Nature of childhood Essay

There are many aspects of early years practice which have their origins in the past and which reflect particular ideas about the nature of childhood. It can be argued that it is important to identify these aspects so as to understand current interpretations of early years practice. Discuss with reference to the philosophies of two key historical figures. Current early years practices such as play, a stimulating environment, the role of the practitioner, and recognising the child’s parents as playing a key role in their education originate from theories that were made in the past. The following pages will outline the influential ideas of Friedrich Froebel and Dr. Maria Montessori and discuss them in relation to the current ideas relating to the above topics. Before the nineteenth century, childhood was not seen as a stage of life separate from adulthood. Instead, the concept of childhood was regarded as an immature form of adulthood (Wood, E. 1996) children were regarded as being naturally evil and so education was not prioritised. Most children learnt the values of life through labouring alongside adults. Into the nineteenth century, and with the concept of original sin dropped, three different views of childhood and education arose. The nativist view is the view that children are born with a pre-programmed development pathway. The empiricist view believes that each child is an empty vessel waiting to be filled, and the interactionist view recognises that children do have pre-programmed ideas whilst understanding the influence that the child’s socio-cultural surrounding has on his education. (Bruce, T. 1997) At the moment, the interactionist view is the most popular method of educating children (Ibid) and professionals regard both Friedrich Froebel and Maria Montessori as interactionists. However, both approached the development of childhood from a very different angle. Friedrich Froebel believed that The human being is born for research; and he is to practice it even as a child (Anonymous, 2000,p1) He assumed that children have to investigate the inner properties of things in order to discover hidden influences and causes. Froebel also considered children as being naturally good suggesting that this goodness could be harnessed and fostered through nurture care and education. (ibid) and so developed a special environment where children could grow and learn. This he called his Kindergarten or garden for the children. Froebel also considered the spiritual, physical, feeling and intellectual aspects of a child as a whole and believed that within his special environment (which will be discussed further on) allowing children free playful, conversational experiences would build and shape all of a child’s senses. Like Froebel, Dr. Montessori believe that the best way to educate a child was to design a method that would track the natural physiological and physical development of the child and allow touch, movement and freedom to aid the child to learn. (Montessori, 1964). Maria Montessori however did not regard her method of education as instigating play claiming; If I were persuaded that children need to play, I would provide a proper apparatus, but I am not so persuaded. (Ibid) The Dr. claimed that a child’s mind was most absorbent between the ages of 0-6 years, and that children learn best through movement and senses although this should not be regarded as play. She also viewed the child as a whole however, in contrast to Froebel’s theories, she believed that each sense should be isolated and developed separately. To achieve this Montessori developed thematic activities based on real life experiences, and allowed her children to work individually or as part of a group. Again, a special environment was set up where children could move about freely and pick and plan there own method of self education using apparatus that could only be utilised one way.