Knowledge about child development is an important tool which enables practitioners to make appropriate provision for young children; but if we are not careful it can also be a dangerously limiting illusion that may actually hamper practice. Early Years practitioners' skills and experience are underpinned by qualifications which attest to their knowledge and understanding; however ideas of 'knowledge' are dangerous because this can lead us to think that somehow we have access to the 'truth' about children. It is not my intention here to undermine the undoubted usefulness of child development, but instead to draw attention to the risks inherent in a non-critical developmental approach. First I will consider how ideas of child development have originated and then identify some of the problems that can arise from this perspective. As James and Prout suggest: The immaturity of children is a biological fact but the ways in which that immaturity is understood and made meaningful is a fact of culture' In other words, what we believe about children and the explanations we share about childhood are simply stories we tell ourselves and are influenced by the built-in assumptions that we bring from our culture. Such assumptions are inevitable and unavoidable but we do need to be aware of the very specific nature of what we term knowledge. The stories which we share about children are called theories. Theory can sometimes begin to assume monumental importance - especially when you are undertaking qualifications and writing assignments - but it is important to remember that a theory is only a fancy word for an idea. Over time many ideas have arisen about children; some still useful and others that today might appear quite outlandish. An example of both comes from John Locke, probably the most important British philosopher of the 17th century, who first put forward the idea that the child is born as a 'clean slate' and must learn through experience. His suggestion that we derive knowledge through our senses is still extremely influential in understanding young children's development. However Locke also advocated that children should wear thin shoes – not because their feet are delicate and this would avoid distorting growing bones – but because such shoes would leak and let in the rain! He believed this would help children to develop a strong constitution and become physically tough. The important point to recognise here is the assumptions behind Locke's suggestion. These children with the leaky shoes were the children of the wealthy and literate – those who could afford a book about bringing up children, had the ability to read it and who had money enough to buy shoes for their children. In Locke's time the vast majority of children went barefoot and this continued to be the case up until the twentieth century. So it is very easy, even for a great intellectual such as Locke, to make assumptions based on individual experience and try to apply it to children universally. The main theory, or story, that we tell ourselves about children is that they develop; this is perhaps the fundamental feature or attribute of childhood, that a child is a developing creature who moves through a series of progressive and identifiable stages from a position of dependence and incompetence to one of independence and maturity. Child development is the name we give to the knowledge that enables us to recognise and support this process. It is useful to consider how child development theories have arisen because that has not always been the story we have told ourselves about children – for instance many argue that in medieval times there was no concept of child development or of preparation for adulthood. Once the newborn infant could walk and talk children learned about life by participating in it alongside their parents and other adults. The idea of childhood being a time set apart for learning is a relatively modern viewpoint which has only really emerged in the last 150 years. During the 19th century the child study movement arose alongside the rapid development of the natural sciences in general and there was an attempt to apply systematic, scientific method to the study of children – a famous example is Charles Darwin's account of his infant son William published in 1877. By the end of the century compulsory schooling had made large numbers of children conveniently available for systematic study so that 'knowledge' could be accumulated about them. This enabled the growth of child development as an academic discipline and the establishment of a medical-psychological model of childhood based on systematic observation. At this time the newly emerging human sciences such as psychology, sociology and anthropology, as well as the more established discipline of history, were all based on an assumption of human progress and evolution from primitive to 'advanced'. Barbara Rogoff (2003) suggests that "theories and research into human development commonly reveal an assumption that development proceeds (and should proceed) towards a unique desirable endpoint of maturity." This idea still underpins most Western ideas of development – the assumption that the ways and values of our own culture are the most advanced and represent some kind of pinnacle of achievement. In contrast Rogoff reminds us that "the goals of human development – what is regarded as mature or desirable – vary considerably according to the cultural traditions and circumstances of different communities". By the twentieth century there was a rapid growth of child health clinics with experts on hand to advise about newly discovered problems such as bed-wetting and thumb-sucking. In this way development became the domain of experts who could recognise norms and standards. The science of child development created an expectation of what a child should be with norms, milestones and intervention for children who did not fit in. Previously child rearing had been based on the experience of mothers and nursery maids, now it became the domain of medical experts. (An irony is that women, who must have been observing their babies for millennia, now had to learn how to do it 'properly'.) This was the start of the professionalisation of childrearing, a process that has now reached full recognition through the development of Early Years Professional Status and expectations of a more highly qualified workforce. The gradual accumulation of knowledge about child development was based on careful observations and observation is still a vital part of the work of the early years practitioner. They are expected and required to observe children and assess their development, to identify what their next steps might be and to make appropriate provision to 'move them forward' in their development. But we need to remind ourselves that we can only ever observe through the particular lens of our cultural expectations. However much we might pride ourselves on our skills and careful observation we can only ever be partial and what we see and how we interpret it depends on the expectations we bring to the task. As Rogoff pointed out, different communities have different goals for human development and we cannot help but be influenced by our own life course. For instance most Anglo-European cultures value object orientation – that is to say, we encourage children to engage with objects. We provide small babies with countless objects to 'stimulate' them and when we want to engage their attention we will frequently dangle an interesting object in front of them to catch their attention. We place great store on providing developmentally appropriate playthings and observe carefully to identify such things as 'the palmar grasp' and 'the pincer grip'. In contrast African mothers emphasise social orientation and so African children are likely to be encouraged to look for social cues and from a very early age to engage with others communally rather than with objects. We interpret children's behaviour according to the ways we have learned to understand them and alongside this there is also a tendency to assume that our understanding is superior and the most correct interpretation. We rarely stop to consider how much of our 'knowledge' about children is culturally-specific and the extent to which research is based on our own social practices; but all observations take place within a context and data cannot be interpreted without taking this into account. The social context is shaped by our beliefs and attitudes about childhood and as a result some aspects will be focussed on more than others whilst certain aspects may be ignored or not even noticed. Even within Europe there are differing beliefs that affect not only the provision we make available to children but also what we choose to focus on and see as important. For instance, UK practice values value early literacy and numeracy whereas this is not deemed important in Scandinavia where it is children's social development which is emphasised. This is because Nordic countries regard childhood as valuable in its own right whereas in the UK the early years are frequently viewed as important for the child's future success. This emphasis on the future affects our ideas about development because 'the developmental paradigms against which children are measured stress their immaturity and draw attention to their lack of development and what they are unable to do, rather than focusing on what they accomplish and contribute' (McDowall Clark, 2010). As the norms of child development that practitioners are encouraged to look out for and record actually draw attention to what a child lacks, we must always be mindful to pay attention to the extraordinary abilities of young children, their insights and their competence when they are given appropriate opportunities. The view of the child presented by developmentalism is as an incomplete being or unfinished project. Nick Lee (2001) even goes so far as to suggest that we treat children, not as human beings but as human becomings – as if they are still in the process of becoming human and only the adult is considered to be complete. This focus on the child as an unfinished project is strongly evident within government policy where children are frequently viewed in terms of a national investment. However it is not just politicians who are guilty of treating children as human becomings; many practitioners (and parents) genuinely believe they are doing their best for the child by focusing on what they are likely to need in the future. But this kind of approach is unbalanced and can overwhelm a more important concern for the child's own present. A three year old only gets one chance to be three; if we try to anticipate their future we will more than likely get it wrong and thereby limit their latent potential. If instead we ensure that we concentrate on their present strengths so they are given every opportunity to develop curiosity, positive learning dispositions and a genuine sense of self-worth then we are enabling them to build on the creative and competent abilities they already have. As Carlina Rinaldi from Reggio Emilia points out 'the potential of the child is stunted when the endpoint of their learning is formulated in advance' (1993). So ironically it is only by concentrating on the child's present that we can truly prepare them for their own future. This requires practitioners who genuinely respect and trust children and are prepared to ensure that their provision meets children's needs rather than adults' convenience. Such an approach enables practitioners to use the EYFS as a tool rather than a constraint, as a framework which helps us to support the child on their own journey and not as a map of how to get them to a destination we have already identified. So are theories of child development of any use to early years practitioners? They are of course important but it is also necessary to remember that 'the things we think we "know" about children are not, as they seem to be, self-evident truths and facts but are always the products of human meaning-making' (McDowall Clark, 2010). Our 'knowledge' of children and the ideas about childhood which this is based on is only one story amongst the many that have been told about children – and will continue to be created in the future. Child development theories are undoubtedly of value – but that value has limits and every good practitioner needs to be aware of these. Key points: Developmental views construct the child as lacking and incomplete What we 'know' about childhood is shaped by cultural viewpoints The body of knowledge called 'child development' is very culturally specific and based on only a small minority of the world's children in a very specific moment in time Child development is an 'artefact' created by adults as a tool which we use to interpret childhood. Some people have more power to have their version of reality accepted than others do.
Recommended Comments
There are no comments to display.