Ming (Agents of Speech) argues that child-led play does not always work for parents, especially when a child’s play is repetitive or lacks meaningful engagement. Using an anecdote about a child who repeatedly poured toys on the floor and obsessively pressed buttons on a toy laptop (and became aggressive when interrupted), Ming explains why following a child’s lead can be unsustainable and impractical in such cases.
If your child is, say, not even on the spectrum, just any old child who is delayed, most of the time, their play isn't meaningful at all, and therefore there isn't much to follow up on. And that makes it super difficult for parents to follow up, because what are you gonna do if all they do is line up cars? Or what are you gonna do if all they do is just throw or pour toys on the floor? A kid came to me, maybe like three years ago, and all he knew how to do was pour toys on the floor. He didn't care to pick it up. He just kept on pouring stuff, destroying stuff, laughing. And then he also had this like mini laptop thingy that he had with him. And what he does is he opens it, press the same buttons over and over again until he gets bored. Then when you try to press it, he beats you, he slaps you, and then when you try to take it away from him, he cries. So what are you going to do? You're going to follow the kid and pouring stuff on the floor? Sometimes you could, but you can't. It's not sustainable. Right. So the reason why it doesn't work, following a child's lead is because most of the play isn't meaningful at all.
