest to find a child's item many times, and I do understand that it can be an inconvenience if and when there’s so much else going on, but if the true reasons for denying children access to their belongings fall towards accommodating anyone other than the child, then it’s not in the child’s interests.

However, I’ve also seen children take on their own ability to pay more attention to where their belongings are and how they manage their own access to such things when allowed to do so, and they reach that level of awareness in their own time.

Allowing them to find that responsibility of care on their own may take time, and it may take guidance on your part, but they reach that awareness on their own terms, because it relates to something of personal interest and worth to them. It’s a separate thing, a separate mindset, from the many other expectations placed upon them throughout the routines of their learning environment.

Packing away toys, helping reset resources, putting used plates away or food scraps in bins… These are all very valid parts of their routine, but they’re also ones that are inherent in being group expectations, not those of the child as an individual.

Let them find their own value in being responsible for something that’s theirs, and theirs alone. There may be times of frustration and even loss in regards to what’s important to them, but that’s something they’ll learn on their terms, in their time. Let them have that time, guide them in that if you have to and make helping keep track of those items part of your role if you must… but let it be their time, their sense of self, their extension of themselves that they learn to value and care for. It’s important.

• Social Engagement
Another reason often cited as to why children shouldn’t have their own comfort items with them is that they won’t want to share them. So what? Really, so… what?

Do you make a point of not wearing jewellery in public because someone else might ask to wear it also? Of course you don’t. Because it’s yours. And the unspoken expectation is that others will respect that. It’s yours. You’re proud of it. You have every right to have it with you as part of how you define yourself. So why deny children their own chance to set these same boundaries? Because they will… if you let them.

If a child has a possession on them and the ability to make that decision themselves as to whether or not they might share such a thing with others you’re essentially teaching them that their own agency is valid. Their consent is valid. Their right to give consent, or withdraw it when not comfortable, is valid.

It truly is a pet peeve of mine when children are told they can have access to something that’s their own personal belonging only if they’re willing to share it among others. It is absolutely the wrong message to impress upon them.

If a child wants to share something that’s special to them with their peers, they will do so, and more often than not they do, because by sharing something of importance, they willingly share something of themselves. But it should absolutely be a choice they learn to define on their own terms of comfort.

Will other children be upset should they not share what they have? Absolutely. Will that child be upset in turn should another child withhold their own possessions in kind? Absolutely. But these interactions shape children on a very personal level, in ways that define what they’re willing to give of themselves and in what regard. That’s a definition that a child should learn on their own terms, because it will influence who they are as an adult.

What’s truly quite telling about children, as opposed to adults, is that when left to make these decisions of their own accord, children will in time be much more willing to share what they have, what’s important to them – much more than you’ll find adults willing to do so.

Children don’t trade with one another in currency. Children trade with one another in identity, in their actions, in what they view as being of worth to themselves. And their items of comfort are a big part of that.

What are we REALLY teaching children? And why?

So, this is the part I really wanted to talk about… the what and the why of what we’re really trying to teach children.

These thoughts very much relate to my personal experience as an adult Autistic, and something I’ve found rather common of other Autistic adults. And it’s this… We accommodate ourselves with soft and gentle comforts. We do this sometimes out of general affection for those comfort items, but also as a means of self-regulation, as a means of… well, comfort. And we’re better for that.

Speaking for myself, when I was diagnosed and recognised as being Autistic, it meant allowing myself to revisit many aspects that had brought me comfort when younger, and one of these was a renewed appreciation of just how settling and comforting it could be to simply hold something soft.

So, why do many adult Autistics and those of other Neurodivergencies embrace that rekindling of appreciation for such things? We do so because we want to. We do so because it’s what we, as individuals, find comfort in. And we do so proudly.

In short, we do so because we no longer care what others might have to say on the matter. We’ve tried “it” the way others expected us to. It didn’t work. And so we find what works for us without the social constraints that are so engrained and fostered in educational settings, as adults, free to make our own choices.

It was a comfort when younger, it’s a comfort now. And it has to raise the question of why such a comfort was ever put aside at all? And the answer to that is a simple one, and it’s a sad one… Because it was EXPECTED.

It was expected as a part of the shift in school systems that comes with age. It was expected as a part of the shift in social “norms” that comes with that. It was expected because we’re told – in all things as a society – that with age we must put away things that are regarded as “childish”. And for children, especially boys, not just childish, but also regarded as “feminine”. And that’s an enormous problem.

The push upon children to give up any reliance on comfort items within early years education is much more prevalent as they approach that shift into their next learning environment of Primary School, and then onward from there to Secondary School institutions.

And part of the norm in preparing them for this is to encourage them to be “less” of the children that they are and were. This occurs in many regards that I personally find to be at odds with caring for one's self, but are very much aligned with the “norms” of what we’ve long established as being important in not only education, but as society as a whole.

The push to make children “school ready” is part of a flawed system where being “school ready” is in turn related to making children “job ready”. The emphasis on teaching children how to be people – and good, caring people at that – has such a rapid decline in the standard educational systems that it’s actually something I find heartbreaking.

We teach children to set aside simply being children, and we do it with such exponential rapidity that so much of that child, and who they could be as an adult, is lost… and for what? To simply teach these children that they need to stop being children and be more “grown-up”, and all for a world where, honestly, adults make the least sense in what we’ve established as a supposedly “functioning” society and world.

How does this relate to comfort items? It relates to this area very closely.

The push for children to let go of what is considered soft, what is considered gentle, is often done so to simply encourage them to do as others are “expected” to do. And an enormous part of that falls towards us, as adults, preparing them to “fit in”. But whose expectations are we meeting in that? Those of children, or expectations established as an overall expectation from an already flawed society?

Because I can honestly tell you that this impression that embracing anything soft and gentle is a “weakness” or a sign of “immaturity”, it’s one that’s quite often overly put upon boys. And it shouldn’t be.

By demanding that children steadfastly put aside what brings them comfort, they may find some way to regulate their discomfort, but it won’t be to their own instincts, desires or needs. It will be to a standard that they’ve been taught is socially acceptable to the standards of others. This is what this teaches them.

And the reason why I make note of the fact that this carries through to adulthood is because adults, well… the standard of coping mechanisms that adults often embrace is more often than not one of vices that internalise self-regulation, or they embrace an externalised ideology that others should struggle also, that if they have denied themselves gentle comforts, then others should do so also.

So my question is this… Are we adamant that children forego embracing soft and gentle comforts because it’s practical? Or are we adamantly adhering to this as a social norm to cater to male-dominant sensibilities in an already male-dominant society? Sensibilities that, when further engrained into social “norms”, lead to much more problematic – and honestly, toxic – sensibilities.

Are we making this the norm simply because it meets expectations that are Patriarchal in nature, much like so much of what society and history has long dictated, and continues to dictate even now?

If this is why this expectation to give up gentle comforts is so predominant, it’s one that does a great disservice to all children, a disservice to the adults that they will become, and a disservice to the kinder, more considerate society that we could have and be.

We’re teaching our children that being kind to themselves is a weakness. And that extends to so much of what we’re faced with as adults, as a society.

If we can’t teach children to show care for themselves, how can we expect them to show care for others as the adults that they’ll become?

We need to change what we're teaching children who'll one day be adults. And we need to change that in so, so, so many ways.

This is just one of them.