Feminism and the Development of Women
in the History of Early Childhood Education
Submitted as the Comprehensive Exam for Teaching and Learning
Layna Cole
August 10, 2005
Introduction
One of the foundational themes of my education in the University of North
Dakota’s Teaching and Learning doctoral program is that the world is in a transition
from modernism to postmodernism. The truths of yesterday are being questioned and
the questions of today are being reexamined. This comprehensive exam will explore
the transition from modernism to postmodernism by examining feminism and the
development of women through the history of early childhood education.
Modernism is a period of history marked by a moving away from reliance on
supernatural deities and religion towards reliance on science. The period of modernism
hit its crescendo during the Industrial Revolution. It is difficult to determine if the period
of modernism is over, but it is clear that postmodernism has been germinated and is
growing. Let the history books of tomorrow decide with clearer eyes the precise
moment of transition.
One of the precursors of postmodernism has been the evolution of feminist
thought, which Mary Gergen (2001) outlines. Gergen calls the first wave of feminist
thought “feminist empiricism”. The thrust of this movement was to put a stop to sexist
practices and allow women a place within systems that existed (Anderson, 2003;
Gergen 2001). The basic belief was that women should be allowed to do the things that
had been traditionally reserved for men. There was no questioning of systems
themselves and it was believed that the oppression of women came not from the
system, but from errors that occurred within the system (Gergen, 2001). The next wave
of feminist thought was called the “feminist standpoint” movement and took its roots
from Marxist standpoint theory (Anderson, 2003; Gergen, 2001). This movement
1
recognized that current systems were created by men with power for men with power
(Gergen, 2001). The feminist standpoint movement worked to create a new way of
operating that would represent the knowledge of women that had thus far been silenced
(Anderson, 2003; Gergen, 2001). Both feminist empiricism and feminist standpoint
theory are tied to modernism. “Feminist postmodernism”, the current wave of feminist
thought, finds its beginning in the emergence of postmodern thought. Feminist
postmodernism is very skeptical about modernist reliance on science and does not
believe in absolute truth (Anderson, 2003; Gergen, 2001). Feminist postmodernism is
interested in diversity of thought and in recognizing the value of context and language in
all situations (Anderson, 2003; Gergen 2001). It is all about deconstructing old ways of
knowing and reconstructing new ones (Anderson, 2003; Gergen, 2001). It embraces a
language of possibilities.
One product of feminist thought is a work by Mary Belenky (et al, 1986) that
proposes a framework for understanding the development of women. Her work
suggests that models presented by such definitive researchers such as Erikson and
Piaget do not accurately or adequately represent the experience of women. Both
Erikson and Piaget are heavily relied upon in the field of child development and early
childhood education, but focus on the development of children as individuals. Belenky
(et al, 1986) suggests that women do develop as individuals but only in relationship to
others. In Women’s Ways of Knowing, Belenky (et al, 1986) proposes that women
move through stages of knowing based on their relationships with others. The first
stage is silence, when women feel they have no voice, no knowledge and are subject
solely to external authority. The next stage is received knowledge. In this stage,
2
women believe they are capable of receiving, repeating and reproducing knowledge that
comes from external authorities. However, they do not yet recognize that they are
capable of creating knowledge themselves. The next stage is subjective knowledge,
when women believe they can create knowledge themselves and that truth is known
intuitively. Procedural knowledge, the next stage, is when women become interested in
engaging in procedures that will help them acquire new knowledge as well as
communicate the knowledge they have. The last stage of knowledge is constructed
knowledge, when women recognize that knowledge is constructed not only from what
they know but also from the knowledge of others. They view knowledge as contextbased and are comfortable with dissonance.
It is within these two frameworks, the evolution of feminist thought and women’s
development, that the history of early childhood education is examined. This
comprehensive exam will provide a connection between the history of early childhood
education, the evolution of feminist thought and the development of women.
Historical European Influences on Early Childhood Education
Early childhood education finds its roots deeply embedded in the educational
philosophies of historical thinkers from the 18th and 19th centuries. Although, most of
the movers and shakers in the establishment of early childhood education in the United
States were women, men brought about the creation of early childhood education as a
distinct field.
Historians often trace the origin of the foundation for early childhood education
back to Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000; Morrison,
2002, Wolfe, 2000). Rousseau was actually a bit of a vagabond with little actual
3
experience working with young children (Wolfe, 2000). However, his essays and books
about how to educate young children were revolutionary during the 1700s. Rousseau
believed that childhood was an important time and that teachers really needed to
understand children in order to be effective (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000; Wolfe, 2000).
He did not believe that children needed to be controlled, but rather observed, studied
and understood (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). These ideas were in stark contrast to the
actual educational processes being used at the time, which were based on rote
memorization, obedience to the teacher and harsh discipline. Rousseau believed
teachers needed to teach through the environment, rather than through lecture or text,
whether that was in nature or in a well-prepared classroom (Wolfe, 2000). He was the
first champion of child-centeredness and believed children should live fully while
focusing on the present, not simply to prepare for the future (Wolfe, 2000). Rousseau’s
ideas impacted many educational theorists after his time. His ideas about the
importance of childhood and understanding child development, observing and studying
children, teaching through the environment and being child-centered are foundational
teachings in early childhood education today.
Rousseau’s writings make it clear that he did not believe that girls should be
afforded the same education as boys. Rousseau’s views on women reflected the
essentialist, biological determinism of the time (Beatty, 1995). In Emile, Rousseau’s
ideas about the education of girls reveal his belief that women should be dominated by
and please men (Beatty, 1995; Wolfe, 2000). He thought young children should spend
as much time as possible with their male tutor and away from their mothers (Beatty,
1995). Jane Roland Martin’s (1994) analysis of Rousseau’s work highlights that
4
Rousseau did not believe women should be involved in the educational domain.
Rousseau had little use for women in education and in Rousseau’s time, women had
little input into developing educational philosophies. Rousseau’s work emerged at the
dawn of modernism and predates feminism as a movement. To use Belenky’s (et al,
1986) framework, women during Rousseau’s time were at the stage of silence.
Rousseau did little to apply his ideas to educational settings, but did influence Johann
Heinrich Pesalozzi (1746-1827), who expanded Rousseau’s ideas and applied them in
educational settings (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000; Wolfe, 2000).
Pestalozzi tried to educate his son using Rousseau’s writings as a guide. During
this educational experiment, Pestalozzi applied the idea of child study, documenting and
reflecting on his son’s learning. Throughout the process, Pestalozzi was able to refine
and expand on Rousseau’s ideas (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000; Wolfe, 2000).
Pestalozzi
was very concerned about poverty and saw education as a way to improve society.
Pestalozzi taught in schools that served poor children and while teaching he developed
“object lessons” which were manipulatives to be used with children. This built from
Rousseau’s belief in learning through the senses. Pestalozzi also thought it very
important to follow the child’s motivation, realizing that real learning happens when
children are internally motivated and interested. Pestalozzi introduced the concept of
the whole child and believed that education must serve the “hand, heart and head” of
children (Wolfe, 2000).
Pestalozzi, unlike Rousseau, thought that boys and girls should be educated
together. He believed that mothers were the first teachers of their children and created
a model of home-teaching techniques through his fictitious peasant mother character
5
Gertrude (Beatty, 1995; Martin, 1994; Wolfe, 2000). He founded several schools in the
late eighteenth century built around a home-like environment (Beatty, 1995; Lascarides
& Hinitz, 2000; Wolfe, 2000). Pestalozzi enjoyed being around children and
emphasized having a loving, positive environment for children (Beatty, 1995). Although
Pestalozzi is sometimes criticized for creating the image of the “perfect working-class
mother and housewife”(Wolfe, 2000), he must be recognized for highlighting women’s
contributions to the education of young children and introducing women into the
educational conversation (Beatty, 1995; Martin, 1994). By suggesting that women can
and should teach young children, Pestalozzi stands at the door of feminist empiricism,
creating a place for women in the education of young children that had been traditionally
reserved for men. And in creating home-like schools, he might even be categorized
with the feminist standpoint movement for valuing and recreating what was traditionally
the domain of women—the home. In looking at Pestalozzi’s work using Belenky’s (et al,
1986) model, women move from silence to somewhere in between received and
subjective knowledge. Much of Pestalozzi’s writings were designed to inform mothers
how to educate their young children, yet Gertrude calls on her own knowledge and skills
to serve as a model for other women.
Robert Owens (1771-1858) was a self-made powerful businessman who grew up
in England during the peak of the industrial revolution. Owen saw the effects of poverty
on children and became concerned with the exploitation of children working in factories.
Owen believed that factory owners could improve the world by providing education for
both the children and the adults in their employ while still making a profit. He bought
some textile mills in Scotland and built schools and a community center near the
6
factories to provide education and support for the families working in his mill. Owen
would not let young children work in his mill, (taking a stand against the exploitation of
children in factories throughout Great Britain at the time) but provided schooling for
young children of the families working for him. Owen built his educational ideas around
those of Pestalozzi and Rousseau. However, a key difference was that he believed
that children as young as two years old, should be provided education in a group setting
(Beatty, 1995). Some key approaches of Owen’s school were that instruction was to be
based on children’s experiences, that teachers must be kind and that children must not
be punished. Owen also provided education for adults in the evenings. The idea of
educating poor people in Great Britain at the time was met with great hostility a the time,
but Owen believed that “man was no better than his environment and that if the
environment changed, people would change (Wolfe, 2000, 150).” His experiment in
Scotland was a great success, so he wanted to test his approaches somewhere else.
Owen came to the United States in 1825 to build a village built around his
educational ideas for improving the lives of the poor. He built his village in New
Harmony, Indiana, with three schools, one for infants, one for children, and one for
adults that taught a wide variety of trade skills (Wolfe, 2000). He imported his
experiment of educating groups of very young children, both boys and girls equally, to
the United States (Wolfe, 2000). Although he was not as enamored with the innate
abilities of mothers as teachers as Pestalozzi was, he did recognize that women’s
contributions were valuable both inside the home and outside the home (Beatty, 1995;
Wolfe, 2000). This aligns Owen with feminist empiricism and puts women at the stage
of received knowledge. His infant schools were created in part to allow mothers to work
7
in his factories without the fret of worrying about the care of their very young children.
Owen’s schools in New Harmony only lasted three years before disagreement led Owen
to sell them (Wolfe, 2000). Owen’s ideas of building curriculum around children’s
experiences, forbidding corporal punishment, providing equal education for boys and
girls, and seeing education as a way to improve the lives of families in poverty have
continued as core values in early childhood education.
The Kindergarten Movement
Friedrich Froebel (1782-1852), who was active at the same time as Owen, is
known in the field as the “father of kindergarten.” Froebel spent time working and
studying under Pestalozzi, and embraced his as well as Rousseau’s ideas (Wolfe,
2000). However, Froebel felt that Pestalozzi’s curriculum lacked a focus on unity and
interdependence. Froebel believed that very young children “needed an orderly set of
experiences” in order to fully develop (Wolfe, 2000). Froebel went on to open a school
based on Pestalozzi’s ideas, but with a much more orderly curriculum. It was at this
school that Froebel developed his “gifts and occupations” that were to become the
curriculum and methods of the Froebelian kindergarten (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000).
Froebel also had an impact on teacher education. As a precursor to Froebel’s
creation of kindergarten, he had the belief the “the mother should be the sole educator
of the child until the age of seven,” (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). However, he also
realized that mothers had neither the time nor the education required to provide all that
children needed without additional help (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). After thorough
development of his kindergarten methods and materials, Froebel set up a training
program for teachers (Wolfe, 2000). During the second year of his training program,
8
Froebel became convinced that women made better teachers of young children than
men (Wolfe, 2000). “He recognized women as the natural educators of children” and
considered the work of women important (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000, 99). The idea of
educating women to become teachers was ridiculed at the time because “women were
not seen as capable of working professionally outside of the home” (Wolfe, 2000, 83).
Froebel created a way for women to enter the professional educational world; his work
is firmly planted in the feminist empirical movement. Similar to Pestalozzi, his
recognition of the unique strengths of women, yet training women to follow his methods,
puts women of this time somewhere between received and subjective knowledge stage
in Belenky’s (et al, 1986) model.
The popularity of Froebel’s methods cannot be under estimated in their influence
on early childhood education. Prior to the development of kindergartens, wide range
support of efforts to provide education outside of the home to children prior to entering
the primary grades did not exist. The spreading of kindergarten along with Froebel’s
belief in the professional development of women had far reaching consequences.
Froebel’s recognition of women’s abilities as teachers of young children and his
willingness to orchestrate a system for women to enter the educational domain as
teachers was the catalyst that has led to the predominance of women teachers in early
childhood education.
Froebel’s kindergarten methods found their way to the United States with
German immigrants who had come to the new country to set up kindergartens and to
train teachers in Froebelian approaches (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). Margarethe
Schurz opened the first kindergarten in the United States in 1856 in Watertown,
9
Wisconsin (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000; Seefeldt & Barbour, 1986; Snyder, 1972).
Kindergartens spread throughout the east through the work of women networking with
women. In a chance meeting, Schurz met Elizabeth Palmer Peabody at a social
gathering in 1859 (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000; Snyder, 1972). Schurz told Peabody
about kindergarten and Froebel’s methods. She also sent Peabody the introduction of
on of Froebel’s books (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000; Snyder, 1972). Based on
conversations with Schurz and the writings of Froebel, Peabody opened the first
English-speaking kindergarten in Boston in 1860 (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000; Snyder,
1972). Peabody spent the rest of her life promoting the idea of kindergarten to a
resistant American public. She also worked to ensure that all “kindergartens” were
using Froebel’s methods and materials properly.
Kindergartens in the United States were not initially associated with public
schools. Free kindergartens were organized by women to address the social and
educational needs of poor children in urban areas (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). These
kindergartens began to expand their services to include home visits to help families and
classes for mothers on childrearing (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). The connection to the
home and the valuing of the “reproductive processes” of childrearing and parenting put
the early kindergarten movement in the United States in line with the feminist standpoint
movement (Martin, 1994). Kindergartens were seen as a way to address some of the
social evils brought about by the industrial revolution (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000;
Seefeldt & Barbour, 1986). The first kindergarten within a public school system was in
St. Louis, Missouri, in 1873 (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). The teacher was Susan Blow
and she strictly followed Froebel’s methods (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000; Snyder, 1972).
10
The first wave of kindergartens in the United States, with women as teachers and
directors, aligns with feminist empiricism but jumps into the feminist standpoint way of
thinking by introducing home visits and classes for mothers. The women involved
closely followed Froebel’s methods, remaining at the received knowledge stage of
development (Belenky, et al, 1986).
In 1887, Anna Bryan started a two-year training program for kindergarten
teachers in Louisville, Kentucky (Wolfe, 2000). She modified some of Froebel’s ideas
and encouraged her students to “question instead of blindly follow” (Wolfe, 2000). One
of Bryan’s first students was Patty Smith Hill (Wolfe, 2000). Upon completing her
training, Hill, who was strong influenced by John Dewey’s work, immediately started a
kindergarten program and began experimenting with Froebel’s ideas, providing
additional constructive materials for children and observing children’s play (Wolfe,
2000). Hill and Bryan began to publicly criticize the rigid implementation of Froebel’s
ideas in kindergartens and encouraged kindergarten teachers to create original
activities beyond Froebel’s (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000).
Hill’s ideas did not sit well with kindergarten teachers who believed in strictly
following Froebel’s methods (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000, Snyder, 1972; Wolfe, 2000).
Those teachers who believed in strictly adhering to Froebel’s methods without deviation
were rooted in received knowledge. For those at the level of received knowledge, there
is no room for gray. There is total faith in the knowledge that has come from some
source of authority, which in this case was Froebel’s teaching. They had little tolerance
for any variation from what they had learned (Belenky, et al, 1986). The notion of
adapting and adjusting Froebel’s methods based on experiences with children, as
11
promoted by Hill, was unacceptable to those kindergarten teachers at the received
knowledge stage of development. Hill’s approach, does not move kindergarten along in
the evolution of feminist thought, keeping it somewhere between empiricism and the
standpoint movement, but her ideas mark a jump in the development of women to the
constructed knowledge stage (Belenky, et al, 1986). Hill recognized the value of
Froebel’s teachings, but knew she could improve his work through the addition of her
own knowledge. She called others to do the same. Hill’s ability to recognize the value
of Froebel’s methods, yet incorporate her own ideas and knowledge into her teaching
place her at the constructed knowledge stage (Belenky, et al, 1986). The debate
between the traditional and progressive kindergarteners continued into the 1920s, when
the progressive approach, promoted by Hill, won out and became broadly accepted by
the field (Goffin & Wilson, 2001).
By the 1930s, kindergarten was well established as part of the public school
system. Kindergarten was seen as a way to “Americanize” immigrant children as well
as a place to address the needs of children in poverty (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000).
Kindergarten provided the possible solution for many social problems of the day
(Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). However, as “kindergarten became part of the public
school, changes occurred and a new bureaucracy evolved” (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000).
The autonomy of the kindergarten teacher was removed; she became supervised by the
principal. This change reflected a shift of power away from women and toward men
(Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000), a change from a loosely organized system made up
primarily of women dedicated to improving the world of young children to a highlystructured, patriarchal system. Once part of the public school system, concerns about
12
the cost associated with the program began to be a factor in decisions affecting
kindergarten structure (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). Classes for mothers and home
visits were eliminated and “double sessions” were introduced in order to accommodate
larger numbers of children (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). A tension arose between
teachers following Froebelian kindergarten philosophy about child growth and
development and first grade teachers expecting children ready for academic work
(Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). In an effort to reduce the conflict between kindergarten and
first grade, school systems merged the supervision and curriculum of kindergarten into
their elementary grades (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). By the middle of the twentieth
century, most kindergartens were subsumed by elementary schools and were focused
on preparing children for first grade. The absorption of kindergarten by elementary
schools was a set-back in feminist thought, moving the locus back to empiricism
through the loss of power of kindergarten teachers and the removal of such things as
home visits and classes for mothers.
Nursery School Movement
The nursery school movement began with infant schools introduced by Robert
Owen in the early nineteenth century. Infant schools made it possible for women to work
in the factories of the industrial revolution. By the 1850’s, infant schools in the United
States had virtually disappeared, but they continued to flourish in Europe until the turn
of the century (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000; Wolfe, 2000). Maria Montessori’s (18701952) work developed in response to the assumption that young children needed
support and supervision when their parents were at work in the factories. Montessori
was the first woman to become a doctor in Italy in 1896 (Mooney, 2000; Lascarides &
13
Hinitz, 2000, Wolfe, 2000). Montessori’s early work as a doctor brought her in contact
with children of the poor and working class and with children who had been placed in
insane asylums (Lascarides & Hinitz; Wolfe, 2000). Montessori did not believe the
deficiencies in children were medical in nature, but rather related to how the children
were taught (Mooney, 2000; Wolfe, 2000). She began working on methods and
material for teaching young children while working at a college. While there, she
became involved with colleague and had a son named Mario (Wolfe, 2000). The birth
was kept secret and Mario was sent to a wet nurse in order to protect Montessori’s
career (Wolfe, 2000).
Although Montessori considered herself a scientist, she jumped at the
opportunity to supervise a project at a housing development in the slums of Rome
designed to minimize vandalism by the young children left alone all day while their
parent worked in the factories (Goffin & Wilson, 2001; Mooney, 2000; Lascarides &
Hinitz, 2000; Wolfe, 2000). She set up a house for children and refined her methods of
teaching children without direct instruction (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). Her efforts
were so well received that she set up another Children’s House the following year and
launched her official training courses for teachers (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000).
Montessori was an “outspoken proponent of equality for women” (Wolfe, 2000),
which would make her a feminist empiricist. However, evaluating Montessori’s
contemporary contributions, Martin (1994) sees Montessori’s work as revolutionary in
the field of education because it values what some call the “reproductive processes”
such as such as childrearing and home making. Martin (1994) is critical of most
education systems because of their lack of recognition of both the needs and
14
contributions of women in society, relegating girls to the “hidden curriculum of docility,
obedience to authority and self-hatred” (22). Martin (1994) applauds Montessori’s
foresight in recognizing that children need a surrogate home-like environment in which
to grow when economic demands pull parents out of the home. This assessment would
put Montessori’s work more inline with the feminist standpoint movement. It is a difficult
to classify Montessori using Belenky’s (et al, 1986) model. Clearly she constructed
knowledge, calling on received knowledge from others while incorporating her own
knowledge to create her teaching methods. However, once created, she was not open
to any variation of her methods (Wolfe, 2000). She exercised complete control over her
methods and focused on communicating them to others through her teacher training
programs until her death (Goffin & Wilson, 2001; Wolfe, 2000). Her wide-reaching
efforts to communicate her ideas to others without being influenced by new knowledge
of the time place her at the procedural stage of knowing. Her resistance to change her
methods under the criticism from those involved with the progressive education
movement led to the demise of Montessori programs in the United States early in the
twentieth century. However, there was a resurgence of interest in her methods in the U.
S. in the 1960s and in the 1980s (Goffin & Wilson, 2001).
Montessori’s work emerged on the front end of the nursery school movement,
which also recognized that children needed to be in a supportive, home-like
environment in order to grow and develop. The nursery school movement in the United
States grew from a few different sources: scientific interest in the growth and
development of young children, the need for supervision of children stemming from the
industrial movement, and the work in nursery education being done in Europe
15
(Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). The nursery school movement maintained important ideals
from the earlier infant school movement including focusing on the development of the
whole child, believing that important learning happens before the age of six, and using
methods based on the freedom of the child and sensory experiences.
Two women are associated with the beginning of the nursery school movement
in the United States: Caroline Pratt and Lucy Sprague Mitchell. Caroline Pratt, who
began preparing to become a kindergarten teacher, but found Froebelian doctrines to
be nonsense, opened her Play School in Greenwich Village in 1914 (Lascarides &
Hinitz, 2000). Originally, Pratt wished to serve poor children from the slums of New
York, but soon welcomed all children into her educational experiment, regardless of
their economic status (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). The curriculum of the school was
strongly influenced by progressive thinkers such as John Dewey and Francis Parker,
and was made up of four categories: play experience, practical experiences, special
training, and organization of information. Pratt did not have a specific theory that she
called upon to direct her practice (Goffin & Wilson, 2001); rather she spent her time
observing children’s play (Pratt, 1970). Pratt used her observations to better
understand what children were interested in and what children knew (Pratt, 1970). She
used that information to plan experiences to further the children’s knowledge and
understanding of the world (Pratt, 1970).
Caroline Pratt had little use for Froebel’s gifts and occupations, but had a strong
belief in herself and in the children she worked with. Pratt’s thinking would align with
postmodern feminist thought because she threw out the old system (Froebelian
kindergartens) and created a new system (what would become known as preschools).
16
Using Belenky’s (et al, 1986) model, Pratt would be firmly at the subjective knowledge
stage, rejecting other’s definitions of “truth” and instead calling upon what she knew
herself. Because she felt Froebel’s methods were nonsense, she was not successful in
her teacher training and switch to the Manual Training program. In that program, she
learned to work with wood. She later used her skills in woodworking to create the unit
blocks that are ubiquitous in preschool classrooms today. Pratt was strongly influenced
by the poverty she saw in the slums of Philadelphia, and her life’s work was aimed at
preparing children for a future life that would rid the world of poverty (Wolfe, 2000). She
had a life-long companion who was also dedicated to that goal (Wolfe, 2000). Pratt
moved into the procedural knowledge level (Belenky, et al, 1986) as her work at the
Play School continued and she was able to share with others through speaking
engagements and trainings the framework she used in her work with children.
In 1916, Lucy Sprague Mitchell began teaching at Pratt’s Play School (Wolfe,
2000). Sprague Mitchell was first woman leader in early childhood education that was
married and had children, which was revolutionary at the time. (Montessori, Blow, Hill,
and Pratt were never married. Montessori had a son, but separated from him until he
was a young adult.) With financial backing from a relative, Sprague Mitchell opened the
Bureau of Educational Experiments (BEE) at Pratt’s Play School and added a nursery
school for children aged fourteen months to three years of age (Lascarides & Hinitz,
2000, Wolfe, 2000). The purpose of the BEE was to research the development of
children (Antler, 1987; Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000: Wolfe, 2000). To run the BEE,
Sprague Mitchell utilized a collective democratic council made up of many progressive
educators from the time (Wolfe, 2000). The purpose of BEE was to use scientific
17
research methods to study child development and to build an approach to educating
young children and teachers of young children based on the experimental approaches
(Goffin & Wilson, 2001).
Through the partnership of Sprague Mitchell and Pratt, Pratt’s Play School
became the City and Country school and was the site for much of the research
conducted by the BEE. The guiding principal of the school was to let children follow the
motivations that came from within them (Antler, 1987). The focus was on developing
the whole child (Antler, 1987; Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000; Wolfe, 2000). Teachers were
to create an environment for children, to observe their play and interests, and create
opportunities for children to grow and develop based on their play and interests. Play,
exploration, and field trips were the primary teaching methods (Antler, 1987). “Their
self-determined activities were the core of the curriculum ” (Antler, 1987). Another goal
of the school was to “radically revise the traditional sexual division of labor and promote
equality between the sexes” (Antler, 1987).
In the 1930s, the BEE moved to a location on Bank Street in New York City. The
experimental approach to working with children that evolved through the BEE became
known as the Bank Street approach. Much of what teachers knew and understood
about children, child development and education was personal and individual, even
though it was informed by practice, research and theory (Goffin & Wilson, 2001). It was
not until the late 1950s that the Bank Street approach was formally put into the
theoretical framework, which later became known as the Developmental-Interaction
approach (Goffin & Wilson, 2001; Shapiro & Biber, 1972). This has been the dominant
approach to nursery education since.
18
Lucy Sprague Mitchell was a postmodern feminist as she dedicated her whole
career to the creation of a new approach to educating young children that would be
discovered through the experiences and knowledge of women nursery school teachers.
She and all those who helped create the Developmental-Interaction approach were at
the level highest level in Belenky’s model, constructed knowledge, integrating
knowledge from others with what they had discovered about children through their work.
The Last Forty Years
There have been two major events in the last forty years that have had great
impact on early childhood education: the creation of Head Start and the issuance of the
position statement on Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP) by the National
Association for the Education of Young Children. The creation of Head Start in 1965
changed the face of early childhood education in this country. Prior to Head Start,
government involvement in early childhood education had been short lived and only in
response to national emergencies, such as the Great Depression and World War II
(Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). Head Start marked the first ongoing commitment by the
federal government to fund early childhood education. The program was built around
planned variation, meaning that programs would look different in each community,
responding to needs and unique circumstances through grass roots efforts (Goffin &
Wilson, 2001). The creation of Head Start can be tied to work done in the 1950s by
psychologists researching whether intelligence was inborn or could be influenced by the
environment (Goffin & Wilson, 2001; Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). Their findings
suggested that direct intervention with young at-risk children could bring about positive
changes in their lives (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). Head Start was a compensatory
19
intervention program designed to prepare students from poverty to succeed in life. It
was part of the government’s larger “War on Poverty” (Goffin & Wilson, 2001;
Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000).
An early study of Head Start (the Westinghouse study) suggested the positive
effects of the program on children’s school achievement began to disappear by third
grade (Goffin & Wilson, 2001). With federal money being poured into early childhood
education, many developmental psychologists shifted their research agendas to
experimental curricula for young children (Goffin & Wilson, 2001). When Project Follow
Through was initiated in 1967, the government set up a competitive, out-comes based
evaluation of early childhood curricula. Several different approaches to early childhood
were tested and evaluated (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). Up until this time, Head Start
curricula had been based on the Developmental-Interaction approach that had been
designed at the Bank Street School (Goffin & Hinitz, 2000; Shapiro & Biber, 1972).
Historically, early childhood education had at its core a primary concern for the
development of children, rather than the education of children specifically in academics.
However, the impact of Project Follow Through was to shift the focus of early childhood
programs to cognitive and academic development, rather than development of the
“whole” child (Goffin & Wilson, 2001; Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000).
The premise of Head Start was that the experiences of children and families in
poverty was inadequate and would not prepare them for a successful future, but
providing a comprehensive educational intervention would compensate for the
deprivations associated with poverty. Using Belenky’s (et al, 1986) model to examine
Head Start would suggest that the program was designed for women (mothers) who
20
were at the stage of silence due to their economic situations, but could be helped,
through program support to reach the level of received knowledge through education
and support. This was also true of the mostly women teachers, who beginning in the
early 1970s were offered Child Development Associate (CDA) training in order to create
skilled teachers for the program (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000).
In looking at Head Start’s
relationship to feminist thought, the program started out with its feet in postmodern
feminism, as it was trying to create new systems of operating through the empowerment
of populations who had been marginalized throughout history. The program also clearly
valued the domains of women by including home visits and parent education as part of
its structure. However, when the focus switched from being a major social and political
change agent to being a school readiness program, it moved backwards along the axis
of feminist thought to empiricism. No longer did the program question the systems that
had created disparity within communities, but rather took a step back and accepted the
need to operate within systems that were already established.
Head Start’s narrowing focus on school readiness was part of the catalyst that
led to the creation of Developmentally Appropriate Practices, (DAP) (Bredekamp, 1987).
The first version of was published in 1987 as a response to the “growing trend toward
more formal, academic instruction of young children” (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997).
The focus of developing the whole child, which is foundational in the field, was giving
way to “narrowly defined academic goals that characterized elementary school
curricula” (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). The position statement was an attempt to unite
the field of early childhood education around the core belief in a developmental
approach to educating young children. It was also an attempt to change the academic
21
approach of elementary education. The first edition of Developmentally Appropriate
Practices (Bredekamp, 1987) was widely embraced in the field of early childhood
education, but was also heavily criticized. Educators in special education, those
working in diverse settings and those advocating for an academic approach to
education young children were very critical of the “either/or” nature of the text
(Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). DAP was revised in 1997. The original ideas, that the
age (child development) and the individual interests and abilities of children should be
the basis for curriculum decisions, remained. However, the idea that context should also
inform curriculum decisions was added to the revised edition of DAP. This addition
moved the approach away from “either/or” dichotomies to “both/and” approaches and
created room for input from those critical of the first edition (Bredekamp & Copple,
1997).
The first edition of DAP embodied feminist standpoint theory in that it took a
stand proclaiming the virtues and superiority of what was known by the field. The level
of knowledge was procedural (Belenky, et al, 1986) because the focus was on using
accepted procedures to communicate what was known. The revised edition represents
postmodern feminism as it includes input from the dialogue of critical theory (Hansen,
1993) that suggested minority populations were not well served by the first edition. It
also represents postmodernism in its process of deconstructing the “absolute truth”
approach of the original work and reconstructing an approach that allows room for
culture and context to play a major role in guiding practices. The revised edition of DAP
shows the development of women being at the constructed knowledge stage (Belenky,
et al, 1986) because it reflects an integration of insights offered from outside the field
22
with what has been known by the field since its inception. The revised edition of DAP
continues to be the main source of guiding principles in the field of early childhood
education today.
Conclusion
The history of the education of young children is tied to the development of
women and the evolution of feminist thought. This exam has highlighted intersections
of historical people and events in early childhood education with the development of
women and feminist thought. From the historical ideas of Rousseau and Pestalozzi
through the creation of the revised edition of Developmentally Appropriate Practices
(Bredekamp & Copple, 1997), one core belief in the field of early childhood is that
education of the young should focus on development of the whole child so she will be
successful in life. Like children, who develop at different rates and in different ways
(Bredekamp & Copple, 1997), the field of early childhood education has continued to
move forward, building on knowledge acquired from the past. Experiences from the
past have had both a cumulative and at times a delayed effect (Bredekamp & Copple,
1997) on the development of feminist thought (Gergen, 2001) and women’s ways of
knowing (Belenky, et al, 1986) and early childhood education. Through the use of
constructed knowledge (Belenky, et al, 1986) the field of early childhood education will
step with uncertainty into postmodernism, rejecting absolute truths and engaging in
dialogues to determine what might be possible for the future, using developmentally
appropriate practices to guide the way. Early childhood education continues to be the
domain of women, who continue constructing knowledge (Belenky, et al, 1986) and
searching for possibilities for tomorrow by questioning the systems of today.
23
References
Anderson, E. (2003). Feminist epistemology and philosophy of science. The Stanford
encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved October 20, 2003 from
http://plato.standford.edu/archives/fall2003/entries/feminism-epistomology/.
Anter, J. (1987). Lucy Sprague Mitchell: the making of a modern woman. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Bredekamp, S. (Ed) (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood
programs serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, D. C.: National
Association for the Education of Young Children.
Bredekamp, S. & Copple, C. (Eds) (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in
early childhood programs: Revised edition. Washington, D. C.: National
Association for the Education of Young Children.
Belenky, M. F.; Clinchy, B. M.; Goldberger, N. R.; & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s
ways of knowing: the development of self, voice and mind. Harper Collins
Publishers: Basic Books.
Beatty, B. (1995). Preschool education in America: the culture of young children from
the colonial era to the present. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Gergen, M. (2001). Feminist reconstructions in psychology: narrative, gender and
performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Goffin, S. G. & Wilson, C. S. (2001). Curriculum models and early childhood education:
Appraising the relationship. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Hansen, T. L. (1993). What is critical theory? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the Speech Communication Association in Miami, FL. November 18-21, 1993.
Lascarides, V. C. & Hinitz, B. F. (2000). History of early childhood education. New
York: Falmer Press.
Martin, J. R. (1994). Changing the educational landscape: philosophy, women and
curriculum. New York: Routledge.
Mooney, C. G. (2000). Theories of childhood: An introduction to Dewey, Montessori,
Erickson, Piaget & Vygotsky. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.
Pratt, C. (1970). I learn from the children. New York: Harper & Row.
Seefeld, C., & Barbour, N. (1986). Early childhood education: an introduction.
Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.
24
Shapiro, E. & Biber, B. (1972, September). The education of young children: a
developmental-interaction approach. Teachers College Press. 74 (1), 55-79.
Snyder, A. (1972). Dauntless women in childhood education 1856-1931. Washington,
D. C.: Association for Childhood Education International.
Wolfe, J. (2000). Learning from the past: Historical voices in early childhood
education. Mayerthorpe, Alberta, Canada: Piney Branch Press.
25