Friedrich Froebel’s theory of education

Keywords: Friedrich Froebel, philosophy of education, child-centred approach, the meaning of existence

A critical appraisal of Froebel’s educational ideology and his influence in English schools and educational theory

______________________________________________________________________________

Introduction

Friedrich Froebel (1782-1852), was born in Germany and is primarily known for developing a philosophy and methodology for the education of young children encapsulated in the term Kindergarten, the name he gave to his particular brand of school. Froebel’s main contributions to educational thought were his belief in early childhood as a discrete and significant developmental phase, the centrality of play as an important educational medium and that learning was a natural process to be fostered rather than imposed through direct instruction. It is argued that Froebel’s advocacy of the child-centred approach, although extremely influential within the English pre-school arena, has been embraced theoretically within formal schooling rather more than has been translated into actual practice. Froebel’s original ideas are often echoed in contemporary educational commentary and continue to inform ongoing debates on the value of play, the child as an active, imaginative learner and the role of the teacher in the education of young children.

Froebel’s philosophy and educational ideas

Froebel’s philosophy on early childhood education is perhaps best understood by, initially, situating it within the context of Froebel’s own childhood and the prevailing educational climate. As Morgan (1999) notes, Froebel’s father was an educated clergyman and his mother died soon after Froebel’s birth. Froebel spent much of his childhood alone, having been considered clumsy by his father and confined to his house with little opportunity for outdoor play. A concerned uncle was given permission to raise Froebel at his home where he was able to roam freely in its extensive grounds (Morgan, 1999). By the age of 27, Froebel had become interested in education and had begun working with the eminent educator, Pestalozzi, in one of his schools, an experience which led him to develop his own ideas for the educational needs of young children.

Froebel drew upon the ideas of major philosophers such as Kant, Comenius, Hegel and Rousseau, for example, in emphasising the relationship between the individual and the natural world, the meaning of existence being rooted in the compatibility between these two phenomena. Froebel forged his own philosophy, believing that, for example, children’s freedom, independence and individuality were achieved through the unfolding of development rather than, as Rousseau had argued, by protecting them from an ‘unnatural’ society (Bresler et al, 2003). Froebel’s writing, it is argued must be considered within the context of the German idealism of the time. As Bresler and colleagues (2003) note, the real world for Froebel, rather than being accessed through pedantic empiricism and cold reason, was spiritual in nature and accessible through mystical experience or intuition. Froebel’s religious background is also very evident in his writings and noted by many authors (Lilley, 1967; Morgan, 1999; Ross, 2000). For example, he believed that the practical handling of materials was “God’s way” and that such work “gives outward form to the divine spirit within him (man), so he may know his own nature and the nature of God” (Froebel, 1826, quoted in Lilley, 1967, p.65). These authors also note that the spiritual and religious connections made by Froebel were to be discarded by later educational writers in the context of an increasingly secular society.

Froebel is known for his adoption of the word ‘Kindergarten’, representing the analogy of the garden with the growing child, as the term for his educational institutions. Bresler et al (2003) point out that this analogy is closely drawn from an earlier educator, working a hundred years prior to Froebel, Comenius, who was the first to express the relationship between the needs of healthy young plants and growing children. Comenius suggested that just as little plants are transplanted into orchards in order to better grow and bear fruit, so children delivered into the care of teachers may grow up more effectively. In similar vein, Froebel uses the metaphor of the child as the plant and the teacher as the gardener in his Kindergarten. He is cited as stating that “little children…..ought not to be schooled and taught, they need merely to be developed. It is the pressing need of our age, and only the idea of a garden can serve to show us symbolically…the proper treatment of children” (Yelland, 1998, p. 231).

In 1826, Froebel published his key work “The Education of Man” in which he set out his general educational principles, his theory of child development and school instruction, focussing on the early school years. Froebel believed that education must follow the divine laws of development and early childhood was crucial for the whole development of an individual and not simply seen as a precursor to adulthood (Bresler et al, 2003). He divided childhood into two main periods, early childhood, from birth to eight years and later childhood or the ‘scholar period’. This specific division of childhood remains strong in the English child care and education arena today, reflected, for example, in the contemporary legislative framework for private day care and educational provision for young children. His writing, however, has been criticized by a number of subsequent commentators, cited by Bresler et al (2003) as suggesting that it is “mystical and heavily symbolic, ponderous in style, obscure in philosophy” and with “formidable difficulties of presentation and meaning ….verbose…convoluted..”(p.95). Perhaps it is unsurprising, then, that his work met with such frequent opposition. Froebel had to describe his Kindergarten and its principles to those educators at the time who had largely ignored the early years as an important period for learning. His writings and philosophy were not received well by the Prussian establishment of the time which initially prohibited the development of Kindergartens, dismissing them as revolutionary.

Froebel’s writings, as mentioned earlier, were often unclear to the public audience, as highlighted by Morgan (1999) and Bresler et al (2003), typically regarded as obscure and mystical and often seen to be overly concerned with humanity and nature, reflecting ‘transcendental idealism’. The symbolism inherent in Froebel’s ideas, however, as Morgan (1999) points out, was translated into practical classroom applications. An example of this was that children could freely construct items from their own experiences with teacher facilitation but without a ‘teacher-led’ goal. “In this free environment, one child might build a battlefield with blocks as bunkers and hills…..possibly because books read at home had captured his imagination” (Morgan, 1999, p.28). The teacher would then engage the child in a discussion about the choice of constructions and battles, and simultaneously enhance the child’s use of language, interests and concerns. This activity might be followed by an art project, writing or clay modelling, each including child/teacher interactions. The free selection of project encapsulates Froebel’s philosophy of ‘natural development’. In contemporary educational thought, this is seen as the essence of the child-centred approach to early years education, with the emphasis upon fostering the child’s experience of their own reality. In today’s terms, a child may decide to build a high rise block with a playground – the teacher will then support this choice, engaging the child in conversation about the characteristics of that child’s personal reality and encouraging new discovery and further knowledge.

In support of his established principles, Froebel developed play materials called ‘gifts’ and ‘occupations’. Gifts were items such as a series of coloured yarn balls, wooden balls, cubes, brick-shaped blocks and others, and each gift was seen as a whole whose parts explain and advance each other and complying with his principle of the continuity of development. Occupations were ways of producing skill in the use of knowledge – essentially craft activities, clay modelling, cardboard work, paper folding and cutting, weaving and drawing. Each gift and occupation had its own purpose in accordance with the progress of the development of children’s minds (Bresler et al, 2003). Froebel also recommended child-size furniture, a feature that was later taken up by Maria Montessori. Froebel’s gifts and his approach to developing preschool activities for children featured prominently in the Kindergartens of the early 1900s, mainly because, as Morgan (1999) notes, they were established by practitioners who had studied with Froebel and his supporters. Although Froebel’s materials were to become common to the later Montessori programmes, one key difference between the two is that Froebel’s ‘gifts’ were available for young children to choose from among them. Montessori ‘directresses’ control the introduction and use of materials for their real-life function, whereas Froebel supported the free use of materials for play activities. It should be noted that the Montessori definition of play was incompatible with the views of Pestalozzi, Froebel and later, Piaget. Morgan (1999) observes that “publications concerning childhood during this period reflected a gradual change in attitudes toward the behaviour of young children from strict, religious expectations to a lessening of that structured conformity. Expectations for child behaviour were becoming less harsh as adults acknowledged the possible benefits of play (Morgan, 1999, p.32).

Many commentators (Bruce, 1993; Sheridan, 1999; Bresler et al, 2003) have highlighted Froebel’s belief that children learn through active play and that their learning is most effective when they are engaged in imaginative and pretend play, an activity which often involves them in deep thought. Play is expounded as an essential part of the learning process “because he learns through play a child learns willingly and learns much. So play, like learning and activity, has its own definite period of time and it must not be left out of the elementary curriculum” (Froebel, 1840 quoted in Lilley, 1967, p.167). Outdoor activities were held particularly valuable by Froebel, probably due to the connection with his own childhood, in that they encouraged free movement and exploration of the natural environment. As Bresler et al (2003) note, Froebel recognised and championed the idea that young children learn through their senses rather than through reasoning and that engagement in play was an important route to becoming self-conscious and intellectual. For Froebel, play was an educational medium for understanding the external world.

It seems clear that Froebel’s emphasis on play has had a profound influence on subsequent educational practice, especially in the early years sector. His ideas have been picked up and extended by many educators, including Tina Bruce (1993) who defines play as “creative, original, innovative and imaginative….It uses the technical prowess, competence, craftsmanship and skill that a child acquires throughout life. Free-flow play brings all this potential to fruition” (p.1). Bruce identifies twelve way in which adults can help children to achieve quality learning through free-flow play, many of which echo the principles first articulated by Froebel. For example, she suggests that adults can “help children to manipulate, explore, discover and practice, using a rich range of first-hand experiences, such as play, sound, water, paint, home corner” and “respect and value children’s sense of ownership, autonomy and control of their own learning”(Bruce, 1993. p.1). Bruce cites Froebel’s edict that “play needs to be cherished and encouraged, for in their free play children revel their future minds” (1993, p.1).

Froebel’s influence in English schools

Richards (1999), in his exposition of the development of Primary education in Britain, observes that progressive educational theorists from outside the UK, such as Pestalozzi, Froebel, Dewey, Montessori and Piaget influenced UK educational thinking far more than was translated into actual practice. Methods emphasizing activity and experience in the post war period became more characteristic of infant, rather than junior or primary schools but, even there, did not compromise the explicit teaching of reading, writing and number. English primary education, at least until the mid 1960s, remained somewhat insular and insulated from developments in the rest of Europe (Richards, 1999). For example, it is notable that in many European countries, the Kindergarten phase was extended until the child was at least 6 years.

Whitebread (2003), also, notes the long tradition about young children and their learning derived from inspiring educators such as Froebel, Montessori, Steiner and others which she suggests has had a profound impact upon educational institutions across Europe and the United States. Tina Bruce (1987), a key British early years educationalist, traces the development of these ideas with their particular emphasis on the holistic nature of children’ learning and development – as distinct from learning separated out into subjects. She cites Froebel’s work as instrumental in generating an early years educational ethos which stresses the importance of developing autonomy, intrinsic motivation and self-discipline in young children through the encouragement of child-initiated and self-directed activity.

Some commentators have noted Froebel’s greater affiliation with women perhaps, as Bresler et al (2003) note, due to the rejection of his work and philosophy by the male educational establishment of his time. It seems that Froebel opened up the profession of teaching to women, apparently devoting his final years to the education of women. Bresler et al (2003) observe that the spread of the kindergarten movement, mainly in England and the United States, was led by women supporters, notably Berthe Ronge in England and Elizabeth Peabody and Susan Blow in the United States. Furthermore, since Froebel’s time, it is interesting to note that many important writers on early childhood education and most teachers, at least in the UK, have continued to be women.

Whitebread (2003), together with many others, points out that, in English schools, the statutory demands of latter years imposed by the National Curriculum and Literacy and Numeracy strategies do not tend to sit well with a developmental, holistic approach to teaching and learning. Commentators such as Pascal (1990), David (1991) and Anning (1991) have also expressed their concerns regarding the contemporary English educational preoccupation with testing children at age 6 or 7, the importance attached to the results and their influence upon school league tables. The government’s concern to raise standard in literacy and numeracy in children and a desire to increase accountability in terms of school performance, led to a number of strategies, including the introduction of national targets for pupil achievement in these areas (Ofsted, 1995). Broadhead (2003) notes that although literacy and numeracy have long since featured prominently in the school week in English primary schooling, this tradition has become much more emphasised in the wake of concern about public accountability and ‘failing schools’.

These concerns have served to fuel the debate between those who advocate a child-centred approach to early learning, espoused by early thinkers such as Froebel, and those who continue to believe in adult-led, formal instruction of children as the way forward. One prominent and vocal exponent of the latter is Chris Woodhead, former Chief Inspector of Schools, who is cited by Young-Ihm, speaking of both pre-school and reception class children, as suggesting that “direct teaching is crucial at this age as it is at every other age” (2002, p.1). Others, such as David (2003), provide research evidence expounding the virtues of learning through play. David cites research into the High Scope Initiative in the United States, for example, which concluded that schooling which emphasised the contextual experience of learning through play was more effective than formal, teacher-led instruction in terms of later retention of what children had learned.

Broadhead cites a wealth of research demonstrating that although reception class teachers often “espouse the principles of play as crucial to learning…..these principles are often absent in practice within the classroom” (2003, p.13). She describes findings that many teachers, despite their concerns that young children’s needs were not being met by formal teaching styles, nevertheless could not justify play-based learning within the prevailing climate of tests and standards. Similarly, Moyles and Adams (2000) and Keating et al (2000) record the dilemma faced by teachers who are now required to record evidence of pupil learning and achievement and report these back to parents and professionals. Quality learning through active play is often difficult to formally quantify in contrast to written tasks which are readily tested and assessed.

It seems clear that, despite much support for the Froebellian advocacy for the value of play in children’s learning ideologically, in reality, play continues to be viewed as somehow inferior to ‘proper learning’, or supplementary to it. It is often regarded, rather, as a reward for ‘school work’ rather than as an important medium of learning in its own right. Keating et al (2000) note that although play, particularly in its recreational form, might not lead directly to better cognitive competencies, as measured in SATs tests, it can foster other important abilities such as greater self-esteem, task-orientation, sustained attention and positive attitudes to learning and creativity. In similar vein, Miller (2001) decries the increasingly popular belief in recent years that the earlier children ‘get started’ on formal learning, the greater their potential performance on Key Stage 1 tasks later. She offers a persuasive presentation of the ways in which activities which develop literacy and numeracy are intricately woven into the fabric of children’s ongoing play.

There seems little doubt that contrasting pedagogical philosophies have characterised UK education in recent decades. These have effectively divided the ‘early years’, or Foundation Stage phase, from the early formal schooling, or Key Stage 1, phase which many see as a false and inappropriate division in terms of young children’s educational needs. Drummond (2003), for example, calls for a re-acknowledgement of the value of play, already embedded in preschool philosophy and practice, to be extended into at least the first formal year of schooling. There are, it seems strong echoes of Froebellian thinking in Drummond’s thesis when she states that in a good childhood, children “engage in sustained, shared, purposeful talk; they are absorbed in complex, divergent, imaginative play. They are recognised and appreciated as accomplished, passionate learners and meaning-makers” (Drummond, 2003, p.2).

Whitebread (2003) urges supporters of the developmental and holistic approach to children’s education to share their beliefs more openly and robustly with parents. She is clearly concerned about what she sees as a growing trend for parents to attach more importance to the formal acquisition of reading and writing skills in the early years than is either necessary or desirable. Anning (1991) highlighted the pressures upon infant teachers to comply with the demands of parents who favour the older tradition of formal instruction in the 3 Rs, reading, writing and arithmetic. She maintained that “Froebel, Steiner, Montessori and discovery learning are seen by the majority of parents as the province of a minority of intellectuals and middle-class romantic liberals who mostly have a shrewd knowledge of how to work the education system anyway. ‘Normal’ parents are suspicious of learning through play” (Anning, 1991, p.17).

Whitebread (2003) applauds the influence that pioneers such as Froebel and Montessori have had upon current practice. She describes how, latterly, schools have been creating an environment in which children have the freedom and opportunity to learn through play and how, for example, adults working in reception classes can build on the good practice evident in the playgroup movement, nursery schools and classes. There are clear echoes of Froebellian philosophy in her conclusion that contemporary educators need to steer away from the idea that because the children they work with are the youngest in the system, unready for the demands of Key Stage One, they are the least capable and least competent. She says that we need to provide “experiences, time and space, food and exercise for learners who are already, long before they start school, capable, competent, imaginative and eloquent” (Whitebread, 2003, p.374).

Froebel’s influence in educational theory

In England, by the turn of the twentieth century, there had been a movement of orthodox Froebellian supporters, particularly in the independent education sector. However, during the first decades of the last century, Froebel’s original ideas were being increasingly revised to take account of the growth in new science-based understandings of child development and beliefs about childhood itself (Nawrotzki, 2006). Froebel’s original philosophy, in its purest sense, was effectively being rejected as the century progressed, not least because of its perceived antiquated, pre-industrial, mystical-romantic ideology and methodology. Nawrotzki (2006) observes that early childhood education, philosophy and pedagogy in England was becoming increasingly characterised by a unique blend of methods and approaches arising from that period. Froebel’s understandings about young children, however, continued to hold fast in modern educational theory in several key respects. Firstly, his belief in the importance of early education and the intrinsic value of each stage had taken root. Secondly, his advocacy of the value of play, later developed into free play, with toys and other materials, were gathering increased momentum. Thirdly, his premise that every child deserves respect and regard as an individual became firmly established in educational thinking (Nawrotzki, 2006).

Recognition of the value of first-hand experiences and the crucial role of other children and adults in children’s development is also a part of Froebel’s legacy. As mentioned earlier, for Froebel, teaching was a means of enabling individuals to understand the relationship between themselves and their environment and this he conceptualised as the Law of Unity. Froebel suggested that, prior to entry to Kindergarten, children should be encouraged by their parents to play at home with common household objects in the form of cylinders, balls, circles, squares and triangles. This learning would be later reinforced during Kindergarten through the teacher’s employment of systematic methods for introducing later concepts. Froebel’s objects or ‘gifts’ were designed to stimulate learning and variations or replicas of them continue to be present in early education programmes today, particularly in authentic Montessori schools (Morgan, 1999). In terms of construction play, for example, Broadhead (2003) illustrates how Froebel’s ‘gifts’ showed the potential for wooden bricks to nurture mathematical knowledge and problem solving skills. She also cites Gura (1992) who offered a detailed contemporary illustration of how effective block play can be in enhancing children’s mathematical and scientific learning as they “master simultaneously three-dimensional space and develop their understanding of physical balance, structural integrity and visual harmony” (Broadhead, 2003, p.8). Gura suggested that through block play “meanings are passed on, picked up and negotiated between individuals or between members of a group and even between groups, who share understandings of the system and the kinds of things that can be said with it” (Broadhead, 2003, p.8).

The role of the teacher within Froebel’s theoretical framework has been interpreted in different ways by various educational commentators, constituting an ongoing, contentious debate about its nature and place in contemporary education. Yelland (1998), for example, posits that Froebel’s use of metaphor in terms of the child as ‘plant’ and teacher as ‘gardener’ does not imply only a minor role for the teacher, but rather one of specific importance. She quotes Froebel as suggesting that “not the communication of knowledge already in their possession is the task, but the calling forth of new knowledge. Let them observe, lead their pupils to observe, and to render themselves and their pupils conscious of their observations” (Yelland, 1998, p. 231). Thus, the teacher’s role is construed as one of subtle elicitation from pupils in the encouragement of new knowledge, rather than the direct imposition of instruction.

The much later writings of the influential educational theorist, Vygotsky (1962), through his theory of the Zone of Proximal Development, stress the interactive role of the adult or more expert peer and the joint construction of meaning through discussion and collaborative exploration with the child. Adults are thus required to respond to children’s natural interest and curiosity rather than to impose their own perceptions upon them. In this connection, then, Froebel’s view of the teacher’s role appears to be a relatively enlightened one. With both teacher and child as active participants in the construction of meaning, they are effectively both seen as learners. Yelland (1998) points out that the complex interplay of factors that go to make up effective interactions between teachers and children is increasingly being recognised and explored in contemporary educational research.

Another commentator, Curtis (2002) approaches this topic through Froebel’s conception of the role of play. She reiterates Froebel’s novel view of play as a deeply meaningful activity for the young child. He wrote “at this age play is never trivial; it is serious and deeply significant….the focus of play at this age is the core of the whole future, since in them the entire person is developed and revealed in the most sensitive qualities of his mind” (Froebel,1896, para 30, cited in Curtis, 2002, p.3). Kindergartens were places where children effectively instruct and educate themselves and where they develop and integrate all their abilities through play. “That children learn through play is a basic tenet of Froebellian philosophy and one which has been embraced by many childhood educators” (Curtis, 2002, p.4). Curtis concurs with Lilley (1967) who cited Froebel’s belief that “the educator must not only guide the play, since it is so very important, but he must also often teach this sort of play in the first instance” (Curtis, 2002, p.4). Froebel’s ‘gifts’ and ‘occupations’ incorporating such items as balls, boards, sand and clay, for example, and the role of the adult in planning and supervising such activities are testimony to this belief. Curtis goes on to point out that our modern infant schools and playgroups owe much to Froebel’s influence with most of the experiences currently offered to children having their roots in the ‘occupations’ of the Froebellian Kindergarten.

The idea of treating the school day as a complete unit in which activities continue for varying lengths of time to enable children to pursue their own interests is another of the legacies which modern primary schools, nurseries and playgroups have inherited from the Froebellian tradition. Curtis also notes that although the Froebellian influence is clearly strong throughout early years education, his writings, such as his main work The Education of Man (1896), have not been popularly read amongst students since, as mentioned earlier, they are notoriously difficult to read.

A slightly different interpretation, again, of Froebel’s conception of the educator’s role in children’s activities is that offered by Cooper and Sixsmith (2002). They note that Froebel advocated education as “permissive and following, guarding and protecting only; it should neither direct nor determine nor infer” and that children “should be allowed to seek the understanding of the divine without the explicit direction of adults” (Cooper and Sixsmith, 2002, p.3). These authors, however, do acknowledge the apparent theoretical contradiction in the Froebellian approach. On the one hand, young children are seen as active learners in whom the capacity for learning is inborn. Learning is seen as a natural process, unfolding as the child matures and engages with his/her environment unimpeded by adult interference. On the other hand, children’s play according to Froebel, as articulated by Curtis (2002) and others, needed to be guided and ‘facilitated’ by adults through the systematic use of specific play materials in the form of his gifts and occupations. This apparent tension could be seen as central to the ongoing debate surrounding the virtues and value of structured versus unstructured children’s play and indeed children’s activities in all their forms.

Cooper and Sixsmith (2002) also point out that the physical organization of the curriculum in the Foundation Stage classroom continues to be heavily influenced by the understandings of visionaries such a Froebel and Montessori. Activity areas, such as sand and water play, reading area, imaginative play zones, construction play and outdoor play, although separately delineated as such for practical purposes, do not correspond in any rigid or direct way to distinct subject divisions such as of science, mathematics or literacy. It is not considered desirable or necessary to place the goal of scientific learning, for instance, within only one or two of these designated areas since activity in any one of the areas will influence the development of scientific thinking (Cooper and Sixsmith, 2002). In short, at least at the Foundation and Reception stages of children’s education, the holistic approach to learning has been a direct legacy of the early pioneering work of Froebel and his followers.

Discussion

In any critique of Froebel’s work, we must not forget that Froebel was essentially a man of his time, writing in the Germany of the early 1800s, within the predominantly patriarchal societal framework of Western Europe and where religious beliefs played a far greater role in everyday life than they do today. Against this backdrop, the early years of childhood were not seen as constituting a distinct phase in social or educational terms and thus had hitherto received very little attention. It seems that, although contemporary thinkers were recognising the significant interplay between the individual, learning and the natural world, Froebel expanded upon this through his innovative developmental approach to children’s learning.

It is clear that the spiritual, mystical and religious underpinnings of Froebel’s approach were later to be dismissed as archaic and ‘unscientific in a western world which was becoming increasingly secularised and concerned with empiricism and scientific rigour. It is argued, however, that these criticisms should not detract from the sound principles established by Froebel and their important influence upon the subsequent development of early years education in the UK. Among the eight basic principles articulated by Froebel were that early education has a direct influence on later development, that physical and emotional development are closely integrated and not separate entities and that the sense organs and physical impressions should be naturally developed as the basis for education (Morgan, 1999). These core principles have become embedded in current early educational thinking, underpinning much of the methodology and practice articulated by contemporary writers and researchers such as Bruce (1993), Curtis (2002), David (2003) and Drummond (2003).

Froebel’s tenet of the centrality of play as the most important medium for learning in young children, particularly for understanding the external world, has been applauded and extensively examined in the early years literature, but not without controversy. Exponents of the value of play (Bruce, 1993; David, 2003; Drummond, 2003) cite Froebel’s ideas in support of the child-centred, holistic perspective as a counter-balance to those who believe in a return to more formal, teacher-led instruction. Contemporary concerns about literacy and numeracy standards and accountability in schools have prompted a return to the latter. It would seem, however, that many of those most closely involved in facilitating young children’s learning, the teachers, vehemently believe that young children’s needs, in the broadest sense, are not being met by the use of formal teaching styles (Moyles and Adams, 2000; Keating et al, 2000; Miller, 2001).

It seems that whilst, in many ways, Froebel’s philosophy and key principles have been embraced and developed in the pre-school arena of English education, they have been much less influential within the first formal years of schooling. Commentary has noted that children in many other European countries and Scandinavia do not enter formal education until they are 6 or 7 years, yet in England, the trend is for children to begin formal schooling at an increasingly younger age. As Drummond (2003) and Miller (2001) have shown, this only adds fuel to concerns that the division between the Foundation Stage and formal Key Stage 1 in English schooling is a false and inappropriate one in terms of young children’s educational needs. Whitebread (2003), however, seems more optimistic, suggesting that there is encouraging evidence that many contemporary teachers are working hard within the formal school setting to provide environments which facilitate learning through play for young children.

Froebel’s system of ‘gifts’ and ‘occupations’ as the manifestation of his theoretical base, although now outmoded in the purest sense, continue to be used in modified form in some schools, particularly those following the Montessori approach. Broadhead (2003), as noted earlier, highlights the work of educators who have demonstrated how mathematical and scientific learning can be enhanced through the use of block play in the Froebellian tradition.

It is argued here that within Froebel’s theoretical framework, there is a lack of clarity and consistency in terms of the precise nature of the teacher’s role in early years education. Commentators have offered different interpretations of this (Yelland, 1998; Curtis, 2002; Cooper and Sixsmith, 2002) and this may be due to a number of factors including translation variations from the original Prussian text, the inherent obscurity in Froebel’s writings or indeed Froebel’s own ambivalence about the issue. Some writers see Froebel’s conception of the teacher as adopting a more passive role to guide the child through his or her own journey of self-discovery, while others see his teacher as more active and directive. Whatever the subtleties are in terms of the different conceptions of the teacher’s role, it does seem clear that Froebel essentially advocated a collaborative relationship between adult and pupil within which the child’s natural curiosity and interests are respected and new knowledge encouraged, rather than imposed. Yelland (1998) makes the point that attention to this issue has generated lively discussion regarding the myriad of factors which contribute to effective interactions between teachers and children.

Conclusion

Froebel’s philosophy and methodology on the education of young children, although notoriously difficult to read and interpret, were undoubtedly innovative and have been very influential in the English early years educational arena. His advocacy of the child as an active learner rather than passive recipient of knowledge, his belief in play as an important medium for learning and his conception of the teacher as facilitator as opposed to mere instructor have all been important features of ongoing contemporary educational debate. In the light of present day concerns about raising standards of literacy and numeracy, school performance, testing and accountability it is easy to lose sight of the developmental and holistic needs of the child. There is, perhaps, a valid argument for revisiting Froebel’s key principles in the education of young children, as many commentators advocate, and to explore ways in which they may be realised within the context of present day educational needs and aspirations.

______________________________________________________________________________

References

Anning, A (1991) The First Years at School, Open University Press, Buckingham

Bresler, L, Cooper, D.E., Palmer, J.A (2003) Fifty Major Thinkers on Education: From Confucius to Dewey, Routledge, London

Broadhead, P (2003) Early Years Play and Learning: Developing Social Skills and Co-operation, Routledge Falmer, London

Bruce, T (1987) Early Childhood Education, Hodder and Stoughton, London

Bruce, T (1993) ‘The Role of Play in Children’s Lives’, Childhood Education, Vol. 69, Issue 4, pp. 237-9.

Cooper, H and Sixsmith, C (2002) Teaching Across the Early Years: Curriculum Coherence and Continuity, RoutledgeFalmer, London

Curtis, A (2002) Curriculum for the Pre-School Child, Routledge, London

David, T (1991) Under Five – Under Educated?, Open University Press, Buckingham

David, T (2003) ‘What do we know about teaching young children?’ British Educational Research Association (BERA)

Drummond, M.J (2003) ‘Breathe Life into Childhood’, Times Educational Supplement, 28^th November 2003, pp. 1-2

Keating, I, Fabian, H, Jordan, P, Mavers, D, Roberts, J (2000) ‘Well, I’ve not done any work today. I don’t know why I came to school. Perceptions of play in the reception class’, Educational Studies, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp.437-454

Lilley, I (ed) Friedrich Froebel: A Selection from his writings, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Miller, L (2001) ‘Shaping early childhood through the literacy curriculum’, Early Years, Vol. 21, No.2, pp.107-116

Morgan, H (1999) The Imagination of Early Childhood Education, Bergin and Garvey, London

Moyles, J and Adams, S (2000) ‘A Tale of the Unexpected: Practitioners’ Expectations and Children’s Play’, Journal of Inservice Education, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp.349-369

Nawrotzki, K (2006) ‘Froebel is Dead: Long Live Froebel! The National Froebel Foundation and English Education’, History of Education, Vol. 35, No. 2, Mar 2006, pp. 209-223

Ofsted (1995) Guidance on the Inspection of Nursery and Primary Schools, HMSO, London

Richards, C (1999) Primary Education – at a Hinge of History?, Falmer Press, London

Ross, A (2000) Curriculum: Construction and Critique, Falmer Press

Sheridan, M (1999) Play in Early Childhood: >From Birth to Six Years, Routledge, London

Vygotsky, L (1962) Thought and Language, The MIT Press, Mass., USA

Whitebread, D (2003) Teaching and Learning in the Early Years, RoutledgeFalmer, London

Yelland, N (1998) Gender in Early Childhood, Routledge, London

Young-Ihm, K (2002) ‘Changing Curriculum for Early Childhood Education in England’, Early Childhood Research and Practice, fall 2002, Vol. 4(2)

______________________________________________________________________________

Total words: 5,987