Why We Banned Legos- Ann Pelo and Kendra Pelojoaquin

As I looked through the chapters of Rethinking Popular Culture and Media I was drawn to the chapter Why We Banned Legos by Ann Pelo and Kendra Pelojoaquin.  I am an early childhood educator and Legos are a staple in my classroom (and in my home).  Legos provide opportunities for creativity, engineering design process, collaboration, and perseverance.  I had some hunches about what this chapter would be about, but I had no idea how deep it would go. 

Kendra is the lead teacher in an after school childcare program in an affluent Seattle neighborhood.  Children ages 5-9 come mainly from white, upper middle class and socially liberal families (p.82).  Ann is the mentor to the teachers who helps plan curriculum based on the children’s play and interactions.  It is based on the Emilia Reggio approach to learning.  Like in many classrooms, Legos were popular.  Kids had created a Legotown by building houses, shops, fire stations, and even an airport.  Lots of discussion and negotiating came along with creating these pieces. Trading of ‘good’ lego pieces.  But soon, the teachers realized many other things were happening.

                                    

Children were being excluded.  It was subtle, but it was happening. The older, more proficient builders, were in charge.  Those excluded didn’t even seem to complain.  They said that they just wanted  to play somewhere else.  Then, negotiations over good bricks became intense and turned into conflict.  Heated discussions about who the houses/structures belonged to followed.  Did they belong to the individual builder?  To the people of Legotown?  To the class?  Who could touch or make changes to them?  And then Legotown was destroyed.  Themes of power, inequity, and ownership were clearly coming to light and needed to be explored.  The teachers decided to take the Legos out of the classroom.  

The teachers spent a lot of time talking as a professional group.  Each had their own personal experiences with Legos.  Some had them while others remember not having the money to afford them.  Their experiences would certainly influence their moves forward.  I am completely impressed with their commitment to teach young  children about such important social, and political, issues.  They didn’t chalk it up to kids being kids and swoop in and impose rules on the classroom.  They created an atmosphere where over time they had in depth conversations about how to bring Legotown back so that it is fair to all.  

The teachers led discussions on the idea of giving.  At the surface, this seems like a kind act, right?  Sure!  We always ask children to share toys.  But what had been happening was that the leaders of Legotown somehow ‘had’ the Legos and were making decisions of who got what pieces.  They held the power! This really resonated with me. How did they get the power?  Just because they were older and better at constructing Legos?  Really the Legos belonged to the class.  

The teachers decided to introduce a game with the Legos.  They wanted to explore the idea of power even more.  Each child took an amount of Legos and then the teachers told them that each color Lego had a specific value.  So the child who took all the green Legos ended with the most points.  This immediately sparked big reactions from everyone else.  They screamed that it wasn’t fair.  The teachers continued.  They told the kids they could get more points by trading Legos.  Liam, the early winner who chose all green as it was his favorite color, refused to trade.  Why would he want to lose his power and sense of ‘winning’.  The children with less points were disappointed, frustrated, and even just gave up.  The children began to come up with some rules in an effort to make things more fair.  The conversations were rich.

In the following weeks the teachers led the children in work regarding rules and ownership.  They came up with the following:

• If I buy it, I own it:

•  If I receive it as a gift, I own it:

•  If I make it myself, I own it:

•  If it has my name on it, I own it:

•  If I own it, I make the rules about it:

Eventually the Legos returned to the classroom after weeks of conversations and interviews with the children.  Posing questions such as:“If you were going to

play with Legos, what would be important to you?” “What would be different if

we bring the Legos back to the classroom?”  “How could we make it different?” (61).

Through these interviews the teachers came to understand some big ideas.

  • Collectivity is a good thing:

“You get to build and you have a lot of fun and people get to build onto

your structure with you, and it doesn’t have to be the same way as when

you left it. . . . A house is good because it is a community house.”

• Personal expression matters:

“It’s important that the little Lego plastic person has some identity. Lego

houses might be all the same except for the people. A kid should have

their own Lego character to live in the house so it makes the house

different.”

• Shared power is a valued goal:

“It’s important to have the same amount of power as other people

over your building. And it’s important to have the same priorities.”

“Before, it was the older kids who had the power because they used

Legos most. Little kids have more rights now than they used to and older

kids have half the rights.”

• We should strive for moderation and equal access to resources:

“We should have equal houses. They should be standard sizes. . . . We

should all just have the same number of pieces, like 15 or 28 pieces.”

They whittled down these big ideas to 3 kid friendly rules for the classroom.  But the real work wasn’t in coming  up with these rules.  It was the process that the teachers and children went through to get to these rules.  The thinking and understanding that came from the Legotown disaster. Children are capable of understanding big social concepts and working to improve the world for all.  “Those worldviews show up in their play, which is the terrain that young children use to make meaning about their world and to test and solidify their understanding.” (62),  It is our responsibility as educators to allow for and structure these conversations in developmentally appropriate ways.  This chapter has inspired me and validated my belief in play!