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 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, 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 context- based 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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, 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). 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).